If you want pastel colored clothes, bright sunny days, and a fun action movie, you are sure to be disappointed. If you are looking for a dark, gritty, violent excursion into the drug trade, then this may be something for you. As for whether or not it is successful, the answer is a little cloudier.
Miami Vice is a highly stylized film. The look and feel of it ranks first, followed by the plot, while dialogue and characters are way down the list. This split makes this an entertaining, yet highly frustrating, time at the theater. It is a demanding film that requires you to pay careful attention to the plot, or otherwise you will be lost and even more frustrated.
The plot follows Crockett and Tubbs as they get involved in the drug trade following a call that should not have been made. We are thrust right into the thick of things without so much as opening credits, and before you know it, the current job is pushed to the side when they get a frantic call from a former informer. This leads to the pair going undercover as drug smugglers to flush out the bad guys in the Keys. You have to pay attention as loyalties are changed and personal lives become entwined with the professional lives, which could prove to be all of their undoing. I know, it isn't the most original of plots, but writer/director Michael Mann knows just how to make it all seem fresh enough. The proof of all that is good is the execution of the premise.
The problems with the movie all lie with the dialogue and characters. I don't blame the actors, as they all did good jobs with what they had to work with. The script fails all of us when it comes to motivations and character development. Aside from laying the framework for the plot, there isn't much point for the dialogue. This leaves many characters going through through the motions, and the ones you want to know more about, sadly shallow. I had trouble really understanding why they felt so strongly early on about the mission. Why, why, why? I wanted to know more about these guys and why they were so passionate. Perhaps with stronger writing I could have become more involved with the plot, rather than just working on keeping it straight.
Article comments
1 - Bryan
Nice review, but I've got one minor correction. You wrote, "Michael Mann is an artist with the camera. The way he shoots the night, letting you see the film grain [...]."
Actually, like Collateral, Mann shot the film on high-definition digital video. The "grain" you're seeing is probably digital noise artifacts from the low-lighting conditions. It has that kinda gritty video look you might find in a guerilla documentary. There might be some visible grain, but that's only from the transfer from HD to 35mm film for projection (unless you saw the film projected digitally like Star Wars or Sin City, in which case you can't see any grain at all!).
2 - Chris Beaumont
Interesting, I wasn't aware that he shot DV. Still, the artifacts are quite effective in adding to the look of the film!