Category Archives: Review

Offender (2012)

by

0

Revenge. They say it’s a dish best served cold. With a side of calculation and dedication; although perhaps followed by a dessert of guilt and remorse. We’ve all felt it at some point. When someone takes your last slice of Papa John’s pizza from the refrigerator you just want to hunt them down and beat them remorselessly until they’re crying for you to stop… but we don’t necessarily act on these urges; though I will get some revenge for that stolen last slice of heaven. Offender deals with these issues… well, not the stolen pizza premise, although I’ll start writing a screenplay for that hit. It does however serve up a very modern British take on the tale.

And by “British”, I really do mean British. If you’re not a native of the UK, then I’ll issue you a warning: some of the dialogue will be confusing unless you take a sub-30 year old native in with you to act as a translator, or a fan of the UK hip-hop and grime music scene (a gritty UK version of glitzy US rap: see YouTube video above). Although not as “London speak”-heavy as other recent Brit-flicks such as Attack The Block or the terrible Anuvahood, it’s still smattered with the language. If you’re clueless about what I’m rambling about – and believe me, it’s not jolly “cockney rhyming slang” – read this guide, it might clue you in.

Offender, set to the backdrop of last year’s London Riots, tells the tale of how Tommy (Joe Cole) goes about exacting his revenge on a group of ne’er-do-wells who’ve turned the life of him and his girlfriend (Kimberley Nixon) upside-down. Needless to say, they’ve done a lot more than take a slice or pizza, or even an entire pizza. In order to get his revenge for the harrowing experience he’s had to endure, he gets himself incarcerated into a juvenile detention centre. If this sounds a bit familiar, then maybe you’re thinking of the initial premise of Prison Break? There are similarities to be had, but here the aim isn’t escape and exoneration for false imprisonment, but purely to inflict pain. It’s more of a hybrid of Scum and Law Abiding Citizen.

Joe Cole: One to watch.

Two of the biggest assets of the film are with the leads: Joe Cole and Kimberley Nixon. I know both from UK television series for very opposing roles. Cole appeared in the UK’s Skins series as a thoroughly detestable yet charismatic character who was driven by violence – a true bad boy. Whilst I know of Nixon through her role in comedy series Fresh Meat, where she plays quite a naive and confused student. Whilst Cole‘s role in Offender is in the same ballpark as his Skins‘ character, they’re markedly different in the fact that here he’s a good guy trying to be honourable. Nixon meanwhile is a revelation: truly showing a broad canvas of emotion over the film’s running time. I’m very pleasantly surprised. Returning to Joe Cole, I just hope he’s supplied with more films in the future, and doesn’t descend into playing the same character time and time again, like fellow Skins‘ alumnus Jack O’Connell (Eden Lake, Harry Brown) – who I also think is fantastic, but has played a lot of similar roles; though thankfully his future work looks more varied. I’m hopeful that Cole can follow in the footsteps of previous Skins’ stars, such as O’Connell, Nicholas Hoult (X-Men: First Class) and Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire).

Although the film is lucky to have two stellar lead players, the same cannot be said for all of the cast or the script they have to work with. The film tries to fire off too many sub-plots as it carries on in order to fill out back story to some of the supporting characters, but some of these go no-where and are not resolved. One of the prison officers (referred to as “Screws” in the credits list…) gets a bit of a fleshing out at one point, which raised my interest as he was playing up to the dime-a-dozen “corrupt officer” role, but this was quickly dashed and he returns to the one dimensional character that was first established. A shame. This is just one of a few examples of plots that were beginning to sprout and then abandoned or never given a satisfying pay off.

Juvenile Detention Centres: Not known for their morale-boosting wardrobe.

The majority of the young actors used in the film are actually ex-offenders themselves – perhaps to add authenticity to the film. With this being the case, I can’t fault their performances. These are guys that haven’t had money thrown at them for acting school, and for the most part you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the trained and untrained actors. They all far outpace their more senior thespians in the film, who don’t fare quite as well.

