Was Miami Vice better in the theatres than on video? The shakey camera work, the muttered delivery and the accents all combined to make most of the detail in the whole thing incredibly murky. But it could have just bee our crap tv. Maybe it would have been better in high-def?

I think the film would have benefited by some small amount of exposition.

It was gorgeous in theatres, but I doubt it made any more sense. I do think it would look best (on video) on HD, in a very dark room, on a TV with a very high contrast ratio. (I really enjoyed it in theatres, but pretty much the only thing going for it was the cinematography.)

I think it was one of the new wave of films being filmed in HD with handhelds in fully digital format (rather than reels or tapes). Personally, I don't like the look of things shot in that (Colleral is another example).

Oh good I can skip Collateral. (Or is there a flick called Colleral?)

It's good, though.

I liked Collateral. It was good storytelling, irrespective of the way it was shot.

I loved Collateral. There was a quality to the dialogue and its delivery that made me feel as if I were watching a play more than watching a movie. Plus, I was able to forget within two minutes that I was watching Tom Cruise in one of the leading roles.

(Or is there a flick called Colleral?)

You'd never know I posted that at 3am our time.

I liked it as a film. The way it was presented took me out of it slightly, as it just looks a bit... different. It's weird, I don't know -- I actually like handheld shot films, or moments in film, as they can add an intimate touch to something (see also: Children of Men). It's possibly just the digital thing which is noticable to me. Or maybe I'm just wrong.

The Avengers was just playing in my hotel room. I was liking it! So delightfully bad!

No, it was just bad. Not to mention insulting to fans of the original.