Rating: 4.0/5.0

CHICAGO– Was John Dillinger an Adolf Hitler-level criminal mastermind or a modern-day Robin Hood superman? In the authentic reality portrayed by the god-like Johnny Depp in the Chicago-filmed “Public Enemies,” he’s a little bit of both for blockbuster filmmaker Michael Mann.

Unfortunately, Depp’s nemesis – special agent Melvin Purvis as played by “The Dark Knight” mainstay Christian Bale – falls flat. Bale rolls through the motions with a monotone and monotonous role that needed the tension of a World War conflict rather than a rubber band.

Christian Bale stars as special agent Melvin Purvis – the nemesis of the legendary Depression-era outlaw John Dillinger – in “Public Enemies” from filmmaker Michael Mann.
Photo credit: Universal Pictures

The French actress Marion Cotillard, on the other hand, delivers yet another intoxicating performance as Billie Frechette this time in a supporting role. We’re reminded why she ever-so-definitely deserved her 2008 Oscar for so absolutely embodying Edith Piaf in 2007’s “La Vie en Rose”.

Leelee Sobieski is thrown in toward the end as the downplayed character Polly Hamilton in a relatively wasted and unnecessary cameo. In addition, Matt Craven – who you’ve almost certainly never heard of, has no relation to Wes Craven and looks strikingly like Sean Penn – is merely being mentioned in this review for the three aforementioned points of comedy.

Giovanni Ribisi from “My Name is Earl,” “Friends” and the underrated film “Heaven” (that too many people haven’t seen but should rent tomorrow) methodically portrays Alvin “Creepy” Karpis. While John Dillinger was public enemy No. 1 for the FBI, Karpis was the final public enemy to be nailed.

Johnny Depp as the legendary Depression-era outlaw John Dillinger in “Public Enemies” from filmmaker Michael Mann.
Photo credit: Peter Mountain, Universal Pictures

Karpis’ capture catapulted FBI director J. Edgar Hoover – portrayed with spot-on calculation by Billy Crudup of “Watchmen” and “Almost Famous” fame – and the FBI to national eminence. In the “Public Enemies” period piece, J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI both have a tall task: proving to the American government and people that they should exist and are competent crime stoppers.

The FBI takes on John Dillinger’s infamous bank-robbing gang as well as other high-profile public enemies (including Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson and Channing Tatum as Pretty Boy Floyd) as a launch pad for proving that their government jobs should exist and be handsomely funded.

While moviegoers clearly pack a love-or-hate relationship for Christian Bale following his long career of hit-or-miss films, Johnny Depp typically draws universal appeal at the box office from fans of all ages and genders. Depp’s deep, crazed, complicated and multi-dimensional portrayal of John Dillinger makes this film worth buying into for his performance alone.

Johnny Depp (left) and Marion Cotillard in “Public Enemies” from filmmaker Michael Mann.
Photo credit: Peter Mountain, Universal Pictures

While the camera always loves Depp’s face and he’s never tough to look at, WGA writers Michael Mann, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman grace Depp with a bevy of potent material. He confidently crows in the film, for example, that he can rob a bank with his dogged posse in 100 seconds “flat”.

When Bale first meets and confronts Depp in jail one of the many times he’s captured before later escaping, Depp attempts to delve into Bale’s head about “what keeps him up at night” and whether the images of all the criminals he’s captured and killed haunt his dreams. When Bale turns the question back on Depp, the demented Depp only says one witty word: “coffee”.

Likewise, Dillinger’s balls-to-the-wall and aggressively confrontational criminal character is best exemplified by a scene when Depp walks right into a Chicago police department in the light of the day and without a guise.

Johnny Depp (middle) and Marion Cotillard in “Public Enemies” from filmmaker Michael Mann.
Photo credit: Universal Pictures

Intrigued by finding the office of a special task force devoted singularly to his incarceration, he strolls through it at a snail’s pace and asks a gaggle of cops “what’s the score?” of a baseball game they’re listening to on the radio. They don’t even notice who’s asking.

RELATEDREADING See our high-quality, 36-image “Public Enemies” slideshow. See our 12-image Chicago slideshow for “Public Enemies” filming. Read our full “Public Enemies” coverage. More film reviews from critic Adam Fendelman.

The seminal moment in Chicago at the Biograph Theater – where Dillinger dangerously attends the 1934 film “Manhattan Melodrama” with Polly Hamilton – climatically executes with authenticity, tension and grainy, “you are there” cinematography.

Despite scores of cinematic achievements and veritable character representations, “Public Enemies” loses points on its pacing. Some moviegoers might find themselves feeling the film as episodic with an internal build to a climax rather than a more external and outwardly visual manufacture of events.

Certain scenes sometimes felt too ignorant even for the times, too.

While everyone knew what was really happening during the Holocaust but many were brainwashed into denying, ignoring or overlooking the mass genocide that was taking place right before their eyes, a naïveté by people who would have benefitted by turning Dillinger in sometimes felt forced and histrionic.

Despite such minor strikes and overlooking a yawn of a performance by Christian Bale, “Public Enemies” indeed stars two decisive characters among 2009’s best so far: Johnny Depp and the meticulously recreated environment that is the city of Chicago itself.

By ADAMFENDELMAN Editor-in-Chief HollywoodChicago.com adam@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO– Love stories are as common at the movies as popcorn and sticky floors. Despite this, rising stars Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried add their own spin to the timeworn plot theme in “Dear John.”

Set initially in the year 2000, John (Tatum) is a soldier on leave when he first encounters Savannah (Seyfried) at the beach, where he gallantly rescues her purse after it falls in the drink. This gets him an invitation to a party that Savannah is throwing, and the first seeds of romance begin to sprout between the two.

In the next two weeks, the emerging couple grow close very quickly, as they find commonality and chemistry through their life’s purpose. Savannah is inspired to help others because of a father (Henry Thomas) and his autistic son. John is an Army Ranger with several tours of duty, escaping his home life because of a disconnect with his father (Richard Jenkins), who oddly prefers his coin collection to any kind of social contact.

Let Us Be Lovers: Channing Tatum as John and Amanda Seyfried as Savannah in ‘Dear John’ Photo credit: Scott Garfield for © 2010 Dear John LLC

The couple’s newly found love is filtered through the various assignments that take John away, but their correspondence – through a series of heartfelt letters – continues to strengthen their bond. It is the events of September 11th that radically alters their relationship, as John begins a series of longer overseas duties. On the home front, Savannah is experiencing some separation anxieties of her own, and the couple’s love is tested through perpetual war and the difficult circumstance of being apart.

This is not a conventional love story, and even though it contains the seen-it-before separation between soldier and lover, it attempts a modern sensibility with the specter of 9/11 in its wake. John and Savannah are not the typical twentysomethings of the era, preferring pen to paper over mobile phone antics, and deeply feeling the emotional strains of frustration in their desire to help society (in Savannah’s case) and deal with the mental insufficiencies of John’s father.

Richard Jenkins is a solid sender in the role of that father, conveying the mixed signal of the hopelessness within his extreme social anxiety, and his endeavor to relate to Savannah and his estranged son. The performance is never false, even though it could be, and is linked to the younger boy’s autism, because Jenkins is of the age where it could have possibly gone undiagnosed.

The Collector: John’s Father is Richard Jenkins in ‘Dear John’ Photo credit: Scott Garfield for © 2010 Dear John LLC

There is also a wide open look to the film, as veteran director Lasse Hallström (”My Life as a Dog,” “Chocolat”) uses the beaches and spaces around North Carolina to place his lovers in their own little world. Even John’s mysterious deployments are shown in context away from any cities, with countryside scenes that are out of place with the wars John is presumably fighting.

And it’s within these spaces that the weaker elements of the film percolate. John and Savannah never seem reasonably intimate or even together in their relationship, so the shifts and separations seem mired as an incomplete narrative.

There is a lot going on in their story – war, 9/11, childhood development, socially awkward adults, illness, connections, disconnections – all in a timeline of about 6 years. With the short period involved, and the characters barely aging, it becomes confusing as to what point their feelings are in life and relating. It seems too rapid to feel like something real, more convenient to a screenplay than a natural flow.

