Miami Vice (Michael Mann, 2006)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I agree that Castillo was underutilized in the film. It would have been cool if Michael cast someone with equal weight to Jamie and Colin in that role. Morgan Freeman would have fit like a glove in that role, in my opinion.

I dunno 'bout that. Barry Shabaka Henley is an excellent actor in his own right (he managed to steal the scene he was in with Tom Cruise and Foxx in Collateral) and probably the best guy to fill Edward James Olmos' shoes, however, he doesn't get much screen time to really do much.

[flyonthewall2983]

That's definitely true. I'm sure if any other director had done it, it would have been cast with a marquee name. But Michael knows well enough to use those that he's used in the past.

[Matt]

It would have been cool if Michael cast someone with equal weight to Jamie and Colin in that role. Morgan Freeman would have fit like a glove in that role, in my opinion.

I can't believe my eyes! Barry Shabaka Henley is not only perfect for this role (which was probably written with him in mind), but he's an amazing, underutilized actor. The absolute best thing about Mann's Robbery Homicide Division TV show. It's unfortunate that he keeps getting typecast as police chiefs, though.

Besides, I'm sure Freeman was too busy doing a voiceover for a documentary or commercial.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I can't believe my eyes! Barry Shabaka Henley is not only perfect for this role (which was probably written with him in mind), but he's an amazing, underutilized actor. The absolute best thing about Mann's Robbery Homicide Division TV show.

Yeah! He was great in that show. Recently, I dug out some episodes I taped of it when it first ran and he was so good... the epitome of laid-back cool yet still being intense too.

[The Invunche]

Where can I get my hands on that show?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Good luck. Who knows if it'll ever be released on DVD. I burned a half acdozen or so episodes I had on VHS onto DVD...

[The Invunche]

And there's nothing on BitTorrent.

[Polybius]

It's unfortunate that he keeps getting typecast as police chiefs, though.

Paul Winfield Syndromeâ„¢

If Mann had gone with someone who was closer to Olmos' physical type, I like the idea posited in the link: Benicio del Toro.

[John Cope]

Danny Trejo had been initially rumored.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Well, maybe it can make some money back on DVD (street date incidentally is rumored to be Dec. 12):

'Miami Vice' Far Less Than a Universal Thriller at the Box Office
The studio could lose as much as $30 million on the movie, dashing parent GE's hopes.
By Lorenza Muñoz
Times Staff Writer

September 4, 2006

General Electric Co. was counting on "Miami Vice" to sizzle at the box office this summer. But fizzle is closer to the truth.

At a cost of at least $235 million to make and market, the remake of the iconic 1980s TV cop show was the biggest bet of the year for the company's studio Universal Pictures. During an earnings call with financial analysts in July, GE's chief financial officer singled out the stylish crime drama as a coming bright spot for the third quarter.

That could leave GE backpedaling on Wall Street: Universal Pictures could lose as much as $30 million on the picture, according to sources who asked not to be named because movie finances are closely guarded.

A little more than a month after its debut, "Miami Vice" has grossed only $63 million at the U.S. box office. An abrupt fall-off in attendance has dimmed the prospect that the film could muster $100 million in domestic receipts, as Universal had projected.

The poor results also could damp hopes at GE that its film division could help offset the continued hard times this year at the NBC broadcast network, which has suffered from a prolonged ratings slump.

Universal is expected to eke out a slight profit this year, thanks to box-office winners such as "The Break-Up" and "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift," which grossed $189 million and $147 million worldwide, respectively. But the studio has fallen behind most of its rivals in domestic market share this year after ranking third last year, according to Exhibitor Relations Co., a box-office tracking firm.

"The studio underestimated the inherent challenges of translating 'Miami Vice' to the big screen," said Universal Pictures Chairman Marc Shmuger. "As a commercial proposition, it had a familiar title but not a really deeply appealing connection to the larger audience."

"Miami Vice" was doomed not only by its failure to resonate with young audiences but also by the cost of talent — a recurring complaint among studio owners this summer. The biggest winner in the case of "Miami Vice" could be director Michael Mann, who will make at least $6 million, plus a percentage of the box-office receipts, before Universal makes a dime, according to people familiar with his deal.