However, the major flaws lie with that plot. You can see any “twists” coming from too far away as the film tries to conform to the archetypal “thriller” routing. I’d also like to have seen more dialogue, as opposed to brooding shots of people walking around in slow motion, but I’m sure this will come with experience for director Ron Scalpello. Not bad for a first movie, but he’s not going to light the world up just yet. Joe Cole on the other hand? Well, I’ve high hopes for him.

All in all, Offender is a solid British revenge film, but lacks any real innovation and can’t compete with similar films out of the US. Sure, it spins it with the modern inner-city London language and sets it to the very real backdrop of the 2011 riots, but this is like putting a fresh coat of paint on a tired out car. It looks new, but under the bonnet it’s still the same old engine. And it’s also a car that only domestic audiences will want. Just like Attack The Block, I’d be surprised if this film made a dent anywhere but the UK. US “gang” films can easily translate over to UK audiences, but the reverse won’t be true any time soon.

Or if you’d rather I summarised in the right vernacular: “Blud, this film has bare tings goin’ for it, ‘specially that Joe Cole, is it? But dat plot? Allow it.” Translation: “This film has a lot of good things going for it; most notably Joe Cole. But the plot? Don’t expect too much.” I don’t think this is going to be pinned up as a reason to visit London any time soon either… Now gimme dat pizza back ‘fore I murk you bruv, y’ear?

Phage Factor:

3 Star

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (2012)

by

0

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Summer Days: Sleeping. With animals. Not in that way.

We all remember those long idyllic summer holidays that came with the end of a school year: lengthy bouts of sleep, hanging out with friends and generally doing nothing much of anything. That was until our parents forced us into doing chores or even getting a bona-fide job because they were sick of us lounging; probably due to their resentment towards us. Now I am one of the elders, and also resent these little brats who get so long off anything resembling hard work. Sparing a rant, the latest Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie picks up on the summer holiday theme. But is it like that awesome summer where you finally kissed that girl from down the street and completed Streets of Rage II with your buddy on your Mega Drive, or is it like that god awful summer where your mum made you get up at 6am to go to work as a labourer at a garden gnome manufacturer, despite knowing at age 14 that you were destined for far more…?

If you’re unfamiliar with the hugely successful Diary of a Wimpy Kid books then don’t feel ashamed, as I walked into the film knowing little about them or the previous films. I knew they existed, just like I know that 50 Shades of Grey series exists, but I never felt the need to read any of them. Maybe I’m not the right demographic for either, being a) over the age of 13, and b) not being a sexually repressed middle-aged woman / inexperienced teenage girl. I’m sure you can figure out which condition applies to which series. Essentially, the Diary of a Wimpy Kid films follow the trials and tribulations of Greg (Zachary Gordon) and his best friend Rowley (Robert Capron) as they go through that difficult late tween, early teen period of their life. We’ve all been there, we can all relate to them to some degree. As mentioned previously, this film squares in on how Greg and Rowley spend their summer holiday: dodging jobs, longing for crushes (Holly, played by Peyton List) and learning important life lessons. The so-called “dog days” in Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days. And yes, there’s a dog. On screen for about 10 minutes.

All actors pull their weight, but don’t go in expecting Oscar nods any time soon. Age has no bearing on acting capacity, as BAFTA and Academy Award nominee Hailee Steinfeld showed in True Grit last year. It’d be safe to say here that the actors are having fun with their part, but it does come across somewhat stifled. Gordon comes across as an introspective and more likeable young Matthew Broderick in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, or a less comedic Michael Cera in his Arrested Development days. Essentially, all the acting is serviceable, but nothing more.

“Listen – I’ve got Matthew Broderick and that Chunk kid from The Goonies on the line… they want their act back. Unless ya do the truffle shuffle…”

Having said that, it’s the young actors that come off far better from this film than the older cast (excluding Greg’s Dad Frank, played by the always likeable Steve Zahn). The real issues are with the “16-ish year olds”. Both Devon Bostick and Melissa Roxburgh, who play Greg and Holly’s older siblings, really grate. Either the script has called for “stereotypical teenager” or they really hammed up those lines. Also, I know it’s common practice for 20-something year old actors to play teenagers, but come on… Roxburgh looks as much of a 16 year old as Betty White does.