The young stars Tatum and Seyfriend are movie star beautiful, and both give an admirable performance. It’s obvious that they care deeply about their characters based on how they nurture them, it’s just unfortunate that their love story won’t come along for the ride.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO– In many ways, “The Dilemma” is director Ron Howard’s most daring film. Leaving behind the usual brightly lit, good/evil morality tales, Howard weaves a narrative basket filled with infidelity, gambling addiction, blackmail and mistrust. This is Opie on the dark side, with Vince Vaughn and Kevin James along for the journey.

But The Dilemma, marketed as a comedy, has some problems. It is episodic, and the whole doesn’t equal the sum of its parts. The sequences live and die under Vaughn’s interaction with them, which results in a quest of bizarre and improbable circumstances. The story flow never gets a rhythm, and is plagued also with a deadly serious nature that doesn’t mine any laughs.

Vaughn is Ronny, a marketing guru for an auto design company that includes his best friend Nick (Kevin James). Nick is married to Geneva (Winona Ryder), and Ronny is currently dating Beth (Jennifer Connelly), who he met through Nick and Geneva. The couples are bonding as best friends, and Ronny is seriously considering asking Beth to marry him, despite past discretions as a gambling addict.

This happy world is turned upside down by an accidental encounter. While scoping out a proper proposal site, Ronny spies Geneva in the arms of another man (Channing Tatum). Ronny doesn’t quite know what to do with this information, as the timing comes just as he and Nick are working on a make-or-break design for a major car company. Nick is the nervous type, and Ronny feels that the project will be in danger if he passes along the news that Geneva is cheating.

Becoming obsessed with the situation, Ronny decides to take matters into his own hands, and confronts Geneva with his knowledge. In a turnabout, Geneva comes right back at him with a threat of exposing some damaging news about their past. The uncomfortable dilemma has now become even more desperate, as Ronny wrestles with what to do.

Couples Therapy: Winona Ryder (Geneva), Jennifer Connelly (Beth), Vince Vaughn (Ronny) and Kevin James (Nick) in ‘The Dilemma’ Photo Credit: © Universal Pictures

The film did have a surprising twist, as Winona Ryder’s Geneva goes a bit beyond the typical confronted cheater. In the unexpected scene that her and Vaughn have when she blackmails him, Ryder shows some liquid dark acting chops while making Ronny realize that she can make his life miserable as well. Although this leads the film into other territories, it doesn’t help the so-called comic angle at all, and casts a pall over an already uncomfortable situation.

Also to its discredit, the film gave its characters high concept reactions to simple and more discreet real life elements. Ronny’s obsession with the cheating, although applied as loyalty towards a friend, seems to go beyond what a person would do with such a situation. This extreme lends to the choppiness of the flow, with a make-it-up-as-it-goes-along process, rather that a feeling of a human story. Another example is a inappropriate toast Ronny gives at a special event, funny on the surface but also very unlikely to happen.

Kevin James becomes a background prop in all this, and his ticky, schizophrenic performance has no real compass. He is painted as a somewhat shy loser, but on the other hand likes to go to obscure places in Chicago to get massage “services.” This is part of the tsunami of justifications for the cheating that Geneva exposes, but it doesn’t fit in line with how the James character would operate, given some previous scenes of his nervous, insecure nature.

Queen Latifah is shoehorned in as an auto executive, who simply provides outrageous support to the design team, which for some reason is supposed to be charming. It was strange to see her in what turned out to be a cameo performance, punctuated by constant reference to her “lady parts.” Any third rate character actress could have hopped on board with this limited line reading, this stunt casting actually ended up being annoying.

Zip It: Channing Tatum in ‘The Dilemma’ Photo Credit: © Universal Pictures

Despite having some inspired scenes – the fight between Vaughn and Channing Tatum (Geneva’s boyfriend) had a cold, funny resonance – director Howard seemed to be unable to decide whether this was a comedy or a dark vessel into human folly. Had he chose one side or the other, it probably would have been more successful.

Movie stars like Vaughn and James can’t go too dark or they risk their images. Feelings like jealousy, obsession, addiction and lust under the surface of this film was blithely reconciled with a well-timed Vince Vaughn comic monologue. But given what was attempted in The Dilemma, this time it just didn’t fit.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO– In ancient times, history was at the end of a sword point and edge of the world. “The Eagle” tells of a Roman Empire battle in those times, and Channing Tatum plays a general bent on restoring his family name.

This is rousing war and adventure tale, with a quest not unlike the holy grail. With all of the actors speaking the king’s English, except for the villains, this is an old-fashioned sword and sandal epic that bases itself in actual events, in a transition for a once-mighty kingdom.

Channing Tatum is Marcus Aquila, a general of the Roman army assigned to the outlands of the empire, where England is now. His father had previously invaded the Highlands with the Ninth Legion to conquer the rest of the isle, and was met with an opposing force that not only defeated them, but captured the powerful symbol of the empire’s might, a golden eagle. Marcus has trained to avenge his father’s name, and proves his mettle with the first battle.

Injured in the fray, he meets his Uncle (Donald Sutherland), whose job is to nurse him back to health. His recovery is fraught with guilt, feeling that he had failed in completing the reason why he took the assignment in the first place. The tide turns when he refuses to allow an English slave named Esca (Jamie Bell) to die in a tournament, and takes him under his own rule. Marcus formulates a plan to take Esca as an escort back to the Highlands, beyond a wall that Rome has designated as the “end of the world.” He will recapture The Eagle.

Enemy Mine: Tahar Rahim (left), Jamie Bell (center) and Channing Tatum in ‘The Eagle’ Photo credit: Kevin Bernstein for Focus Features

Esca and Marcus travel over the dangerous territory, and begin to discover the secrets of the lost Ninth Legion, as well as what happened to Marcus’ father. The danger increases as they get closer within The Highlands, encountering a warrior tribe that desires to completely destroy the Roman influence on their land. The result of the encounter has consequences for history.

The beauty of ancient history is that it feels and looks like an alien world, and credit to the overall production for permeating the atmosphere with a authentic gravity for the times. Channing Tatum appropriately embodies the embittered son, taking on a Dark Knight-like revenge factor into his soul. With his chiseled jawline and rendered nipples on his armor, it’s not too far from Wayne Manor.

The supporting cast help create the universe as well. Donald Sutherland, with his exact Roman beard, exudes the authority of the elder over his young nephew. Jamie Bell as Esca plays his loyalty to his life saver Marcus and his disgust over the Roman occupiers with a well-born legitimacy. When he and Marcus become Batman and Robin, he switches places quite effectively once they are past the wall.

The battles become tantamount to the action nature of the movie, and they’re not disappointing. The fort sequence when Marcus first takes the reins has a glorious tension, as the young upstart senses something that the tired veterans can’t detect. The British battlers are like punk rockers, practically spitting at their rivals and participating in kamikaze style attacks.

Where the film breaks down a bit is defined in it’s Monty Python ‘Holy Grail’ Moments. Besides the absurd muscular renderings on the armor, there is a supposedly serious moment when Marcus and Esca need some information. “See the man over the mountains,” the grizzled informant intones, and we expect to see “Tim the Scorcerer” from the Python film in the very next scene.

Embattled: Channing Tatum in ‘The Eagle’ Photo credit: Matt Neitham for Focus Features

Also the journey beyond the wall takes too long and pays off in an expected way. It was like the anticipation of the infiltration was better than the action itself. But this is a small complaint in an absorbing sense of history in another time, with the scenery and process by director Kevin Macdonald coming to a satisfying “wink-wink” conclusion.

The roots of America, good and bad, are present in The Eagle, and it’s a good origin story to take up with your friends, Romans and countrymen, if they all have an inclination to lend their ears.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.0/5.0

CHICAGO– Director Dito Montiel and star Channing Tatum were once tagged with the label of the hot new debut artistic partnership. 2006’s great “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” introduced both men to the world and it felt like it could be the calling card for a creative team to someday rival Scorsese and De Niro.

Tatum reunited with Montiel on the disappointing “Fighting” and their latest venture, “The Son of No One,” while an improvement on Montiel’s sophomore slump, is nonetheless another misfire.

Of course, many readers will recognize Tatum from his more mainstream fare like “The Dilemma” and “G.I. Joe,” but he had such a instant screen presence in “Saints” that I always hoped he’d find his way to more gritty indie fare like “The Son of No One,” based on Montiel’s book. This is a challenging piece, a drama about hidden pasts and the changing face of an increasingly-dark New York City in the year after 9/11, and it’s the kind of piece that I would wager works significantly better on the page than it does on the screen. It’s the kind of role that I’d like to see Tatum take more often and he does nothing wrong here. In fact, he gives a more challenging, deep performance than he has in some time, clearly being invigorated by working with Montiel again. But the rest of the movie, especially the script and direction by Tatum’s friend, makes the actor’s quality work hard to see.

