my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Magic Mike #2

Author Topic: Magic Mike #2 Terry Monohan Master Film Handler Posts: 379 From: San Francisco CA USA Registered: May 2014 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-08-2015 12:33 AM                     It's called MAGIC MIKE XXL, not MAGIC MIKE #2.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.)  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 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...  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 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!  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 07-14-2015 11:20 PM                     I noticed the focus thing too! Thought I was going crazy a few times.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.