Betty White edges out Melissa Roxburgh in the “look 16 years old competition 2012”.

The trouble with this film is that I failed to feel much for the course of it. With The Lorax I felt distracted and sometimes bored, with Ice Age: Continental Drift I was entertained and laughed. But here? Well, I was interested by it, and the 94 minutes went fast, but I didn’t ever get past a smile; due to relating to Greg’s story. Or because South Park had done a particular scene exactly the same some years ago. The film typifies “middle of the road”. But then again, the film’s probably not made with me in mind is it?

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days is in fact a lot like those long and lazy summer holidays of our youths. They’re fun enough, and they’re soon over, but what did we actually achieve in them? Anything? When it boils down to it, the film comes across as a feature length Nickelodeon movie (or at least, how I remember Nickelodeon in the era of Clarissa Explains It All and Rocko’s Modern Life), or a Malcolm in the Middle aimed purely at the pre-teen, early teen market.

We can all relate to the movie, but I think most will be taken from it by the younger viewers who want to see their book / film friends going on another journey. Me? I think I’m going to dig out that old games console and boot up Streets of Rage II again and relive my misspent youth. What did I achieve in those summers? Getting AWESOME at games and developing the fastest thumbs in the West. And developing a loathing for garden ornaments.

Phage Factor:

Ted (2012)

by

0

If you’ve seen a poster, a trailer or a bus advertising Ted you’re sure to know that this film is brought to you courtesy of Seth Macfarlane: the man behind the Family Guy, American Dad! and The Cleveland Show franchises. Though I think it’s best for all if we forget the last title on that list, as I’m pretty sure people with an IQ over 39 don’t think The Cleveland Show is “comedy” in any shape or form. Unless you’re a simpleton. For the uninitiated, Family Guy revolves around a Simpsons-esque family and their shenanigans. Most of these episodes are essentially random sketches tied together with some semblance of a plot. American Dad! again focuses on a family, but is much more plot-driven – like any good sitcom. The Cleveland Show… well… let’s just not go there. Why am I explaining all this? Well, everyone has a “favourite” of these three titles whilst some can’t stand Macfarlane‘s brand of humour. Consequently, your enjoyment of this film will rely heavily on which of these four shrines you worship at. See if you can guess where I fall…

It’s a Macfarlane face-off… which camp do you fall into? Moronic, sketch-driven or plot-driven comedy?

Ted follows the life of 35 year old John (Mark Wahlberg) and girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis)… and of course Ted (Seth Macfarlane), the toy that came to life when John was 8 years old. At a core level, the film deals with the dilemma of being one of the boys vs settling down. Add in a truck load of 1980’s TV references, a sprinkling of drug paraphernalia and a sometimes obvious plot and you have Ted. Firstly, I want to say that in recent years I’ve become a big fan of Wahlberg, especially his contributions to HBO’s Entourage both on and off-screen, and in 2010’s spectacular The Fighter. His performance in Ted is what you’ve come to expect of the guy – professional, comic and charming. Similarly Kunis, who works with Macfarlane on Family Guy, acts admirably; although her role as the “straight guy” limits her ability to flex any comedic muscles on screen. The supporting cast is also brilliantly put together, surely thanks to Macfarlane‘s rich address book accrued from the numerous cameos that Family Guy and American Dad! have had over the years. I won’t ruin any of these for you, but appearances from a 1980’s film star and a famous Hollywood A-lister who doesn’t utter a single word are simply sublime. The only negative I can draw from the cast is the fact that Macfarlane didn’t write anything comedic for Lori’s boss Rex, who is played by the awesome Joel McHale from one of my favourite ever series: Community. An opportunity missed.

This brings us to Macfarlane himself who voiced Ted and wrote the script. Ted as a character is solid and beautifully rendered by the animation team. I just feel that we’ve seen this character before if you’re familiar with Macfarlane‘s TV series. He’s a slacker, a “bro” and less than politically correct – all things which you could pin to numerous other characters. But overall, I can look past this as it’s clearly Macfarlane‘s sense of humour and that’s fine. The character worked well. What felt a bit more hackneyed was the script, which came across as a number of hit-and-miss sketches loosely woven into a plot. Ringing any bells yet?