The Son of No One
Photo credit: Anchor Bay

The biggest problem with “The Son of No One” is a borderline-incoherent flashback structure. The film is constantly bouncing back and forth between 2002 and 1986 in a manner that never allows either time period to gel into something interesting. Montiel would have been wiser to trim the flashbacks or tell the story chronologically but the constant interchange between the two leads to a lack of rhythm and pace, two essential ingredients in a film like this one. This is a dark story in which we need to care about the characters and the way Montiel wrote and edited it makes that difficult to do. It’s messy when it needs to be engaging; choppy when it needs to draw us in.

Police Officer Jonathan White (Tatum) has been assigned to a rough new district but one that he knows all too well. When he was a kid (over-played by Jake Cherry), he lived in this bad neighborhood and he shot a man who was threatening his life. The police, including the former partner of the young White’s father, Detective Charles Stanford (Al Pacino), swept it under the rug, figuring the dead man wasn’t worth much anyway and that it might help to have a kid on the inside of the projects to help them out. Not long after, another scumbag ends up dead in a similarly justifiable, accidental manner. Sixteen years later, a reporter (Juliette Binoche) is investigating the unsolved crimes and threatens to upend White’s life. Ray Liotta plays his new Captain, James Ransome his partner, Katie Holmes his wife, and Tracy Morgan his childhood friend, one of the few people who knows the truth about what happened to the boy nicknamed “Milk.”

The Son of No One
Photo credit: Anchor Bay

There are scenes in “The Son of No One” that work. Liotta and Pacino are always effective in police officer roles (even if the parts too easily allow them to give performances that aren’t exactly challenging) and the film is constantly threatening to find a groove whenever Tatum has a strong partner with which to work (like Liotta or Binoche). When he doesn’t, or whenever the film is in flashback, it simply sags. The cast isn’t helped out by poor production decisions on Montiel’s part including an over-used and awkward score by Jonathan Elias & David Wittman and shaky, inconsistent cinematography by Benoit Delhomme. Even the editing seems off.

But the major flaws of “The Son of No One” come back to the ineffective script, forever damaged by a finale shootout that is simply ridiculous. More crucially, WAY too much time is spent with the young Mr. White, as Montiel forgets that it’s far more interesting to see how the adult version of this justifiable killer is coming to terms with his past rather than just watching the details of it, even if that does mean cutting some of Mr. Pacino’s monologues. 2002 scenes like the one in which Tatum goes home again to discover that the kid who helped protect him has become a seriously-damaged adult or the flashes of recognition on his face as he realizes his new secrets are rising to the surface work. There are moments in “The Son of No One” with power, performances with strength, but none of the moments are connected in an effective manner. If it was 2006 again, one might be tempted to say that the work shows promise for young Mr. Tatum and his friend director if they could just refine their skills. But you can only be the “hot new thing” once. Let’s hope the fourth time’s the charm.

By BRIANTALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 4.0/5.0

CHICAGO– Steven Soderbergh is one of the few directors who can do whatever the hell he wants. Whatever genre, whomever he casts, whichever story he chooses to tell – he pulls it off. He hasn’t made anything approaching a stumble since 2004’s “Ocean’s Twelve” (and, believe it or not, there have been eight films released since including this one) and his latest, “Haywire,” serves as further evidence that any conversation of the best working directors that doesn’t include him is incomplete.

The film is ultimately a bit too thin for its own good, and you’ve seen nearly the entirety of it in the over-saturated previews, but it’s yet-another tightly-directed, expertly-made work from a director who seems to know no other way.

“Haywire” opens with a beautiful woman named Mallory (Gina Carano, an MMA fighter for whom Soderbergh and writer Lem Dobbs reportedly built this film around) scoping out a snow-covered restaurant. She cases it from a distance, moves in slowly, and slides into a booth. Aaron (Channing Tatum), a man with whom she clearly has a past enters the restaurant and sits across from her. After some tense, mysterious conversation that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, Aaron throws a hot cup of coffee in Mallory’s face and the two start fighting. And I mean FIGHTING. They punch. They kick. They throw each other into booths and stools. And this is one of those films where you feel every blow. It’s the opposite of the modern trend of quick-cut, confusing action choreography.

Haywire
Photo credit: Relativity Media

Before you can recover from the brutality of the first fight, Mallory has ordered a young man named Scott (Michael Angarano) to help her escape. Mallory is driving, Scott is tending her wounds. It’s the perfect time for a story! Our heroine tells Scott how she got to this position and reveals why they need to be headed to their current destination.

Mallory worked as a secret agent for hire under the leadership of the shady Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), who also happened to be her ex. It’s never a good situation when deadly people break up. Two men named Coblenz (Michael Douglas) and Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas) come to Kenneth with a job – releasing a hostage from his captivity in Barcelona. They demand that the legendary Mallory be a part of the job and we learn that Aaron the coffee hurler was also on the team. Things got a little shaky in Barcelona, but they got their man and seemingly got away smooth. When Mallory went on her next mission, an undercover gig involving the freelance British agent Paul (Michael Fassbender), all hell broke loose. Now, Mallory is on the run and her famous author father (Bill Paxton) may be the only person who can help her.

Not like Mallory needs much help. As crafted by the great writer Dobbs (“Dark City,” “The Limey”), she is a heroine for which the viewer rarely fears actual danger. It’s quite a compliment to the way this character is designed and the way she’s brought to life by Carano and Soderbergh that she approaches James Bond or Jason Bourne level supremacy in that, even with seemingly formidable opponents like Fassbender and Tatum, one knows she will always come out on top. She is a force of nature, a woman who doesn’t just hold her own, she holds yours too.

Haywire
Photo credit: Relativity Media

But to what end? Is “Haywire” more than a remarkable technical exercise? Not really. Much like Lars Von Trier, Soderbergh seems to occasionally make films that are designed to test and expand his boundaries as a filmmaker. Can I make a movie about a high-end escort (“The Girlfriend Experience”)? Can I make a movie about making movies (“Full Frontal”)? Can I make a movie with no names for virtually nothing and find new ways to distribute it (“Bubble”)? While the all-star, A-list supporting cast might make this look like one of his mainstream ventures (like “Contagion” or the “Oceans” movies), it is actually MUCH closer to his experimental work in its lack of character and newcomer lead. Are we supposed to care about Mallory Kane? Are we supposed to be intrigued by the plot? Not really to both questions. Everything about “Haywire” feels like an experiment in filmmaking more than honest spy movie storytelling.

But what remarkable filmmaking. It literally seems like there’s nothing that this man can’t do. A spy movie built around a debut actress? Sure, why not? And he doesn’t just deliver the basics. He delivers stunningly well-choreographed chase and fight scenes. The battle between Mallory and Paul is incredible and the climax in which Mallory’s betrayer is finally caught up to is fantastic. It’s the connective tissue that leaves “Haywire” a little thin. But it also leaves it a lean action machine that runs less than an hour-and-a-half with credits. Carano and Soderbergh get in, kick your ass, and get out. He doesn’t have time for traditional plot and character. He’s too busy moving on to the next project.

By BRIANTALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.5/5.0

CHICAGO– “The Vow” was “inspired by true events.” The end credits even showed the real couple of those events. Given the actual film, it’s likely that inspiration came in the form of “making stuff up,” as Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum were opposite to any reality in this illogical, strangely cold romance.

Set in a Chicago that only an outsider can understand, “The Vow” uses a plot device – random, selective amnesia – that today is only used in a soap opera. No matter how this condition is presented, it is almost impossible to rationally believe it, because everything that’s forgotten is conveniently tied to a recent marriage of a lovey-dovey couple. Suddenly the whole audience become brain surgeons, making the diagnosis that suspending disbelief is impossible.

The film begins with the intoned narration of Leo (Channing Tatum), describing the precious story of his true love Paige (Rachel McAdams). After meeting in a parking lot, they have a montage of courtship, which ends up in marriage at Chicago’s Art Institute. All is perfect, which always forebodes an ill wind. While Leo and Paige are making out in a parked car on a snowy street in the winter, a city truck plows into them, crashing Paige through the windshield and into the emergency room.