" 'Miami Vice' is symptomatic of a malaise in the industry," said independent media analyst Harold Vogel.

"The industry is undergoing a transition in terms of business models. For the first time in many years, they are encountering strong head winds against whatever they throw up against the screen."

Just last month, having publicly dismissed Paramount Pictures' biggest star, Tom Cruise, Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone called for a reexamination of Hollywood's star system. As he put it, "Studios make peanuts compared to the stars, and unless they learn how to say no and demand more for less, they won't survive."

Studio economics have gone from bad to worse since General Electric entered the movie business three years ago. GE bought Universal at a time when DVD sales were near their peak. But growth has flattened as consumers fill out their home libraries.

"It's a different world than it was three years ago," Vogel said.

For their part, Shmuger and Universal Pictures co-Chairman David Linde said they would continue to take "creative risks," but they acknowledged a changing tide in the business.

"A mind-set is taking hold which is a reflection of the economic realities we are facing as an industry," Shmuger said. "We just have to be smart about how we take risks."

Universal has stepped boldly onto the ledge again, in hopes of increasing the visibility of its upcoming film "Children of Men." After looking at a crowded fall lineup of movies, the studio decided to move the release date of the futuristic thriller directed by Alfonso Cuaron from late September to Dec. 25. Universal executives see the film, about the possible extinction of humans as they can no longer procreate, as an intelligent action thriller that could be an awards contender.

"We are planting our flag," Linde said. "It is a resonant movie for contemporary audiences."

Yet December is a highly competitive time for movies. Because media buys are more expensive during the holiday, the move will greatly increase the expense of marketing the film, which cost an estimated $70 million to make. What's more, the stars of "Children of Men," Julianne Moore and Clive Owen, though well-regarded actors, are not big box-office draws.

In addition, the futuristic genre is "a tough sell," according to Brandon Gray of online tracking firm Box Office Mojo. "These pictures tend to be box-office disappointments. A lot of them develop an audience later on television or DVD. They grow in esteem over time."

Universal needs "Children of Men" to work after the disappointment of "Miami Vice," which was put into production by former Universal chief Stacey Snider, who left Universal this year to run DreamWorks SKG.

Snider thrived on working with filmmakers who are critically acclaimed but veer toward artistic films with limited appeal. Movies directed by Mann, for instance, have grossed an average of $46 million, according to Box Office Mojo.

When Snider first met with Mann about the project, his latest film, "Collateral," the 2004 Tom Cruise drama, had grossed an impressive $218 million worldwide.

Mann, who was executive producer of the "Miami Vice" TV series, had no interest in re-treading the glamorized, pastel world of detectives Sonny Crockett and Ricardo Tubbs that made the 1980s TV show so memorable. Instead, he envisioned a dark, realistic treatment of the narcotics trade. The movie would be violent, R-rated, expensive and potentially dangerous, with location shoots in the Dominican Republic and Paraguay's notorious Ciudad del Este — a haven for smugglers and terrorists.

As with most coveted directors, working with Mann came with a big price tag. On "Miami Vice," he made a $6-million salary and will get 8.5% of every dollar the studio receives from theaters.

Studio executives weighed concerns about the cost, R rating and potential production challenges against the movie's franchise possibilities and its potential revenue from a revival of the TV series on home video. They banked on Mann's talent, the "Miami Vice" brand and the action genre.

"You don't run a motion picture business based on models," said Linde, formerly co-president of Universal specialty division Focus Features. "You have to run it on instinct and guts as well as examining the financial reality of making a movie."

But difficulties flared up immediately. There was friction between Mann and his stars, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx. Three hurricanes led to production delays. A bizarre shooting incident prompted the crew to leave the Dominican Republic.

Ultimately, the biggest problem was the film's failure to win critical praise or young action fans. On the opening weekend, more than 62% of the audience was older than 30 — people who remembered the TV show but do not traditionally drive box-office grosses. By the second weekend, ticket sales had dropped a deadly 60%; they never recovered.

Studio executives hope the film can make up for the losses at home by catching on overseas, where the picture has grossed $65 million, with some countries yet to show it. In addition, they are betting that the DVD will play well with action fans, blacks and Latinos, the leading purchasers of home videos.