The trailers showed off some of the big hitting comedic moments, and there are more to be found in there, but there was also a lot of humour that fell flat for me. For instance, an elongated fight scene erupts that reminded me of Pineapple Express. I didn’t like Pineapple Express. I didn’t like this either. It just wasn’t funny. Luckily these duds were outweighed for me by Macfarlane‘s pop culture references (when they sit inside the plot) and sometimes sinister sniping at other popular celebrities. He does this in his animated shows and doesn’t pull any punches on the big screen too. This, for me, is funny. It’s a shame that more of the film wasn’t as guffaw-inducing as the prologue and epilogue by Sir Patrick Stewart (who also voices characters for American Dad!).

Bart Simpson by way of South Park: not a Family Guy fan!

But then again, many people in the screening I was attending laughed at literally everything. For some their humour level was any reference to drugs. I call these “The Cleveland Show fans” (or young teenagers… or adults with the brains of young teenagers… or morons – it’s ok, they won’t get offended; often they can’t read) – replete with honking laughs that made me think I was about to be attacked by a flock of geese. Next you had the people with a humour level resulting in them laughing at jokes that were in the trailer that surely every film-goer has seen? I call these “Family Guy fans“, as the jokes are funny but you’ve seen them before – just as with many jokes on Family Guy. Then finally you have people that enjoy the humour thrown up as part of the plot: the “American Dad! fans“.

If you’re playing along at home and guessed that I am c) an American Dad! fan, then kudos to you. Go get yourself a cookie. If you guessed a) then I strongly suggest you watch The Cleveland Show – it’s probably right up your alley.

Ultimately, Ted earns the title of “funniest film of the summer”, but more by default as it’s not had strong competition. Had 21 Jump Street landed at the same time, it’d have easily lost the title. It has its great moments, but much like Macfarlane’s Family Guy it has an uneven hit-to-miss ratio in term of gags.

If you didn’t like Macfarlane before, then seeing a non-animated form of his comedy won’t change your mind. If you believe the man can do no wrong then you’re delusional you’ll get a lot of kicks out of this film. If you fall somewhere in between and think that his shows have their moments, then there’s fair reason to see this. Macfarlane‘s humour has made the jump to the big screen far better than Matt Groening‘s The Simpsons Movie… but nowhere near as well as Matt Stone and Trey Parker‘s South Park or Team America: World Police. That’s what you get for letting manatees write your comedy Seth!

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Lorax (2012)

by

1

You know it’s summer when Hollywood unleashes a relentless assault of animated features to enthral the kids and hopefully entertain their accompanying parents during the school holidays, and this year is no exception. Up next in the blitzkrieg is the extravagantly colourful world of The Lorax, based on Dr Seuss’ story of the same name. But does this old yarn-turned-film both bedazzle and amuse, or is it simply a children’s tale set to bewilder and bemuse? Read on dear reader for I shall wage, that the truth is to be found here on Film Phage…

The Lorax (ably voiced by Danny DeVito) for the uninitiated is a story by Dr Seuss essentially telling the tale of the environment vs. corporate greed. I won’t go into the intricacies of the “plot”, but it’s suffice to say that the film tells of how one man (the Once-ler, voiced by Ed Helms from The Hangover) tells a young boy his tale of how his lust for profits rid the world of vegetation and how he didn’t listen to The Lorax: the guardian of the trees. He then entrusts the final seed in existence to this young boy for him to do with as he wishes. If this sounds a bit hokey, then that’s simply because it is. Seuss’ original story is incredibly short and is a bit like a parable; ending on the cliffhanger of “will he or won’t he”. But this is a children’s movie, not the infuriating ending to Inception, so expect no ambiguities… in fact, don’t expect much at all.