Channing Tatum (Leo) and Rachel McAdams (Paige) Meet Cute in ‘The Vow’ Photo credit: Kerry Hayes for Screen Gems

Leo is fine, but Paige is languishing in intensive care. She is put into an induced coma to relieve brain trauma, and when she awakens doesn’t recognize her own husband. She has severe memory loss, so severe that she doesn’t know she’s a trained sculptor, doesn’t remember where she lives and can’t remember any of the life with her husband. The last memory she has is of life with her parents (Sam Neill and Jessica Lange) in a wealthy suburb, going to law school and being engaged to someone else (Scott Speedman). It is now up to Leo to win her back again.

This would have worked better as a fantasy, like maybe an ancient island curse or a flaming skull that strips all of the marriage memory. Putting the situation in the context of a car accident – inspired by true events or not – cheapens the real issue of brain trauma, and allows it to be a backdrop for a queasy romantic situation rather than life or death. That notion becomes more annoying as the scenario plays out, for Paige also retreats to her parent’s wealthy existence, and becomes – as Leo puts it – a sorority girl. It’s hard to believe that losing memory also means losing personality or character, but this film wants to steer this unlikely situation as a means to generate a love story. That makes any attempt at endearment as chilly as a Chicago winter.

Speaking of Chicago, the city of big shoulders, it is again used as a prop in this film rather than a character. The story might as well have been set in Omaha, given how the Windy City fared as the story location (turns out a major portion was done in Toronto). It is annoying for natives to see only certain parts of town shown over and over, while references to specific areas are blithely tossed about without any regard for reality. The “corner of Diversey,” mentioned in the film, refers to a Chicago avenue with hundreds of corners, that extends from the lake to the western suburbs. At least such references will add some laughs for the Chicago crowd.

Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams are victims of the material, because both are charming and competent in other movies, but here are forced to wrestle like cage matchers against the absurd plot. Tatum in particular gets shafted, he seems confused by his character. Is he an anti-establishment rocker or $1000 suit model? The film wants him to be both. McAdams has a great look on film, probably one of the best on-screen smiles of the current actress crop, but is lost as someone who has had “brain trauma” (as she keeps saying). She is scared of her old life because she can’t remember it, but also goes on a “date” with her hunky husband, and takes a underwear-clad swim in Lake Michigan. Actions like that have no honesty in context.

Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams Put the Pieces Together in ‘The Vow’ Photo credit: Kerry Hayes for Screen Gems

These type of formulaic films, marketed toward a Valentine’s Day holiday, lack warmth because they lack the element of honesty and reality. Studios think that pairing a hunk and a hottie is enough, that audiences will swoon over them and not even consider the story. This mistake is always indicated in the box office numbers past the opening weekend, because after the date crowd hustles to see Channing and Rachel, would they recommend this film past the initial rush? Unlikely.

Love stories are hard, because there is no universality to them. It seems like every coupling in history has their own fingerprint in the way they came together. The fingerprint of “The Vow” is difficult to distinguish, the unique lines and ridges are all blurred.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO– There are various opinions about TV-to-movie remakes, mostly negative. That is why “21 Jump Street,” based on a 1980s TV show, manages some grudging respect. Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube, Rob Riggle, Nick Offerman and Ellie Kemper create some goofy laughs in this farce.

This is not a serious effort to try and recreate the 1980s vibe of the TV show or even attempt to be serious. It is straight out buffoonery, anchored by Hill and Tatum’s absurd police recruit characters. The film also features some killer supporting players, the creme de la cremé of the ironic comedy scene. Although sometimes it veers into action movie mode, and is pretty blithe about the gunplay, Jump Street is a place worth visiting, if only to slip on a banana peel.

Jonah Hill is Schmidt and Channing Tatum is Jenko, newly minted police officers who ran with different crowds back in high school – the nerdy and bookish Schmidt was in contrast to the popular jock Jenko. When they meet again at the police academy they form an unlikely alliance, using what they know best to help each other through the cop training. There first assignment upon graduation is bike patrol in the park, and they overstep their authority during a botched drug bust.

Channing Tatum (Jenko) and Jonah Hill (Schmidt) Flashback to High School in ‘21 Jump Street’ Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

This gets them a meeting with the inflexible Deputy Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman), who re-assigns them to a new undercover unit, located at – wait for it – 21 Jump Street. There they meet Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), the angry team leader, who briefs Schmidt and Jenko on the finer points of going back to high school, where their youthful looks will hopefully result in infiltrating a drug ring. In rediscovering their past in the present, they learn more about themselves than just procedural police work.

The description was an attempt to keep a straight face while reciting the standard buddy cop scenario, which mimics what the film was doing throughout. This was a comical satire of the straight police action movie or drama, and any inklings of getting back to plot was met with some laughable non-sequitur. The script was co-written by Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall (“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) and every raised eyebrow was tinged with a hint of “we’re just joking.”

Most impressive was the gathering of small and large supporting roles that created even more of a surreal atmosphere. Nick Offerman, who through his absurd character Ron Swanson on TV’s “Parks and Recreation,” is building a comic reputation just by showing up. Ellie Kemper (“Bridesmaids”) is a highlight as the teacher-who-has-a-crush-on-a-student, with her ardor toward Tatum’s Jenko. Rob Riggle as Coach Walters is another funny guy just showing up, and Chris Parnell is perfectly officious (as usual) portraying drama teacher Mr. Gordon. They even nod to the TV series, as Holly Robinson Peete revives her Judy Hoffs role, and solves every crime with virtually no recognition. Did anyone know that James Franco had an acting relative? Brother Dave plays a student criminal.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are contrasting bookends as the cop buddies, cutting up through high school again. The flashbacks to their initial HS experience is pretty funny, Hill having an era-appropriate Eminem look, and Tatum getting to show off some comic chops as both the meathead jock and his later incarnation. The duo seemed much more at home with the comedy than the action sequences, which was expected for Hill, not so much for Tatum.

Hot for Student: Ellie Kemper (Ms. Griggs) and Channing Tatum in ‘21 Jump Street’ Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

There were some moments when the film was unsure whether this wanted to be a comedy or an action picture, but most of the gunplay and chases were cartoonish. Sometimes the weapons use gets a little much, but that’s probably the zany point, and Jonah Hill gets his chance to dance with the happiness of a warm gun. There are some uneven sequences that indicate some choppy and last minute editing, but it’s a comedy so let’s get to the funny parts.

This was more successful than the similarly rebooted “Starsky and Hutch” of a few years back, only because of the right decision to bring it up to date – no cumbersome 1980s references – and to completely deconstruct the high school premise. Quote whore alert! “These newbie cops write their own ticket to hilarity.”

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO– It turns out that Channing Tatum did a bit of male stripping on the way up the show business ladder, which adds some spice and verisimilitude to “Magic Mike,” a backstage tale about the masculine side of theatrical disrobing, supported by Matthew McConaughey and Alex Pettyfer.

Boys just want to have fun in this male version of “Showgirls” – complete with the naive-kid-turned-exposed-performer and a clichéd subplot about his downfall. Channing Tatum is the centerpiece as the title character, and actually adds some depth into a solid story directed with a sharp edge by Steven Soderbergh. Throw in Matthew McConaughey in full “McCounaughey Mode,” and all will leave the theater exclaiming his catchphrase, “all right, all right!”

Tatum is Mike, a mysterious “entrepreneur” who meets a 19 year-old employment drifter named Adam (Alex Pettyfer) at a roofing job. He sees Adam later in the evening, and needs his help. Mike assigns Adam to start recruiting women to a male strip club, and once the duo finally gets to that club it is revealed that Mike is “Magic Mike,” one of the featured strippers in elaborately staged shows. Besides Mike, there are performers like “Big Dick” Ritchie (Joe Manganiello) and the host/owner at the club, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey).

Beef on the 4th of July: Matthew McConaughey (left, as Dallas) and Channing Tatum (Mike) in ‘Magic Mike’ Photo credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

Adam starts doing odd jobs around the club, until one of the strippers can’t get to the stage. Like a flashy ingenue that steps in for the star on opening night, Adam becomes “The Kid,” and becomes one of the performing brotherhood. This also comes with the backstage drugs, alcohol and women, and The Kid does succumb to those problems, much to the chagrin of his sister Brooke (Cody Horn). In trying to keep The Kid on the straight and narrow, Magic Mike also develops feelings for Brooke, just as his stripping “career” looks like it’s winding down.

