Magic Mike

Steven Soderbergh has (once again) found a fairly solid balance between social statement and commercial comedy where he capitalizes well on the R-rating. Interestingly, when you strip away (no pun intended) all the commercial trappings, hilarious dance choreography and very imaginative visual games with the camera, you are left with the skeleton of a fully functional drama based on well-drawn characters. The dryly humorous British The Full Monty will always be closer to my heart in this respect, but I can also recommend Magic Mike with a clear conscience. (02/09/2023)

I have never attended a strip show and if I were invited, I would decline. I consider it in the same category as wrestling or beauty pageants, which means a vulgar show. And from that perspective, it also affects my evaluation of Soderbergh's film, which I otherwise consider a demonstration of very decent filmmaking. However, I have a problem with the fact that the director made a pleasant, cultured, and romantic film from an environment that in no way is pleasant, cultured, or romantic. In short, it glosses over and moves it to a different level than the world of strippers or their consumers deserve. The British film The Full Monty took a different approach and wanted to communicate and sell something completely different to the viewers, and with that film, I was on the same wavelength. Overall impression: 45%. (12/29/2014)

Magic Mike is described here as a drama and a comedy, but it doesn't fulfill either genre enough for me to be satisfied with the overall result. On the comedy side of things, I was perhaps most amused by the scene of Channing Tatum like Marilyn Monroe, otherwise the rest were scenes that were more lightly funny, but there were few of them. The serious line of the film also didn't really work, or maybe I'm being too demanding, nevertheless I was expecting something deeper (within reason considering the premise). In short, a film that will absolutely be most appreciated by women and men who get off on metrosexual men dancing in thongs. (07/14/2013)

On the glittering surface, Soderbergh adores the strippers, while on the inside he laughs at their transference of existential experience into beautiful bodies and powerful experiences. Probably. He doesn’t lead us to a single, unambiguous reading of Magic Mike, so it’s not a problem to see it as being akin to Flashdance (and other dance-themed ‘80s hits), given its story about a poor, not very bright guy who whose handsome face and simulation of sexual movements brought him wealth, fame and drugs. In various imaginative ways, however, the film makes it clear that this is not a typical rise-to-stardom story. The appealing striptease performances, pumped up with loud music and lighting effects, contrast with the simplest possible dialogue scenes devoid of music and camera tricks (long shots, a static camera, a lively and occasionally funny mise-en-scéne). The dialogue, which is more important in terms of its content than as means of expression for the characters, was either superbly written and acted or at least partially improvised. The hesitations, pauses, slips of the tongue, shy glances and bashful gestures transport us back from the flawless world of pumped-up penises and fake police uniforms to awkwardly natural reality. Thanks to his previous experience, Channing Tatum clearly knew best how to depict a man whose exhibitionism gives him a false sense of control, but those whom he thinks are under his control (Alex Pettyfer) or whose uncontrollability leads him to confront his own “emptiness” (Cody Horn) are no less authentic. In the most straightforward sense of the word, the star of the evening is Matthew McConaughey, the personification of the word “macho”, who was finally offered a role requiring nothing more than what he has built his entire acting career on – tough-guy talk and an ostentatious exhibition of his abdominal muscles. Bare male bodies appear frequently in the film, in lengthy shots and – with one exception – without liberating cuts to the face of someone who finds such behaviour inappropriate. I would venture to guess that these scenes will seem unnecessary especially to the men in the audience, which may have been a marketing tactic (the ideal film for a girls’ night out), as well as the director’s attack on the male gaze, on the unwritten rule that calls for much more frequently exposing the bodies of women, whose nudity is conversely presented here without any sensationalism. The constant duplicity and endless uncertainty of whose side Soderbergh is on do not in any way disturb the film’s cohesiveness (which is rather disrupted by a few needless camera exhibitions with an image with qualities other than those of sunny California) and create a peculiar tension behind a story that is seemingly so simple and smooth that it could easily slip by less attentive viewers. The excitement that the film provides is not only sensual (regardless of your preferences), but also cinephilic. 80% (07/12/2012)

Channing Tatum produced an “independent relationship drama” that showed him in a more mature light. Dialog that is uncontrived and sober, so much so in places that a few conversational gambits would not have hurt. Two fantastic filmmaking moments – the camera play in the opening scene (two girls in Tatum’s bed) and a later scene with a cut from a cell phone (dialing a girl) to a couple, already lying and hugging on the bed. But the rest of it is rather boring, with a tedious performance by the lead actor, who was supposed to keep it afloat. (09/24/2012)