What you can expect are modern-day animation staples such as beautiful rendering, celebrity voices and a paper-thin romance. It’s the latter that really undermines the ethos of the film, with Ted (Zac Efron) wanting to find the tree to get in there with his crush Audrey (Taylor Swift). Seuss’ original vision is somewhat bastardised here, as this kid doesn’t really give two Humming-fish about the environment – he’s fulfilling his basic human urges… to get a smooch! C’mon, he’s probably 10, he’s not looking for some hanky panky with a 13 year old girl. Well, that might be the norm in certain districts in a town or city you know, but I’m certain that’s not the case here.

But that’s not all the film does to betray Seuss’ original vision… oh no no… if you live in the US you’ll be fully aware of this advert on your TV, and if you’re not from the US, then watch this bearing in mind that this is a pro-environment, anti-corporation film:

Yes indeedy – the Lorax LOVES a car powered by petrol… made from trees. A confusing message to send out you say? Well that pretty much sums up the entire film: confused. Most of the “extra” material not mentioned in Seuss’ book is simply padding to give context and get to the Lorax part of the tale (and he only sticks around for about 1/2 the entire film). All of these shortcomings just compound how bitter a pill this is to swallow, as it looks beautiful – the animators have rendered Seuss’ world with such loving detail; it’s just a shame that the script has all the charm and charisma of a tin of stale sardines.

The Lorax

Place your bets for a good review… now.

So what about the humour? Surely this film succeeds in that area? Well, I’m afraid not. Whilst I found Ice Age: Continental Drift unexpectedly engaging and genuinely funny in places, I found myself sitting there like the Grinch for this film. And others in the screening reflected this mood. There were muted sniggers from some, and the kids laughed every time a bear or fish made a meaningless squawk, but there was nothing really entertaining about the script. And let’s never speak of those joyless songs. That’s why it’s such a shame to hear that DeVito not only recorded his voiceover in English, but also in Russian, Spanish, German and Italian despite speaking none of these languages: he did it all phonetically. This is a simply mind-blowing approach to voiceover work, which is why it’s so soul destroying to see a film of such lacklustre calibre after all that effort.

I really wanted to like The Lorax, I really did. I always root for an underdog, and after disagreeing with fellow critics’ opinions on Ice Age: Continental Drift, I thought I too might find some green shoots of quality on which to feast, but instead was left with a mouthful of tarmac. If only the Once-ler had obeyed the laws of basic economics and just replenished his supply of trees as he went – he’d have made untold profit and kept the environment going… and also prevented me from needing to sit through 86 minutes of poorly-scripted cinema.

And so dear reader I bring this woeful tale to a close,
as the fable of The Lorax has left The Phage somewhat morose.
Whilst easy on the eye and replete with pure intention,
the story’s dreadfully weak script makes one call one’s sanity into question.
And not even the sublime, multilingual DeVito: the once Oswold Copperpot,
can render this film’s flaws so easily forgot.
For The Lorax is no Horton… Not even a Grinch,
but you can’t help but wonder what next of Seuss’ books Hollywood will pinch.
So lest I end up sounding like old Yoda the Jedi,
I’ll end this little ditty and bid you goodbye.
But I’ll be taking bets on which tale they will next pilfer and pluck…
Or you could be one of those that no longer gives a …

Phage Factor:

Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012)

by

0

Ice Age

No thaw in sight…

Do you remember learning about the Ice Age in school history lessons? How about plate tectonics and the phenomenon of “continental drift” in geography and geology? Remember them happening at the same time? Well, depending on how kind Father Time’s been to your grey matter over the years, you may or may not. Hell, some of the kids watching this movie probably think you’re old enough to have been IN the Ice Age if you’re over the age of 26. And as with the inevitable passage of time and the joys it brings, here comes the the fourth instalment in the Ice Age franchise. But is the ice beginning to crack beneath its feet, or is there a *ahem* (faux-Austrian accent) “freeeeze cahming“?

If you recognised that Batman & Robin reference, then you may be one of those perceived ancient “Ice Age” dwellers like myself. But that isn’t the audience that Ice Age: Continental Drift (aka Ice Age 4) is primarily aimed at is it? It’s a film choc-full of slapstick comedy, regurgitation and silly voices, with that sickly sweet undercurrent of a “message”. You probably think I’m winding up to deliver a one-two haymaker filled with bile and scathing opinions about this film right? If you looked at the Rotten Tomatoes score, you’d probably expect that too. But I’m going against the grain here. No, this movie isn’t going to revolutionise cinema as we know it, nor does it represent the second coming of Christ, but it is a genuinely enjoyable romp for the most part.