The comparison to the movie “Showgirls” is crystalized by two components in the film. The male stripper shows are elaborately costumed and staged, like the fantasy presentations of the previous film. These shows are appropriately outrageous, and will surely become a bachelorette (and gay bachelor) party favor for years to come. And like “Showgirls,” the wet-behind-the-ears innocence of The Kid becomes a plot point, as in everything that seems fun and perfect about the male stripper universe becomes perverted by outside temptations.

The direction by Steven Soderbergh does give the film some depth, as he does emphasize the inner journeys of these characters within the screenplay (by Reid Carolin). Given that Channing Tatum is somewhat telling is own story – and was instrumental in getting the film made – he really shines as Magic Mike, both as a performer on stage and in the creation of the character. His ambivalence about continuing the stripper life, even though he has other dreams, is realistically communicated.

The supporting cast executes as well, Alex Pettyfer offers a low-key spin on The Kid, starting as a bright-eyed newbie and ending up being destroyed by that callowness. Cody Horn as sister Brooke – and Mike’s love interest – represents the real world with a willowy sexiness. Joe Manganiello (“True Blood”) personifies “Big Dick” Ritchie with his over-sized presence. And finally the great Matthew McConaughey cements his movie persona as club owner Dallas, pouring on the all-right-all-right catchphrase, taking the character and his on-screen personality to the height of self parody.

Cody Horn (Brooke) and Channing Tatum in ‘Magic Mike’ Photo credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

There is not much new on the surface of “Magic Mike.” It is a backstage narrative in the tradition of “The Rose” or “A Star is Born,” in which the eager-to-please performer becomes crushed by their own success and later excess. The difference in this film is that male stripping has a shorter shelf life, and holding onto it has implications, in which Tatum, screenwriter Carolin and Steven Soderbergh expose in a less-than-flattering light.

But there also is beefcake, a lot of large fun in the male attributes of the strip shows and full metal Matthew McConaughey. This is the celebration the founding fathers intended when declaring our independence, “all right, all right, all right!”

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO– The beauty of the movies is their ability to create weird parallel universes, where young dance crews have the choreography skills of a hip-hop Bob Fosse, the time/funding to create this dance and a law enforcement culture that allows it. Welcome to the “Step Up Revolution.”

This the fourth installment of the Step Up series of films, and the first two helped launch the career of Channing Tatum. There is a major difference in this chapter – instead of dance crews competing with one another, they use their choreographic power to create flash mobs. This makes for some energetic and entertaining dance moments in this exercise, but the story in between the grooves is ludicrous and laughable. But were there ever such complaints about a Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland similarity back in the day? As in those features, it’s not about the story, it’s about hey-kids-let’s-put-on-a-flash-mob.

Sean (Ryan Guzman) is a guy from the wrong side of the tracks in Miami, if the wrong side of the tracks is now defined by a comfortable middle class house and a hip salsa club down the street. Like Batman, he morphs into the leader of The Mob, a dance crew who stage elaborate flash mobs (planned outbreaks of dancing in public, usually filmed and played on YouTube). They are seeking a monetary prize in a download contest, with the clear winner being YouTube.

Dancers Take to the Streets in ‘Step Up Revolution’ Photo credit: Sam Emerson for Summit Entertainment

Sean works at a hotel, owned by affable land baron from Cleveland named Anderson (Peter Gallagher), and his daughter Emily (Kathryn McCormick). Emily is an aspiring fine arts dancer, in Miami to compete for a spot in a world renown troupe. Emily and Sean meet, dancing of course, and the “Juliet” longs to be in the “Romeo’s” world. She joins The Mob, even when they start protesting her Dad’s hotel project that will bulldoze Sean’s neighborhood. Can dance defeat capitalism? Maybe in this universe.

We get it. In this story, George Bailey has a three-day beard growth and washboard abs, and Mr. Potter wears nice suits and really isn’t a villain. Yep, the story is recycled from everywhere and is not the point of the experience. It is the dance moments, which are creatively rendered both in choreography and the way the director (Scott Speer) puts them together. There are a ton of movement styles in the movie, including the aforementioned Fosse. The flash mob spotlight is on a “Mad Men” style anti-development protest, with a follow-up that was creepily reminiscent of the recent Colorado shooting incident. Both had impact though, and both were strangely alluring.

The two leads have a decent chemistry, but it would be hard to imagine each of these beautiful creatures being free of any sexual politics. Guzman was a little more natural, and handled even the dopiest lines with ease. McCormick was a more tentative actor, but expressed herself spectacularly when she was dancing. She is a veteran of the “So You Think You Can Dance” competition show, and that experience had to prepare her for the various styles she expresses. There is a pas de deux (ballet) that is the centerpiece of Sean and Emily’s relationship, and it plays out in the conclusion. They communicate their love through this odd coda, but dammit, it worked and spoke to McCormick’s immense dance talent.

It’s impossible to wonder how they would put a better story together, the screenplay assignment for the Step Up series would challenge Robert Towne. But at least they needed to cast the supporting roles a little better. Sean’s sister (Megan Boone), for example, recited her lines as if at gunpoint. The salsa bar that Sean and his crew hang out at is movie set sharp, in contrast to the pool bar at the luxury hotel, which looks like death by theme. Yes, the neighborhood is symbolically the 99% in the movie, minus the large offers of cash from the developers for their properties. The salsa bar owner says he “rents,” but would the owner turn down the ready cash if the price was right? Nope.

Sean (Ryan Guzman) and Emily (Kathryn McCormick) are a Coosome Twosome in ‘Step Up Revolution’ Photo credit: Sam Emerson for Summit Entertainment

See, when there is an attempt to analyze a Step Up movie, any injection of reality is fool’s gold. The Mob are outsiders, but are also insiders, with none of the punishing psychosis that sometimes characterizes “the other side of the tracks.” Hey kids, let’s get a loft space and enough costumes (that fit) to supply a road company of “Follies.”

Sitting in the first showing of the morning for “Step Up Revolution.” with the theater three quarters full, indicates that the audience is primed for this entertainment. When it comes to the dance, bring on the moves and damn the critical torpedoes.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.5/5.0

CHICAGO– “10 Years” unintentionally backfires by proving that a real-life Hollywood couple – Channing Tatum and his actual spouse of three years Jenna Dewan-Tatum – has less on-screen chemistry than two actors who’ve practically never met.

Attempting to capitalize on everything we loved, hated and have certainly never forgotten about high school, “10 Years” is a somewhat effective blast to the past that mixes the seemingly authentic moments of various intersecting characters with forced attempts at overly obvious Hollywood screenwriting.

From top left to lower right, “10 Years” high school pictures:
Channing Tatum, Rosario Dawson, Justin Long, Kate Mara, Chris Pratt and Ari Graynor.
Image credit: Anchor Bay Films

Exploiting nostalgia as its primary sales tool and Channing Tatum as its linchpin casting credit, I watched the progression of some of the characters and their stories indifferently. For others, my life would have been improved without them and the film would have benefited by cutting the bloat they added to the project.

But there was one and only one bewitching story – with actual enchantment and intrigue – that I felt like I had to watch. It wasn’t co-leads Channing Tatum (Jake) and Rosario Dawson (Mary). Their characters have moved on to other people since a flame that lasted throughout high school. And it wasn’t even Jake with his real-life wife Jenna Dewan-Tatum (Jess), who played his current lover.

Jenna Dewan-Tatum (left) and Channing Tatum in “10 Years”.
Image credit: Colleen Hayes, Anchor Bay Films

Instead, anyone attempting courtship should have emulated the romance between Kate Mara (Elise) and Oscar Isaac (Reeves). Their backstory was never even realized and, of course, is propelled with titillation because its undertone is infidelity. They’re the only two you actually root for in this film and grow to care about – all while their affair is the most unethical of all.

I’m frequently critical of on-screen chemistry because so often it feels acted and disingenuous. Reeves and Elise feel like they were given a script and direction, but they burned it and simply actually fell in love. Unfortunately, this can’t be said about the rest of the film’s characters, whose themes predictably revolve around similar excavations of past love and current testing to see if any sparks remain.

One interesting and actually unexpected twist comes from “John Carter” star Lynn Collins (Anna). She’s just at the high school reunion hoping to relive her “glow” of yesteryear before having to go back to feeling sorry for herself in single momdom.

