Yes, No, Maybe So: "Magic Mike"
Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 10:09PM One of this year's true novelty pictures will likely be Steven Soderbergh's Magic Mike. It's at least partially based on star Channing Tatum's own experiences as a male stripper pre film stardom and there are very few male stars of his magnitude that would so willfully go there. We hope the film is as much of a novelty in execution as it sounds in concept. (When's the last time someone made a mainstream male stripper movie? 1983?!?) Let's give it the Yes No Maybe So treatment even if we were already "Yes" when it was less a movie in production and more of a rumor called Channing Tatum Wants to Make A Movie About His Own Life As a Stripper.
'Magic. Mike.' You are the husband that they never had. You are the dreamboat guy that never came along."
YES
- The trailer begins almost giddily by embracing the oldest stripping cliche -- it's the ol' legit man in uniform is cheekily anything but legit. And he's also soon out of uniform. more yes (and a little no maybe so after the jump)
- The freeze frames to introduce Chan's "Magic Mike" are stylish fun.
- "Stripper-Enterpreneur... Entrepeneur-Stripper"
- That shot of "Big Dick Ritchie" (Joseph Mangianello) throwing his back out when spinwheeling a customer is an unexpected sight gag.
- Even if you removed the inspired by Channing Tatum's real life connection, Channing Tatum would still be the best possible casting for this movie: his beauty is down to earth rather than iconic/ flawless and his easy charm feels guileless which makes him both believable and endearing as a self-exploiting slab o' beefcake.
- Speaking of... scratch that. Casting doesn't get better than Matthew McConaughey as a stripper emcee. It really doesn't. If his performance is half as enjoyable as that "lawbreakers" bit and the idea of him in this type of role, we are in for a huge treat.
- novelty pictures. support them. Otherwise everything will be samey samey.
- Steven Soderbergh.
Soderbergh is Curious (Yellow)
NO
- Oh christ. Didn't Soderbergh use up five movies worth of yellow lens filters with Haywire. Must Magic Mike be similarly jaundiced? At least it's not blue tinted like 86% of the motion pictures of the past fifteen years. But here's a thought Hollywood. The color wheel wasn't meant to be monogamous. Get slutty with those filters if you have to use them.
- Wait, she can't be around his "lifestyle?" Is this one of those annoying movies that pretends it's okay with ____ only to get all Judgy McJudgerson about its own content?
- And who is this Cody Horn and where does she get off judging Channing-sized himbos for understanding their own appeal and monetizing it? As the great Missy Elliot once sang "♫ Girl, girl, get that cash | If it's 9 to 5 or shakin' your ass | Ain't no shame, ladies do your thang | Just make sure you ahead of the game. ♪ "
- Steven Soderbergh
The law says that you cannot touch. But I think I see a lot of lawbreakers up in this house."
MAYBE SO
- While I wouldn't exactly claim "fandom" when it comes to Matthew McConaughey, I do admire how 'out there' he's willing to go for roles. Eventually it'll have to pay off with a perfect supersized performance, yes?
- Wasn't this movie supposed to be about the men? Where is Matthew Bomer? Why are there so many girls just hanging around with Chan like it's their movie?
- Pray that the judgmental girlfriend (Cody Horn) is not painted too righteously so that the movie doesn't clap her on the back for being superior to those who work for gratuities.
- Steven Soderbergh
The trailer in question
Are you a yes, no or a maybe so?
What does Channing Tatum have to do for a twenty? (And for your twenty)
Channing Counts His 2012 Money. Can "Magic Mike" explode like "The Vow" and "21 Jump Street"?
Reader Comments (39)
You quoted a great Missy Elliott lyric. You are perfect.
Maybe so, because I'm not a fan of Tatum or Pettyfer as actors and it's so YELLOW.
Also the girlfriend acts like a cunt.
Cosign with Philip. For quoting Missy I will not disrespect Meryl Streep for the rest of the month for you Nathan. Only you my darling.
Cody Horn - Daughter of Warner Bros. COO... that explains her "movie career". Is it just me, or is she just NOT attractive? And was Blake Lively unavailable? (wow, that sounds really bitchy!)
Anyway, the guys certainly make up for the hotness factor. Yum!!
I'm surprised how tame it looks...I thought they were going full-on tacky trash. I don't love the romantic drama angle of the girl judging this lifestyle. So far I'm Meh. Where's the edge?
It's a no for now. The trailer makes it unappealing. Not enough skin. No Matt Bomer! And annoying girlfriend! And stripper-turned-table-designer? Um, no...