"It seemed like an extended episode of [Mann's TV show] 'Robbery Homicide Division' more than 'Miami Vice,' " Box Office Mojo's Gray said. "It was never going to be a slam-dunk."

Those odds are not endearing to General Electric, which is dedicated to zero-defect manufacturing principles.

"General Electric follows the Six Sigma philosophy where they go by one defective unit in a million," analyst Vogel said. "In television and movies you are lucky to have seven defectives out of 10."

NBC Universal Chairman and Chief Executive Bob Wright was on vacation and could not be reached for comment. No other GE executive was made available.

Shmuger, however, maintains that GE is not the "boogeyman" Hollywood paints it to be. He said the industrial giant had much to teach the studio.

"There is a lot of pressure in delivering profitability year after year, but when we signed up for duty, we knew what we were getting into. They have been very fair owners," he said, adding: "We haven't been Six Sigma-tized."

[Barmy]

The Curse of Colin strikes again.

[Matt]

Boo-hoo. Poor fuckin' General Electric.

I love it when a single movie underperforms to wildly inflated expectations, it's suddenly "symptomatic of a malaise in the industry."

Also hilarious: 'Universal needs "Children of Men" to work after the disappointment of "Miami Vice,"'

Umm... Universal? I think you might want to sit down for what I am about to tell you...

[flyonthewall2983]

The biggest winner in the case of "Miami Vice" could be director Michael Mann, who will make at least $6 million, plus a percentage of the box-office receipts, before Universal makes a dime, according to people familiar with his deal.

That really shows Michael's prowess as a businessman, I personally can't think of a director who got off this well after his film did less than expected. Especially with a film that sounds like it will be a long time before it breaks even (if it does). I just wonder how this will affect the progress of Michael's upcoming projects, with all but one currently at Universal.

[John Cope]

I just wonder how this will affect the progress of Michael's upcoming projects, with all but one currently at Universal.

The one thing I'm sure it will mean is that we'll likely never see Mann's version of Gates of Fire and that is a tragedy of Kubrick-Napoleon proportions. The less than stellar receptions of Troy, Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven did not exactly aid his cause here either. Well, at least we will get Zach Snyder's 300.

[flyonthewall2983]

It sounds like the other Mann project that was in the works, The Few, isn't happening and for obvious reasons. It was slated to be a Cruise/Wagner production.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

It sounds like the other Mann project that was in the works, The Few, isn't happening and for obvious reasons. It was slated to be a Cruise/Wagner production.

I saw an interview he did online in Japan (I believe) where he mentioned that his next movie might be with Leonardo DiCaprio. Apparently, they've been wanting to work together for awhile (and they kinda did on The Aviator).

[Len]

Went to see this for a second time (wow, haven't seen a film twice in the cinemas since like I dunno, Terminator 2 or something like that) earlier today, and I think I appreciated it even more. No one does this fetishist approach to the routines and procedures of paramilitary professionalism like Mann does. And I loved it, the immaculate attention to the slightest of details, be it Crockett checking the slide on his gun before a bust or the way the ambush is set up in the beginning.

What surprised me the most really was the obvious chemistry between Farrell and Li. I've liked both previously, but I had my doubts about both of them. A Michael Mann film isn't the first place where I'd look for a convincing depiction of a romance, but Farrell and Li made it look so natural I didn't even find it strange that Isabella would fall for Crockett on the first few glances. And like D.Ehrenstein said, "Colin Farrell and Gong Lee dancing the merengue together are sex on a stick".

As to Castillo, while I think Barry Shabaka Henley is indeed a brilliant actor, I think he was somewhat in a wrong role here. Now I know that references to the series were kept to a strict minimum, but I would've liked to see a stronger, more badass Castillo. In the series, he was always way cooler and tougher than either Crockett or Tubbs (anyone remember the episode The Golden Triangle, where he turns out to be an martial arts expert) and he had military experience and whatnot. In the film, he looks exactly like your average police chief. Nothing wrong with Henley's performance, but making Castillo into a bigger part of the story would've done good to the film. And like said, Benicio (or maybe even Javier Bardem) would've made a great Castillo.

On a different note, anyone else enjoy the wide selection of HBO-talent in MV? Sol Star, 'Herc' Hauk and Gaius Julius Ceasar in the same film? Pretty nice!

