Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Magic Mike #2

This is topic Magic Mike #2 in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002134

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 07-04-2015, 10:25 AM:

Saw this bad film yesterday on the semi big XD screen at Century Cinema 9 in San Francisco CA. Like all XD screens no masking on a scope print. This new Magic Mike film had some of the worst acting and boring segments. The best part was the last 20 minutes when the dancers entered a contest. This film was so cheaply made and will make big $ the next few weeks. So many sloppy fat women in the movie It was sad to see them throw all their dollars on stage. The lame dancer cast was so bad. The best dancers were only shown for about 2 minutes in the background shots in the backstage area at the contest. They probably cut them from the film. The worst was the ending, they must have run out of time as they show the 5 cast dancers going around a beach town and you never find out If they even won the dance contest and the 4TH of July fireworks are heard but they never show them, It just goes to credits. On a big budget film some credits as you know will run past 10 minutes this Magic #2 film had very short credits. After seeing the film you can see how cheap It was to make and did not take a big film crew. The stereo surround was good as this theatre had the Barco type sound set up. They had in theatre #1 Dolby Atmos at one time but they switched to the Barco system with a ton of double bank surround speakers. The ladies may like this film but they needed to have some story to it and a better variety of dance entertainers. Watch all the $ they will make and come out with a 3-D Part #3 version next year.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-04-2015, 10:43 AM:

it wasn't a contest - it was a convention. I liked this, wasn't great, but fun - the dancing was the highlight. The Dolby Atmos mix shined when the music kicked in.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-08-2015, 12:33 AM:

It's called MAGIC MIKE XXL, not MAGIC MIKE #2.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-08-2015, 12:09 PM:

That movie has "cash grab" written all over it. It was a relative flop and deservedly so. (Although they might have done a little more business if they'd put the name of the movie on the onesheets.)

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-13-2015, 11:48 AM:

^ oh please, throw a bunch of guys without shirts onto the one sheet - forget about the title of the movie... [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2015, 01:22 PM:

I just think it's hilarious and stupid that movie companies spend millions of dollars creating these "valuable brand names" and then somehow think it's smart not to put that brand name on one of their primary advertising elements. I will admit that this movie is a little more "identifiable" by the poster image than some are.

I guess I don't have a bachelors degree in marketing so I'll probably never understand it. Other companies pay huge bucks to get their brand names and logos INto movies, but movie companies go to great lengths to keep brand names OUT of advertising. It makes no sense.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-13-2015, 09:17 PM:

quote: John Wilson
It's called MAGIC MIKE XXL, not MAGIC MIKE #2.

But, technically, "XXL" would actually make the title "MAGIC MIKE 50".
No? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2015, 11:52 PM:

No, the Roman numeral for 50 is simply "L."

"XXL" isn't a proper Roman number. XL would be 40, but XXL doesn't exist.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-14-2015, 07:30 AM:

Cinetopia PrarieFire 18
Overland Park, KS
Auditorium #1, GXL(Atmos) 7/13/15 10pm
Played Atmos "Amaze" snipe prior
Typical 2k blown out on way too big of a screen, blurry as all get out. Scope on a non-masked screen. Sigh. Sound was spot on though.

I had a blast watching this, but it probably helps that I'm into this sort of thing. Eye candy out the wazoo.

Hell of a fun time, 'twas dancing in my seat!

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-14-2015, 09:00 AM:

I saw this on the big ETX screen at AMC Tysons, and yes the image was fuzzy and in some instances the foreground was in focus but the background was not - wasn't the fault of the DCP but odd filmmaking decisions, that just came across as faulty.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-14-2015, 11:20 PM:

I noticed the focus thing too! Thought I was going crazy a few times.