I always mistakenly refer to Steven Soderbergh as Steven Sourdough. Maybe that explains the yellow?
cody horn's dad is the FORMER president/coo of WB...also founded castle rock...who knows if he was involved in developing the movie before his ouster but still stinks of nepotism
that trailer was like a cold shower on my enthusiasm for this movie
never before has such a great concept been completely deboned by the presence of a nagging fishwife...fishgirlfriend....fishloveinterest.....whatever
wait - rated R for BRIEF graphic nudity? are you kidding me? that alone would be enough to demote this from YES YES HELL YES to maybe so.
I'm sorry, but my ticket was punched when the MPAA included "graphic nudity" in a movie about male strippers
Did this remind anyone else of Burlesque? (...not a slam, I liked it for what it was) So the Cher role would be played by Matthew McConaughey? I feel so confused... Why oh why can it not just be 2 hours of these incredible talents dancing and stripping? It might make more money that way... :)
Still a Yes for me, despite the judgey girl love interest.
LOL at the "Steven Soderbergh" x 3
I agree that it was annoying seeing that girl being at the same time attracted to Chan AND judging him but I don't think that the movie presenting a character who is the opposite of the girls who enjoy the male stripping thing (cause they're customers and not emotionally attached) is a bad thing. It depends on where it's going.
Theoretically, the movie could end up judging HER for feeling superior.
Re: what Chan can do for my twenty, get me Alex Pettyfer and leave!!
(I'm a No. Seems inexcusably dull)
While I'm not super impressed (by the trailer-Pettyfer and Tatum's physiques are works of art), there's no way that I'm not seeing this. Also, I sort of wonder if they're amping up the romance in a similar way to how they cut the music from musical trailers-maybe they're showing us the only romance in the movie and the rest is all backroom stripper stuff and Tatum teaching the cast how to gyrate in a thong. Or at least we can hope.
Honestly, I never expected Channing Tatum to play Hamlet, so I'm not THAT surprised by his commitment to this particular role.
I bet the ones who are expecting a flesh fest will end up extremely disappointed.
I thought this would be campy or funny or something, but the only part of the trailer that seems to live up to that is Matthew McConaughey. How disappointing! Honestly that 1983 movie was probably a lot more entertaining than this (written by Joan Tewkesbury? How bizarre). I agree that Soderbergh is always a yes, a no and a maybe so all in one, though.
Well, Traffic already shows that one of his films would have a couple Razzie nominations already if they had all the categories the Oscars had. Seriously, the cinematography on that movie is objectively awful and the editing is, at best, mediocre. To see what I mean about Traffic's cinematography, I dare you to watch the Michael Douglas scenes without getting a headache. The end of Melancholia is lit with the same shade as those scenes, and I'm pretty sure that's supposed to give you a small headache. The worst edited scene of Traffic, though, is the drug overdose scene. There's about twenty to thirty edits over the course of a minute and they only needed maybe five of those. Because, by the fifth edit in a very short time focusing on the same person, you're taken out of the experience because the editing is blatantly telling you "this guy will die."
I wish they would've made it more grittier and dramatic a la Boogie Nights than a cutesy rom/com.
Maybe it's just me, but Bomer's absence + girlfriend's overstatedness = anxiety that the movie will come across as too gay. It's an old homophobic trope that a straight man wouldn't willingly let other people visually consume his body. I'm worried for this movie.
I'm a yes because novelty, because interesting, because MALE STRIPPERS, and because Soderbergh. There are misgivings but that's way too many "becauses."
The girlfriend (plot device AND casting) leaves me really, really NO. But I am a HUGE fan of Tatum - I know, so sue me - so that's a YES. But the hint that's it's become all bland and safe and rom-com like makes me worried - and, it's true, I am gonna be really frustrated if this is some sort of "oh let's see how this stripper thing hurts the relationship thing and oh how they care for each other and can they work past their issues" sort of movie instead of a fun, raunchy look at a crazy world (made more crazy, less boring than I'm sure the real thing is) then I'm a semi-negative MAYBE. So I'm sad to say - it's leaning more toward a NO now - not a YES.
I think I agree with Dusty, I'm thinking the movie is much less standard rom-com than it seems. Hopefully that's not just wishful thinking
Andrew R, please watch your language on this board. Thanks.
Omg this film is very very yellow! I mean it is almost comical!
I'll still go see it though cause it looks fun!
par3812, your use of the term "fish" is derogatory and misogynistic.
'//But here's a thought Hollywood. The color wheel wasn't meant to be monogamous. Get slutty with those filters if you have to use them.//
Best line of the year so far on this blog - in fact, I think I want that emblazoned on a t-shirt.
The Disciplinarian: Um...reacting to a SPECIFIC character in a SPECIFIC movie isn't outright misogyny (which I view as general hatred of all females or all female characters). It's a criticism of the PERCEPTION of sexism AND anti-sexualism in the movie. I'd agree on the "keep it PG" sentiment of your first comment (really, a C bomb?), but "this female character is a nag" isn't that sexist and you shouldn't really react like it is. Unless you're actually trying to be a joke.