Ice Age 4

The boys are back in town!

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 10 years, the series of films follows the exploits of a mammoth, sloth and sabre-tooth tiger, voiced by Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary respectively. It’s a typical animated series in regards to the fact that its formulaic in its outlay: all’s well, a problem occurs, whacky adventure ensues and everything ends happily. These adventures have consisted of returning a human child to its parents, avoiding global warming and saving Sid (the sloth) from a land of the dinosaurs. Hey, no-one said this series was historically accurate! Last I remember, animals didn’t speak English either. They spoke Afrikaans, everyone knows that. And that only began in 1826. Indeed, this series doesn’t disappoint in terms of a whacky, inaccurate theme – yes, the continents are splitting apart super fast to form a geographic pattern we recognise, leading to our crew embarking on an adventure. With Pirates. Like The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists! but supping from the crazy juice.

So why am I not tearing this film apart? It genuinely made me smile and laugh. Maybe this is a reflection on me, but it was echoed by the rest of the audience too: from the young to the elderly. Sure, it doesn’t have the *nudge nudge, wink wink* subtly adult themes and humour of animated movies like Shrek, The Incredibles or Monsters Inc., but it has flourishes, such as Sid breaking the fourth wall and reflecting on the fact that the dinosaur plot from Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs made little-to-no sense whatsoever. The film also featured an ape “Pirate Captain”, voiced by Peter Dinklage (currently featuring in Game of Thrones), which was originally intended to be voiced by Hawkeye, aka Jeremy Renner. Now this ape doesn’t do anything particularly funny – he’s just the big bad guy that gets slapped around. But what I did find funny was how similar it looked to Ron Perlman. An odd aside, but I found it somewhat amusing.

Ron Perlman & Gutt

Separated at birth? Don’t get me wrong, I love Ron Perlman, but there’s something there right? No offence Ron… and Gutt.

Maybe the film was entertaining as it reminded me of being a child and watching Wile E. Coyote chase Roadrunner, which was slapstick comedy at its finest back in the late 80’s. Regardless, the film made me smile, and I was in no way bored when “the gang” were on-screen. The same goes for the “new” additions, such as a genuinely funny Flynn the elephant seal; ably voiced by the fantastic Nick Frost.  However, the film was simplistic, and anything that revolved around Manny’s (Romano) daughter Ellie (Queen Latifah), was mind-numbingly tedious and drawn out. Whilst mentioning Queen Latifah, it’s also interesting to point out that the casting directors must have really wanted a well sung credits song, employing the voice talents of Jennifer Lopez, Drake and Nicki Minaj as various animals. I really have to mention Nicki Minaj, as her often schizophrenic singing intonation is perfect for animated films. Seriously. Put this girl in more of these films, I’m being genuine.

So will this be the last entry in the Ice Age franchise? Well, I’ll ask you this: did the recent Ice Age occur at the same time as the dinosaurs, where there was mass global warming AND the separation of Pangaea? No. No it did not. And nor will this be the last we see of these characters. Where next? I’m putting my money on the table for one of these scenarios: Ice Age: In Space, Ice Age: Time Travelling to the Future, or the grim Ice Age vs Predator…

Overall, this film obviously has its pro’s and con’s. If your interest in the series is waning, this’ll do little to breathe frosty life back into the dying mammoth that is your passion, but if not – get out and see it for some light-hearted humour. If you have kids, they’ll probably enjoy this, and you will too – animated features have come a long way since the pre-Toy Story era. And if they don’t laugh, I’m sure they’ll just be entertained by the flashy bright colours and how funny it is to kick the backs of the chairs of the row in front at the very least. And you can put money on seeing Manny & Co. in another year or two. Hopefully with Ron Perlman again.