Kate Mara (left) and Oscar Isaac in “10 Years”.
Image credit: Colleen Hayes, Anchor Bay Films

Successful bachelor Justin Long (Marty) and unhappily married Max Minghella (AJ) – who tries to vicariously live through his single friend by helping him score high school’s most-wanted triumph – admittedly intersect Anna’s secret pity party in an overly scripted and forced way.

Yes, of course, so often do we try to bag high school’s hottest chick 10 years later, fail to, follow her home to litter her house in toilet paper and then end up making late-night dinner with her kids you never knew existed. That happens just as often as politicians telling the truth.

Written and directed by Hollywood newbie Jamie Linden – who wrote “Dear John,” which also starred Channing Tatum with Amanda Seyfried – and produced by Channing Tatum and the producers of Tatum’s “Magic Mike,” the DNA of this decently cast ensemble film has Channing Tatum in it, on it and everywhere between.

Justin Long (left) and Max Minghella in “10 Years”.
Image credit: Colleen Hayes, Anchor Bay Films

While the film is billed as a comedy, drama and romance, it’s going for too much across too many genres when it can’t even master any one of them. In truth, “10 Years” is a drama under the guise of a film that lacks nearly any comedy and only grazes the surface of a romance.

Chris Pratt (Cully) is scripted in as comic relief, but these days, we need more than just getting blasted, stripping down to a wife beater and singing god-awful karaoke. If that’s all it takes to be funny today, we’d have enough comedy from Britney Spears. But alas, Cully’s somewhat funny but mostly not character reveals the most disappointing role in the film from one of Hollywood’s most talented new stars: Ari Graynor.

Following “Mystic River,” “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and then “The Sitter,” we finally see and enjoy the talented chops she has in her co-leading role in 2012’s “For a Good Time, Call…” (where she also served as executive producer).

Channing Tatum (left) and Rosario Dawson star in “10 Years”.
Image credit: Colleen Hayes, Anchor Bay Films

But transitioning from that spicy, vulgar and actually comedic role to this vomitus version of one is a career regression. In “10 Years,” she’s the plain June Cleaver wifey of a guy she’s always apologizing for who has to babysit her loose-cannon husband as much as her kids.

When not trying to and failing at making you giggle, that’s when this film finds some honesty and has moments at tearing at your heartstrings. “10 Years” is like an elementary-school version of Lawrence Kasdan’s Oscar-nominated comedy/drama “The Big Chill”. That 1983 film, which stars Tom Berenger and Glenn Close, timelessly stands up as one of the best reunion films in recent decades.

By ADAMFENDELMAN Publisher HollywoodChicago.com adam@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 4.5/5.0

CHICAGO– Steven Soderbergh has given interviews in which he claims that his latest film, the fantastic “Side Effects,” will be his last. As much as I have my doubts that this is true, it makes more sense after viewing the thriller starring Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Channing Tatum. It plays like a proof of the auteur theory; like a “Greatest Hits” of Soderbergh’s career.

With elements that remind one of “Contagion,” “”Sex, Lies, & Videotape,” “The Girlfriend Experience,” “The Underneath,” and much more, it is a testament to the man’s incredible ability that he can blend all of these different styles and creative visions into one highly-entertaining piece of work. “Side Effects” not only draws on Soderbergh’s career but has conscious echoes of Roman Polanski, Brian De Palma, and Alfred Hitchcock as well. I hope it’s not one of the modern era’s best director’s final film but it would be fitting if it was.

Side Effects
Photo credit: Open Road Films

Emily Taylor (the great Rooney Mara of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) is going through a rough period. Her husband Martin (Channing Tatum, making his third Soderbergh appearance in just over a year after “Haywire” and “Magic Mike”) is about to be released from prison after doing a few years for insider trading. Emily has stayed loyal to Martin as her world collapsed and her spouse’s release seems to trigger an emotional upheaval. She breaks into tears randomly. She disappears into the “poisonous fog” of depression and even attempts suicide by driving her car into a brick wall in a parking garage.

After the accident, Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) comes to visit Emily and sees a woman in trouble. She refuses to be admitted to the hospital for observation but agrees to see Dr. Banks regularly. The doctor cannot quite crack Emily, even after going to visit her old psychologist, Dr. Sebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and learning more about his fascinating patient’s back story. Dr. Sebert suggests a new drug, Ablixxa, one that is being heavily advertised as the cure for what ails ya. Emily begins taking the drug but, of course, it has some side effects.

Side Effects
Photo credit: Open Road Films

Don’t get ahead of this movie. While this brief, first-act synopsis may make “Side Effects” sound like a modern treatise against the over-drugging of our society and what could result (a “Contagion” for the Prozac scene), it really only hints at where “Side Effects” goes from there. Don’t worry. It is not a message movie, although I do think that Soderbergh and regular writer Scott Z. Burns (“Contagion,” “The Informant!”) have very purposefully crafted a thriller with elements that indict our mental health industry and the way it too quickly reaches for the prescription pad, that might make “Side Effects” sound a little dry. It is most certainly not. It is Sodebergh’s most traditional thriller, borderline noir, in years. I can’t tell you how without spoiling some of the film’s many twists but “Side Effects” is probably not the movie you think it is in the first act.

That first act has echoes of Polanski’s wonderful, urban paranoia films like “Repulsion” as Soderbergh (under the pseudonym of Peter Andrews) shoots the “wounded bird” of Mara often from below or above, heightening the claustrophobia of a city in which millions can feel alone despite being in such close proximity. Then the film twists and Soderbergh/Andrews & Burns bring a different, pulpier style that’s more reminiscent of De Palma when he so blatantly mimicked Hitchcock. Technically, it’s a marvelous piece of work as Soderbergh proves defter with his camera with every film. The Thomas Newman score adds a trippy feeling to the movie that I found a bit overplayed at times but almost plays like a character in the final acts. When the piano keys start to play, something bad is going to happen.

Side Effects
Photo credit: Open Road Films

Soderbergh draws fantastic performances from his entire cast but the film belongs to Mara and Law. The former has proven herself one of the best of her generation in works like “Dragon Tattoo” and “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” and this is just another complex turn from this future award-winner but Law is the real surprise. He is better here than he has been in years, possibly ever as a leading man. He turns Dr. Banks into a captivating character filled with gray areas and questions about his own past. He is charming but also devious (and neither of those adjectives in the obvious ways that lesser actors would have chosen).

I have long been an admirer of technical craft. Some of my favorite modern directors are the ones who most masterfully pay attention to every little detail (David Fincher, Michael Mann, Joel & Ethan Coen, and more). When one watches “Side Effects” (or nearly any Soderbergh film for that matter), there is a sense that not a shot is wasted, not a line of dialogue not fully considered, and not a technical element ignored. It is the work of a master craftsman. And as much as it comments on what he’s done so far, I have every hope that it is merely the end of an act and not the end of the play.

By BRIANTALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO– “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is the kind of dumb summer action blockbuster that works in the season when the kids aren’t in school and the movie theater is used as an excuse to get in the air conditioning as much as see anything approaching filmmaking. It nearly works in March. Nearly.

There are some great action sequences, some fun performances, and the kind of macho nonsense that appealed to the 13-year-old boy inside of me who never grew up. At the same time, there’s a plot that makes almost NO sense, clunky plotting, and horrendous 3D converting after the fact that makes the fight choreography look awful. So, it comes down to how forgiving you are of the latter and how much you’re itching to see the former. When I say, “dumb fun,” do you focus on the first word or the second one? That will determine whether or not you should see “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.”

Stick with me here. The plot recap is gonna get a bit rocky. The Joes, led by Duke (Channing Tatum) and featuring Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), Mouse (Joseph Mazello), and Flint (D.J. Cotrona), are sent to Pakistan to retrieve some nuclear weapons by the President (Jonathan Pryce). Only it turns out that the President is really Zartan (Arnold Vosloo, although he has no lines) in disguise. President Zartan frames the Joes and has most of them killed in his plan to plunge the world into Cobra chaos. At the same time, he sends Firefly (Ray Stevenson) to break Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey) out of a legendary underground prison. And I can’t even get started on figuring out exactly how RZA and Bruce Willis got into the plot. Oh, and Jinx (Elodie Yung) and Snake Eyes (Ray Park) get involved at some point. Don’t ask me how.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Don’t ask the writers either. There are chunks of “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” that make absolutely no sense. And when the film doesn’t take itself seriously, this nonsensical, cartoonish plotting didn’t bother me. It is based on a toy line and cartoon series, friends. Let’s not expect “Inception.” And there are a few actors and set pieces in which this blockbuster aspect of “Retaliation” really works. For example, Jonathan Pryce is having an absolute blast as the kind of maniacal world leader who plays “Angry Birds” as World War III is starting. He’s great fun in both roles (the still-alive, “real” President and the Zartan-in-disguise one). It’s also worth noting that a few of the actors really get the charismatic action star thing, most notably Johnson, Lee, Stevenson, and Palicki. They’re more fun and well-cast than most blockbuster actors you’ll see this summer.