[Fletch F. Fletch]

What surprised me the most really was the obvious chemistry between Farrell and Li. I've liked both previously, but I had my doubts about both of them. A Michael Mann film isn't the first place where I'd look for a convincing depiction of a romance, but Farrell and Li made it look so natural I didn't even find it strange that Isabella would fall for Crockett on the first few glances.

I agree. I thought the two had great chemistry together, doing a nice job in illustrating the intensity of their relationship and how it was doomed to end in a short period of time. Their characters knew and yet went for it anyway.

As to Castillo, while I think Barry Shabaka Henley is indeed a brilliant actor, I think he was somewhat in a wrong role here. Now I know that references to the series were kept to a strict minimum, but I would've liked to see a stronger, more badass Castillo. In the series, he was always way cooler and tougher than either Crockett or Tubbs (anyone remember the episode The Golden Triangle, where he turns out to be an martial arts expert) and he had military experience and whatnot. In the film, he looks exactly like your average police chief. Nothing wrong with Henley's performance, but making Castillo into a bigger part of the story would've done good to the film.

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen Castillo get more screen time and I think t hat Henley's performance would have been even better for it as it would have given him more time to do and say something instead of simply looking glum (as if the actor realized he was getting little screen time outta this film). Maybe some more footage will show up in a deleted scenes section on the DVD?

[Barmy]

I could barely understand a thing Li said. But sometimes that's an advantage in a relationship.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Michael Mann strikes again. I loved this movie! Great consistency with his previous work, but still original and breath-taking.

[Len]

Amidst all this talk of Miami Vice being a huge financial failure, there's one thing I'm wondering...where did the money go?

I loved the film, but I really can't understand how it could've cost 135 mils (I think that was the actual production budget, someone correct me if I remember wrong). When I think of films that expensive, I think of huge car chases, galaxies getting blown up, hordes of horsemen galloping about on some field in the middle of nowhere or something, but I didn't see anything of the sort in Miami Vice. I guess it's more expensive to shoot on HD (or is it?) and certainly the production suffered alot of setbacks, but still the budget seems huge compared to the scope of the film. There aren't any huge crowd scenes or anything like that and visually the most complex shots (as in complex to shoot on HD) might be the shots of Farrell and Li speeding off to Cuba on the cigarette boat, so I can't really see the money onscreen in the way one usually can.

Heat cost about 60 million dollars and was way more ambitious in it's setpieces (a shootout at some nameless dockyard and one exploding trailer? Come on!), not to mention the fact that it had a huge cast of really big names. With Heat, you could see where the money went (same with Collateral) but the insane budget of MV just mystifies me.

Anyone able to shed a bit of light on the situation, or am I to assume Mann had one hell of a cocaine habit while shooting Miami Vice?

[Barmy]

Right on Len!

I think a lot of the money went to deal with weather problems and Jamie Foxx pussying out in the Dominican Republic (?) when a shot was fired, so they had to relocate. Lots of shooting delays.

Unlike "Collateral", I did not think this was a particularly beautiful film. The digital is often very ugly. Wasn't digital photography supposed to reduce budgets?

[flyonthewall2983]

Unlike "Collateral", I did not think this was a particularly beautiful film. The digital is often very ugly.

I'd bet Michael would take that as a compliment, given the nature of the film's subject matter. As far as the budget, I agree that it doesn't add up. The real confusing thing is, I don't think Ali went overbudget, despite the extensive filming on both ends of the Atlantic.

[Barmy]

I'm not saying the ugly is unintentional, I'm just saying that gritty/ugly should be achievable at less than $135 million.

[Matt]

Amidst all this talk of Miami Vice being a huge financial failure, there's one thing I'm wondering...where did the money go?

It's appalling to say this, but $135 million is nothing for an action movie budget these days. That's half the negative cost of Superman Returns, $90 million less than Pirates of the Carribean II, and $80 million less than X-Men III. Shooting with digital obviously eliminates the cost of negative film stock, but gives you other concerns to deal with.

Estimate that Foxx and Farrell each got paid several million dollars each for the film, add in the cost of jetting a cast and crew and their equipment around to seven countries, and add in the cost of Foxx's diva expenditures (private jet), and $135 million starts looking like a bargain.