Phage Factor:

3 Star

Magic Mike (2012)

by

0

An entertaining, but predictable magic trick…

If you asked me to list some movies that revolve around the age-old profession of stripping, it’d be no problem whatsoever. Of course, you have Showgirls and Striptease from the mid-90’s, whose VHS cassettes were the equivalent of gold dust to every teenage boy of the day; back when a) VHS was the standard, and b) this was the ultimate in semi-accessible titillation… hell, these movies pre-dated 56Kb modems for most! If you preferred a more male-centric clothes-shedding tale then there’s the British classic The Full Monty where a motley crew of unemployed guys from the UK city of Sheffield star in their own strip show. It also made Donna Summer’s Hot Stuff the sexiest song of 1997 and made Post Office queues that little bit more exciting; albeit briefly.

So now we come to Hollywood’s late rebuttal to the UK’s men’s strip show film. I wasn’t aware that a rebuttal was needed, but here it is nevertheless. Magic Mike follows the tale of the eponymous Mike (Channing Tatum) – an “entrepreneur” who dabbles in tiling roofs, building unique furniture… oh, and getting down to a thong as “Magic Mike” for the gathered throngs of women baying for flesh on Thursdays through Sundays. Though Tatum is a key player in the film, it really revolves around Adam (Alex Pettyfer; I Am Number Four, In Time) who’s introduced to the business through Mike. What follows is an enjoyable, occasionally lighthearted, if not lightweight tale of the underbelly of the stripping business.

“What did you say about my shirtless tie outfit?”

The strongest asset of this film is without doubt Tatum himself, who was once upon a time a part-time stripper. Whilst he gets to use some of his dance moves from his days in Step Up, he really showcases his abilities as an actor. In particular, his one-on-one scenes with Adam’s sister Brooke (Cody Horn) are particularly poignant; coming across as effortless and genuinely authentic – the mark of a true actor. The other “top billed” name on the posters, Matthew McConaughey, fares just as well playing Dallas: the club’s owner / MC / dancer, and primary antagonist of the film. What’s so remarkable is that Dallas is instantly dislikeable; you know from the outset that he isn’t a nice guy. Indeed, I found McConaughey‘s character in Killer Joe (reviewed here) – a guy who forces someone to perform oral sex on a KFC drumstick – to be more likeable than Dallas. It’s great to see these two actors again expanding their repertoire and avoiding the clichéd roles they’ve become synonymous with in recent years, as I’ve discussed previously.

Where the film loses its way is the fact that some of the plots seem too railroaded and scripted – you can see the eventual incidents coming from a mile off. You could predict the third act of the film before the fourth thong-clad rear is on-screen. A few decoys are deployed where you expect the plot to go down a certain alley; but overall this isn’t an example of effective smoke and mirrors. A golden era M. Night Shyamalan film this is not. And for those curious about the nudity in the film, yes you’ll see a lot of bethonged rump and guys will have that feeling that they did watching 300: “damn, I need to work out!”. McConnaughey in particular, who’s now cruised past 40, looks in remarkable shape.

Who else is going to be sporting this fetching yellow crop top at the gym this summer? Just me? Damn…

Overall, Steven Soderbergh‘s (Ocean’s Eleven, Contagion, Haywire) film has its heart in the right place, but falters due to a predictable storyline. It also irritatingly leaves a number of plot threads deliberately open for the already talked about sequel. Personally, I feel that Magic Mike needs a sequel about as much as Contagion (a phage’s favourite film – the virus is the star!) does. But then again, this is Steven Soderbergh, a man who is a more than capable director, but he’s also the man that brought you the uncalled for Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen. However, it’s great to see Channing Tatum flourishing into a well-rounded actor who’s deviating from GI Joe-esque roles. The future is very bright for this guy, but you didn’t need me to tell you that.

Magic Mike proves to be more of a daytime TV magician than a David Blaine, Penn & Teller or Criss Angel: his tricks are a bit too transparent. The film’s respectable and earns its place, but it’s not playing with the big boys out in Vegas thanks to that plot. But maybe I just prefer a bit of Donna Summers’ Hot Stuff in my strip scenes, as opposed to the latest Skrillex wub-wub-athon… Now where’s my VHS player…?

Phage Factor:

3 Star