So why not give “Retaliation” a pass? I’m tempted and I honestly might have if it weren’t for the stupid, boneheaded, nonsensical decision to convert it into 3D after the fact just to get a bit more of your cash. When the 3D isn’t completely useless – half of the film doesn’t seem to have any of it all – it’s annoying. The 3D post-filming conversion process makes a film with an action aesthetic like this (choppy) almost impossible to watch. You can barely tell what the hell is going on in 2D and the third dimension makes that worse. If you have the choice, avoid the 3D version.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

The only time that the 3D is effective is in the best sequence in the film and what will be one of the best action scenes of the year – a mountaintop, wire-fu sequence with Jinx, Snake Eyes, and a gaggle of red ninjas waiting to fall to their doom. It’s a great scene, the kind that would have sealed the deal for me 25 years ago and I’d be lying if I said otherwise. And while it’s the best scene in the film, there are some other notable action sequences. The prison break and the general chaos of the climax are both way more enjoyable than the entirety of “Olympus Has Fallen” or “A Good Day to Die Hard.”

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation” should have been better. Tighten up the plotting. Kill half of the “we’re doing it for our dead brothers” dialogue (not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just overdone). A little more Palicki & Johnson, a lot less RZA, maybe no Willis. As is, it’s a near-miss, a movie that I’ll probably end up watching on cable if it pops on but will have forgotten in two months when the real blockbusters like “Star Trek Into Darkness” and “Fast & the Furious 6” truly deliver the dumb fun. Hey, maybe some of it will even be kinda smart.

By BRIANTALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 1.5/5.0

CHICAGO– How could a movie in which the President shoots a rocket from the back of a limousine during a car chase on the White House lawn possibly be boring? Roland Emmerich somehow finds a way in the numbing “White House Down,” a movie that make absolutely no sense but fails to entertain as B-movie escapism (as his movies sometimes have in the past).

I found this one just tedious, bloated, and silly. There’s such a fine line between being over-the-top enough to be entertaining and just being ridiculous. “White House Down” is ridiculous.

The movie in which Magic Mike and Django stop World War III opens with a wannabe Secret Service Agent named Cale (Channing Tatum) taking his daughter Emily (Joey King) on a tour of the White House. The too-smart-for-her-age young woman is a huge fan of politics and adores the charismatic President Sawyer (Jamie Foxx). As with most of these “Die Hard in a ____” movies, Cale picks the wrong day to bring his daughter to the place he wants to work when the most insanely unorganized and unbelievable assault on a government in world history begins.

White House Down
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

This is not a spoiler. It’s revealed very early. The head of President Sawyer’s Secret Service detail is about to retire. In fact, it’s his last day. And he’s going out with a coup. Agent Walker (James Woods) feels like his President and his country have betrayed him, especially after the death of his son in a covert op authorized by Sawyer. And so he unleashes the most infamous enemies of the U.S. government, including Jason Clarke & Jimmi Simpson, on the White House. In an assault that seems both simultaneously incredibly coordinated (they have heavy weapons on the roof to take down any air attack designed to stop them) and stunningly stupid (they couldn’t wait till off-hours when there might not be a tour going on?), Walker’s gang takes the White House.

As the coordinator for the Secret Service (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Speaker of the House (Richard Jenkins), and Vice President (Michael Murphy) worry about who will run the country if the President is captured, Cale goes to work. He not only has to save the daughter who was detached from the tour group just before the assault but he gets to the President’s side and becomes his only hope. Can Cale get the President to safety, go back and get his daughter, and stop World War III? Of course he can.

White House Down
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

Echoes of “Olympus Has Fallen” will naturally ring in viewer’s ears and the similarities are even more than you might expect going in. The scenes of assault on the actual White House feel like they could have been cribbed from the same storyboards, although Emmerich’s technical team is undeniably more accomplished. The actual structure where the majority of “WHD” takes place feels more legitimate in its design and Emmerich is better at staging the big sequences than Fuqua. There’s also not as much violence in “WHD” although it’s one of the hardest PG-13s in history if one pauses for even a second to think about what’s happening. More than one person meets the fate that accompanies a live grenade. That’s OK in a PG-13. Saying the f-word twice? Too dangerous.

I’m getting off target. A movie like “White House Down” makes that easy to do. I know what you’re probably thinking at this point. Taking shots at a Roland Emmerich movie is like a music critic panning a boy band CD. It’s too easy. Emmerich’s films don’t set out to be anything more than escapist entertainment (criticisms of his blatant xenophobia aside) and so we shouldn’t be too hard on them. Embracing that idea, I won’t be too hard on “White House Down.” I won’t consider the first dull performance by Tatum since his career resurgence. I won’t comment on how everyone but Foxx & Clarke are playing it way too straight when this material demanded a bit more of a wink and a nod to its ridiculousness. And I won’t talk about the fact that it’s at least 30 minutes too long (the set-up is ENDLESS…seriously, you can show up half an hour late).

I’ll just leave it at this – the worst thing that a B-movie summer blockbuster can be is boring. Other than that car chase scene, I was numbingly bored. There aren’t enough twists (the big twist in the final act is one everyone who has seen a movie before will see coming), the action scenes aren’t memorable, and the dialogue is dull. “White House Down” is the thing that Emmerich films want to be least of all – forgettable.

By BRIANTALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 4.5/5.0

CHICAGO– The funniest movie in a long while features no human beings, just animated bland faces among interlocking plastic bricks, the toys which inspired the film. “The LEGO Movie” never takes itself seriously, which means huge laughs for the audience.

Combining parts of a Big Brother “1984” plot with a raft of pop culture references, the animated 3D film succeeds through great comic writing that is never lazy or expected. There are a million jokes you can make about Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Abraham Lincoln, “Star Wars” and so on, but all the jokes made in “The LEGO Movie” are sharp and impeccably timed. This is a film in which the laughs just keep coming, floating like waves on the Lego sea (yes, water is made of Legos, everything is made of Legos). To get happy for 100 minutes, put this film in the entertainment line-up.

The Lego society is specifically structured. Each individual citizen is designed for their job, and they happily go about them – while buying expensive coffee and singing the big hit, “Everything is Awesome.” Emmet (voice of Chris Pratt) is one of those citizens, so bland that his co-workers can’t quite place him. Everything changes when Emmet discovers a infiltrator named WildStyle (Elizabeth Banks), who thinks Emmet is the “MasterBuilder,” a savior foretold by prophecy.

Everything is Awesome in ‘The LEGO Movie’
Photo credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

There is a plan to actually destroy society for control, perpetrated by President Business (Will Ferrell), and Emmet becomes the unlikely Legotian to stop the plan. With the help of Batman (Will Arnett), a pirate named Metal Beard (Nick Offerman), a Unicorn Kitty named Unikitty (Alison Brie), 1980s Astronaut Benny (Charlie Day) and a guru name Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), they might be able to save this interlocking universe.

Let’s start with the art design of the 3D animation, which is funny in itself. Everything, even elements like fire and water, are made of Legos. Most impressive is the Lego sea, which a pirate ship jokingly skates upon. Once the movie hits the DVD shelves, freeze frames will be a stitch. The characters are also quite funny. They are the bland-faced Lego characters that have spanned two generations of kids, and many jokes are made about their expressions, led by the Liam Neeson-voiced good cop/bad cop.

The script, manufactured and strung together by co-directors Christopher Miller and Phil Lord (“Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”) is a amazing pastiche of gags, great pop culture jokes and visual hilarity. The duo especially have fun with the persona of Batman, and Arnett gives him a perfect voice. The advantage of writing the script and directing the animation is in full bloom here.

