HLJ's Movie Blog

Miami Vice

I’m trying to think of something to write about Miami Vice, but the thought that keeps popping into my head is, “Colin Farrell is pretty.� Okay, focus, focus. Here’s my impression of Miami Vice

1. Hand-held camera – This is what killed Ali for me. Thankfully there wasn’t a lot of it, but what there was of it was bad. At least try to make a half-hearted attempt at framing the shot properly.
2. Close-ups and extreme close-ups - These showed bodies intertwined, at the clubs, when dancing, or having sex. Sometimes the shots worked well, such as the close-ups of Trudy when she is being help captive. The angle, the shot and sound transferred the fear (or anger). But the rest of the time it was just distracting.
3. Mise-en-scene - Everyone comments on the colors Michael Mann films. But the use of color also is found in the scenery and the sets, all of which help create that mood. But what is the mood? It seems very theatrical to me. Perhaps that’s the idea.
4. Gong Li looks sick through most of the movie. The Gong Li you see in this movie is just a shadow of the Gong Li you would see in her Chinese films, or even Memoirs of a Geisha. She looks beautiful when she’s having sex and in that final shot as she leaves on the boat. The rest of the time she looks pasty. Obviously this is intentional.
5. Would it have killed Jamie Foxx to smile? At least Colin Farrell threw in hand gesture or two for good measure. How many ways did he use the beard stroke to convey emotion? The TV Tubbs was far more interesting.
6. It’s hard to tell the characters apart. Crocket and Tubbs are the same man. Actually, all the men in the movie are exactly the same. Even the women in the movie are incredibly similar to the male characters. They just get in the way of the men most of the time, it seems. Essentially, there really isn’t any depth to the characters. The only moment where there may be is when Crocket lets Isabella go and tells her that he won’t follow her. He didn't do what was expected, which was save the girl and live happily ever after. Thank you!
7. Music - It was very subtle most of the time; just a note, a chord here and there to carry the mood in the picture. Music should just enhance the scene, not demand that you cry on cue. (Hear that Peter Jackson?) The sound design was also a departure from most action pictures. It wasn’t loud all the time. Often, it seemed a bit like a silent picture. And, that gun battle at the end really sounded like a gun battle. Ever watch the news and hear gunfire?
8. Colin Farrell is pretty. See SWAT and watch the outtakes. He’s hilarious in them. I need to buy SWAT now.
9. Digital projection is pretty awesome.

Too Many Movies to Write About

I've been slacking off on my duties as a blog writer. I've seen several movies and haven't had a chance to blog about them. Here's a brief "yey" or "ney" to the ones I've seen but haven't written about.

1. Superman Returns - yey, good story. See it in digital projection if you can. The effects look better.
2. Tristan and Isolde - yey, Ireland is beautiful, if that's where it was filmed
3. The Producers - yey, but the shot selection and editing was awful at times
4. Night Watch - yey, can't wait for Day Watch
5. Long Way Round - yey, not a movie, but a TV show about Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman's trip around the world on motorbikes.
6. Cassanova - yey, great music and beautiful film; ney to the fact that there was only there only two sex scenes.

The Devil Wears Prada

So, is Prada a designer or a brand? Is it both? It doesn't really matter, actually, if it is either or. I certainly wouldn't now something Prada unless is was emblazoned with a big label that said Prada. But, was the point of the whole movie to be a dress-up show for Ann Hathaway?

A couple of notes on this movie:

1. The intro was an interesting piece of editing. It seemed like the women it was cross-cutting between would then converge somehow in the movie. I actually didn't see all four of them together anywhere after the intro. Did you? Maybe they were in a scene together right away. It was hard for me to tell. All models look alike. ;-)
2. Why couldn't she be evil at the end of the movie? Why did she have to give up the glamour job and go back to the boyfriend? I wanted her to be the next dragon lady. Okay, okay, I know she was supposed to go through that whole character arch and finally find herself by the end of the movie. But wouldn't it have been better if she had somehow learned something about herself other than she's really nice and sweet? That's just my humble opinion. Anyone else?

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Would it be too much too ask if a sequel was at least half as entertaining as its predecessor? Maybe I expected too much from Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. The previews for it were promising. Unfortunately, it did not deliver on its promises. The story was not very compelling. The action sequences were the only thing sustaining the movie and even those started to get a little tedious. The first movie also had the added benefit of a brilliant performance by Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. For some reason, the screen writers this time around decided to give him nonsense dialogue and several scenes where he runs about like girl. Maybe it doesn’t matter that this movie was mediocre. There will be a third one, so perhaps this one was just a teaser. I’ll admit, I’ll probably go to the next one just to see if it is better. And to see more Johnny Depp, if they decide to actually include him.

You may ask, was there anything good about this movie? There was one scene in which Orlando Bloom’s shirt was ripped off and his back was exposed. That was one brief moment of excitement. But it was over in a flash and we were back to the convoluted plot. The two pirates - Pintel and Ragetti, the one with the wooden eye – had their moments. Their dialogue was probably the snappiest of all. The undead monkey was also good for one laugh, but is animal cruelty ever really that funny? As for the stylistic elements - music, lighting, set design, and editing - they were all fine. But, then again, all the fancy film making in the world can’t make up for a bad story.

One final thing, if you see this movie, go back and watch the first one afterwards. There were a lot of jokes and references to the first movie that I didn’t quite catch until I watched the first one again. The only down-side of watching the first one afterwards – or perhaps even before you see the sequel – is that it will be abundantly clear the sequel is not very good. But I think the sheer joy of watching Johnny Depp in the first movie makes up for the poor second one.

Hoodwinked

I don't think it's possible anymore for a kid’s movie to be completely original. It seems standard for them to reference other movies. Hoodwinked takes the point-of-view storytelling used in Rashomon to tell the tale of Little Red Riding Hood. You hear four different perspectives, from Red, the Wolf, the Woodsman, and Granny. Each character has the opportunity to tell their story in flashback. As you watch the movie, you get to see where the stories intersect. It was somewhat of a surprise to see this particular device used in a kid’s movie. Younger children may not follow the story with all of the shifts in time, but it was sort of fun to listen to each character's story.

What more can I say about this movie? Connor loves it. He keeps singing the songs from the movie, especially the schnitzel song. Sing along now, "Schnitzel, the favorite treat, for little boys and girls to eat! Schnitzel man can serve them quick. It's a schnitzel on a stick!" Hmmm, schnitzel on a stick. Think that would go over well at the fair?