I like the Miami Vice trailer

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Jul 2006, 15:00

@ the last line.
It could hardly be rated 18 could it Romero? Its not as if the original show was that hardcore

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Jul 2006, 15:27

The TV show is rated 18, so yes.

Its VICE as in drugs, prostitution, guns and nasty crimes

I expected an 18 after the way Mann talked all the gun battles and gore up to the interviewers, guess he is either talling fibs and over exadurating, or the BBFC dont seem to mind the violence etc

15 you can get away with plenty so at least thats ok.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Jul 2006, 16:14

LOL no its' not rated 18 (was it ever?) - according to the BBFC most episodes are rated 15 - some are 12 and a couple are PG.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Jul 2006, 16:44

It is indeed rated 18. Look on the dvds it say in big red words 18, always has always will. Just because a few epidoes are lesser rated means nothing as there are many 18 rated episodes.

examples

http://images.play.com/covers/91606m.jpg

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000 ... e&n=283926

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Jul 2006, 16:51

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086759/

The 18 rating only stetched to one episode not "many".
Busted

Did you not look at the BBFC listing?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Jul 2006, 17:05

I go by the dvds, not the BBFC

if one episode is 18 then that makes the whole series.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Jul 2006, 17:24

Yeah, the BBFC have to put the highest rating on the cover, even if it was one episode/a few of a whole season.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Jul 2006, 17:41

No idea why its an 18 mind you, never really seen a full episode of the show. Wanted to as I like Don "Nash" J

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 22 Jul 2006, 17:55

I reckon it'll be satisfactory for a thriller... Mann's the man, man, he's the man.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Jul 2006, 18:14

'15s' can be pretty strong these days with oodles of swearing and hi-octane action violence. As long as it's a good film that's what counts.

FYI: The only episode that was rated '18' was GOLDEN TRIANGLE, apparently for Strong Violence. I've never seen it.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Jul 2006, 18:18

Thriller? from the sound of it the way Mann is talking about it, its a plane and simple action film.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 22 Jul 2006, 18:49

Mann doesn't do uncomplicated flicks. There's always plenty of layers.

On a side note, I spent quite a bit of time downloading the wallpapers from the official site, and I'm more charged to see this film than any other. Can't wait.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Jul 2006, 20:25

Markgway wrote:'15s' can be pretty strong these days with oodles of swearing and hi-octane action violence. As long as it's a good film that's what counts.

FYI: The only episode that was rated '18' was GOLDEN TRIANGLE, apparently for Strong Violence. I've never seen it.

Thanks Mark. I didnt know what episode it was.
And Mark PWNS Romero

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 13:56

THE FILM IS A JOKE!

Easily one of the single worst looking films I have ever seen in my life, the cameraman was obviously sacked, it looked like crap. Out of focus, wobbling all over the place enuff to make me feel sick and bacially the sound was a joke! the white noise levels drowned out the dialogue for gods sake! Many times I had no idea at all what anyone was saying as the sound was recorded badly and not cleaned up at all.

The film looks nasty with barley no lighting at all pushing the digital camera to produce what looks like hidious amounts of noise levels which are worse than the grainiest films out there. I have seen 16mm films fair better than these pittiful shots in a suposed $200 million film.

Washed out and blured shots frequent the film and rarely it ever looked anything but a mess. Every time the camera moved quickly everything turned into a streak of mess with complete and total loss of detail.

If this is the future of cinema, then I wont be watching films anymore. Ohh how the mighty have fallen, once a great film maker, now a inovator and purvayor of the turd looking film. Pathetic is the only way to describe it.

If the camera moved anymore I would have guessed it would have broke, as theres doing hand held and then theres doing it for no reason at all and making the audience sick! many people walked out of the film I was in, for good reason I say.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Aug 2006, 14:22

romerojpg wrote:THE FILM IS A JOKE!

Yay! It's confirmed. The film will be one hell of an awesome ride.

many people walked out of the film I was in, for good reason I say.

Doesn't have to say a lot about the film. The only 3 times I ever saw people walking out of the cinema was during the following films: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Ichi the Killer" and "OldBoy". All three of them are films I really like.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 14:31

thelostdragon wrote:
romerojpg wrote:THE FILM IS A JOKE!
Yay! It's confirmed. The film will be one hell of an awesome ride.

I am not talking about the plot, the charecters and action, I am talking about the FILM. The actual look of it, the sound, stock and HD Digital etc.. its like a bad student film at times its so ugly.

You may enjoy it, but thats not what I am talking about really

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Aug 2006, 14:33

Well, if you are talking about the movie's look, I can say that it looked nice in the trailer and as long as it doesn't look like Kitamura's student film "Down to Hell" it will be fine.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 14:39

Thats the problem on TV at home and even the trailer it looks OK (Collateral looks great at home), as Mann cheats a bit and used real film for some shots. The final film is another case

but hey best to wait till you have seen it which I still say people should

and hey it indeed does look worse that Kitimura student film in some shots, I shit you not

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Aug 2006, 15:08

I've no love for digital films and have also heard that the dialogue in MV can barely be heard (only the gunshots are loud) so I get what Romero is saying.

I may still go to see it but cinema prices aren't cheap these days. I expect top quality. If a ticket was £2 like when I used to frequent my lamented fleapit I wouldn't get upset. But now retail DVDs are cheaper.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Aug 2006, 15:10

romerojpg wrote:Thats the problem on TV at home and even the trailer it looks OK (Collateral looks great at home).

"Collateral" looked fine at the theatre to me as well. And "Collateral" has also been partly shot on HD and partly on film Why is that cheating? It's just a different approach of making films. And the trailer (or the teaser?) of "Miami Vice" definitely shows both.

and hey it indeed does look worse that Kitimura student film in some shots, I shit you not

Have you watched "Down to Hell"?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 15:16

Yup I really hated Down to Hell, truley something to forget forever

not even sure how he got from DTH to Versus! its like a different filmmaker

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2006, 16:55

Personally I had no problem with the look but the audio levels really got on my nerves.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 17:06

Levels? well I dont think it was a levels problem, it was the fact the sound was so grubby and unclear. The sound of white noise drowned out the dialogue almost completely for me and some entire scenes were a very hard struggle to hear anything and the crowd I was in with I could hear many people, many times saying "What did he say, what did she say, what?" etc..

Digital as a medium isnt the problem for me at all with this film, its the way its used. He thinks empoying no lighting people at all and just trying to use a Digital camera makes up for that, well the Digital camera cannot pick out low level lighting, as it does then produce awful looking noise riddled images like in this film. The images looked so washed out and brown looking with almost none existant black levels.

I will shut up now as I have went on long enuff and really no one else seems to be moaning about it, I hate it, everyone else doesnt seem to mind a film looking like it cost pennies. A waste of nearly $200 million is the biggest joke, it looked like it was made for a million or 2. Even the big explosions and scenes looked like they were shot for a TV soap drame like The Bill!

Just remember shake the camera more and I am sure people will give you compliments. Thats what Mann now thinks makes a good film.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Aug 2006, 17:19

You could be right on the actual audio problems I'm not expert. All I know is I had trouble understanding what they were saying.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 06 Aug 2006, 17:23

Did you see it on a good set up? I saw it for the 1st time on the MASSIVE screen and it fewwas indeed an impresive screen and sound set up. Them gun shots at the end were room shaking thats for sure.

I just hope it works better on the small screen where small things dont stand out quite as much, like that dreadded camera shake

which wont be as glaringly obvious when the screens moing a few cm's instead of 10 feet on a BIG screen.