@Volvagia
No joke here. Sorry to say, that word, used in that context, is tasteless and offensive.
Everyone -- Play nice. The Film Experience is supposed to be a happy sandbox. And we love the ladies here, too.
SimplySarah -- it does look fun. I get why people feel this trailer took some of the excitement out of it but even if it's a romcom it looks kinda charming nonetheless.
Billybil -- you should not apologizing for loving Channing Tatum. The Film Experience loves him too. And has since "She's The Man", no joke.
I read on another blog from people who have seen the film that the trailer is kind of misleading and that they're just pushing the romantic angle in the trailer as a marketing tool which might be annoying, but you have to admit, people seem to love romantic comedies or dramas (why else would every Nicholas Spark adaptation, as awful as it may be, become a hit?). The way I see it, this is the kind of film we're more tha audience for but the trailer is trying to attract a different audience. I'm a YES on this one because Steven Soderbergh is one of those directors who is interesting to watch even when he fails. I'm curious.
Volvagia: Traffic won the Oscar for Best Film Editing, so obviously there is a certain number of Academy members who disagree with you (I'm guessing jumping from story to story helped in that department, but still, I wouldn't say it was worthy of a Razzie). I also didn't think the Cinematography was awful, partly because I got what Soderbergh was doing with that film, though will say it was sometimes distracting. Like I said, it's always interesting to see what Soderbergh is doing even when it doesn't quite work.
Nat: Have you seen the trailer for Ruby Sparks? That also came out today. I would like to see your "Yes/ No/ Maybe So" on that one. I thought it looked very endearing even if the premise is bizarre, but I'm a Yes on that one because it's from the directors of a movie I absolutely adore.
Channing was so cute in She's the Man! Now I'm seriously worried about his neck size. It's getting thicker and thicker...
He was really cute in She's The Man, wasn't he? And if I recall, he wore a lot of sweat pants and was shirtless a lot. Sidenote: that movie has a pretty kickin' soundtrack.
I'm a huge maybe on this now because of that rom-com-seeming trailer. If I get word back that the movie is MUCH better, I'll hit it up. In any case, Matthew McConaughey seems perfect for this. The early screening rumors are already starting for him and some say it's far and away his best performance.
Soderbergh rarely lets me down so we'll see! LOL I can just imagine the audience for this when it finally comes out. It'll be a hilarious RIOT. And good summer counter-programming.
NO ( a resounding No) to this trailer and a rom-com subplot as the main plot.
YES to "Big Dick Ritchie"; Matt Bomer; "rated R For pervasive sexual content, brief graphic nudity, language and some drug use." But it better be male sexual content and graphic nudity, just sayin'.
MAYBE SO to Soderbergh (if this falls in the 30% of his films that do nothing for me), Tatum (if he's not in The Dilemma mode), McConaughey (see Soderbergh, but make it 70%).
When I see the main page, Nicole Kidman is right next to Comment Du Jour's picture. I can't help but think what if it's Nicole who plays the owner of all these boys.
What a bunch of critical ..whatevers!...to most of the commentators so far. The movie's target audience is women and their willingness to pay for a rom-com with a dash of stripper silliness. The girl not being attractive is one great thing about the movie. It gives the movie a finding-ones-footing kinda feel to it.
As for her nagging - actually if you see the setting it is not nagging - she is reacting to Channing being businesslike with her and no she is not judging his profession. Why would she be his girlfriend then?
All I can say, the comments - mostly from gay queens who wish Channing was pleasing them - are projecting their jealousy by beating down the girl and the movie.
I liked the trailer a lot, so it is a YES for me. And I am not a woman.
Look KD Lange we don't give a fuck what you think. The trailer is some watered down bullshit.
KD & /3rtful --Um. Didn't I JUST say to play nice in the TFE sandbox?
My promise to you was to say nothing disrespect of Meryl Streep for a month. Thank God the month is heading to a close.
I'm so glad the television ads are playing up the trashy fun and ignoring anything romantic. I hope this signals a much-needed shift by the marketing folks.
The theatrical trailer here looks like it was cut together by someone who was told to make the movie appeal to teen girls & young women, with the thinking that that demographic seeks only romance. The latest tv commercials -- in which women are instructed to tell their boyfriends that they are attending a book club meeting -- are much savvier. Perhaps the marketing department saw the runaway success of "50 Shades of Grey" and realized that female audiences aren't as squeamish about sexuality as they had assumed.
This movie could make a lot of "Girls' Night Out" money, just like the first "Sex and the City". Women across the country saw that movie in groups, and theaters that served alcohol during the film did very good business. I hope the tv ads for "Mike" target that audience effectively, because, seriously: the audience for live male stripper shows is "Girls' Night Out" posses anyway.