The cast is having a good time as well. Banks is a perfect exasperated action heroine, who takes grief for her preferred nickname of WildStyle (“are you a D.J.?”). There are a ton of familiar voice cameos, some doing their original characters (Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian), and even Freeman is goofier as Vitruvius and makes fun of his voiceover seriousness.

President Business (voice of Will Ferrell) in ‘The LEGO Movie’
Photo credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

There is a live-action sequence, and it does jar the proceedings a bit – but it is there to make a point about the lesson-to-be-learned, and to parallel the Lego world within a child’s imagination. It’s possible they didn’t even need the lesson or the parallel world, but in the sense of what the real and imagined was trying to express, so be it. It adds a few laughs, and has a bit of heart. What else do you want for your extra 3D movie fee?

When is the last time you really laughed hard at a film? “The LEGO Movie” is guaranteed to provide that fun, and believe in this – it doesn’t happen that often in modern cinema. What a lofty term to use (“modern cinema”) for so much joy.

By PATRICK McDONALD Senior Staff Writer HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO– “22 Jump Street” is a big budget Hollywood sequel that actively comments on the diminishing returns of sequels. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller know that for every “Lethal Weapon 2,” that manages to surpass the original, there are a dozen “Another 48 Hours” that try and fail to give audiences an approximation of what they enjoyed before.

The original “21 Jump Street” succeeded because it wrapped its own crappy jokes in a cocoon of meta commentary and irony. If anything “22 Jump Street” takes that element to even more hyper self aware extremes, but it also risks becoming its own self fulfilling prophesy.

My Old School: Schmidt (Channing Tatum) and Jenko (Jonah Hill) in ’22 Jump Street’
Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

The plot sends the team of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill undercover in college to sniff out the supplier of a new drug after a young girl’s untimely death. The drug is called why-fy and it offers 4 hours of adderal-type laser focus followed by an acid trip. This time it’s Tatum who falls in with the frat boys and football players. He’s having the time of his life and befriending a quarterback nicknamed zook (Wyatt Russell). Meanwhile Hill falls in with the art student crowd and gets to know a girl (Amber Stevens) who lived across the hall from victim.

If all that sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the exact same plot as the first film, and Lord and Miller and the entire cast are there to point it out at seemingly every opportunity. There are also jokes about the presumably bigger budgets in sequels, the extra costs and higher expectations. The filmmakers find inventive ways to comment on the production itself, including a chase scene where Tatum and Hill try to divert their vehicle to less expensive locales to save the production money. Ice Cube is back doing his take on the angry black police captain archetype. He gets in one of the movie’s slyest jokes commenting on the cost of his footwear which will sadly go unseen by the movie-going audience.

The script’s two go-to punchlines are old jokes, and gay jokes. The jokes about how old these supposed college freshman look, while positively ancient themselves, are much more effective. Jillian Bell plays an annoyed roommate and gets most of the best lines.

Tatum and Hill also take the modern bro-mance comedy to its uncomfortable extremes. They bicker like an old married couple who know each others rhythms like the back of their hands. But they continue to make an appealing comedy team. Their ying and yang chemistry provides a constant jolt of energy for material that is admittedly nothing special in the first place. That material also piles on the gay jokes and homoeroticism to a wearisome degree.

Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) Returns in ’22 Jump Street’
Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

The visual jokes come fast and furious. At times directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller approach “Airplane” style lunacy in their anything-fo-a-laugh aesthetic. But knowing that you’re repeating yourself and making fun of yourself for it doesn’t necessarily make it that much funnier.

The film hums along with a steady stream of chuckles, but never produces any big laughs. The film ends with a seemingly endless series of premises for sequels, complete with posters and taglines of widely varying degrees of effectiveness. They all seem scarily plausible though – let’s hope this series quits while its ahead.

By SPIKEWALTERS Contributor HollywoodChicago.com spike@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.5/5.0

CHICAGO– Unfortunately you can’t judge “The Book Of Life” by its cover. The movie draws on the fertile imagery of the Mexican “Day Of The Dead” to create its own animated world. The animation is excellent and the wooden characters seem to spring to life – but those performances are as wooden as a board. Which also describes my feelings for most of this uninspired journey…bored.

The film doesn’t have the courage to go its own way, instead it uses the window dressing of its distinctive look to paper over a story that is firmly stuck in the material world of mediocrity. Trouble begins from the onset with an uninspired framing device involving grade school slackers touring a museum and learning about the Mexican cultural traditions – complete with a map showing Mexico with a giant bandito mustache. These modern characters seem to have been inspired by the BRATZ dolls with grotesquely oversized heads.

The Animated Cast of ‘The Book of Life’
Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

In the brief prologue describing the “Day Of The Dead,” the loved ones of families on earth either reside in the land of the remembered (which is a sort of heavenly limbo) or the land of the forgotten (which is as dark and depressing as a corner of hell). These two worlds are ruled over by a bickering spirit couple La Muerte and Xibalba (Kate de Catillo and Ron Perlman). Viewing two best friends Joaquin and Monolo (Diego Luna and Channing Tatum) playing in the street with their friend Maria (Zoe Saldana), they make a bet over which boy will grow up to marry her.

From there you have the beginnings of an interesting story that jumps between the terrestrial world and the sprits pulling the strings. But director and co-writer Jorge Gutierrez then follows the road well traveled for yet another animated road picture. That would be fine, if the characters he created had humor, charm, or genuine emotions to go with their distinctive look. But they don’t.

Maria (Voice of Zoe Saldana) in ‘The Book of Life’
Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

Channing Tatum indulges his worst tendencies for wooden acting while playing an actual piece of wood who is as generic a hero/warrior as they come. Diego Luna isn’t much better playing his best friend who initially wins Maria’s heart, then through supernatural trickery is sent into the spirit world and must find his way back out to the land of the living.

I wanted to like “The Book Of Life” but I couldn’t shake the sense of deja vu through the whole thing – right down to the wooden pig named Chuly who seems inspired by the success of the Minions of “Despicable Me” (not necessary a good thing). For a movie about the spirit world, “The Book Of Life” has very little spirit of its own.

By SPIKEWALTERS Contributor HollywoodChicago.com spike@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO– In the memorable film “Barton Fink,” the title character is asked to write a wrestling movie for Wallace Beery. If Fink had isolated himself long enough, he might have come up with “Foxcatcher,” demonstrating once again that a true story is much stranger than fiction.

Directed by Bennett Miller (“Capote”), the film is a dreamy nightmare, if that contradiction in terms can be used a descriptive. It is quietly weird, featuring performances from three popular actors – Steve Carell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo – that stretch them beyond anything else they’ve ever done. The story of one of the wealthiest men in the world, John du Pont (of the du Pont chemical dynasty), as he tries to grasp some kind of identity and acceptance, is proof that no one gets out of their lives without some connection to the very emotions that can uplift or destroy them. The thing that makes you great also has the power to deny you.

The American life for a medal winning Olympic wrestler is not the same as for more high profile and profitable sports. Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) is one such wrestler, mining for pennies until he gets a mysterious call. It is John du Pont (Steve Carell), who has taken an interest in the sport, and is willing to allow Mark to train at his specially built facility on the du Pont estate.

Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) and John du Pont (Steve Carell) in ‘Foxcatcher’
Photo credit: Sony Pictures Classics

The motives of the odd du Pont are unclear, but Mark takes the offer. Soon he realizes that part of his commitment is to get his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) to also join the compound. When this becomes difficult, so does the relationship between du Pont and Mark. Even when Dave does join in, the downward spiral has begun, leading to actions that go beyond sporting match-ups.

There is never really an explanation behind the enigmatic du Pont, and Carell portrays him in that mystery. The use and manipulation of his wealth – tied into his attitude – is never brought forward until he finds it necessary to attack others, which is a key to his overall personality. The frostiness that du Pont brings into a room is the practice of generations, and even in his outside pursuits – he is also a published author on the study of birds – he is still a du Pont, and he cannot allow his inherent feelings to overcome that fact.

Carell’s performance is appropriately chilly, but played as one note. There is a hesitation in the portrayal, as if a decision was made early on as to how du Pont – now deceased – would be approached, and no nuance need apply. It is a complete character study for the surface-oriented Carell brand, and although admirable in its risk it needed to go further. Sometimes comic actors have trouble with dramatic roles, in this case there is a fear in Carell’s eyes.

Opposite to that is Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo. Tatum is portraying his most complex character to date, but he fully understands those complications, even though his motives are also unclear – there is a feeling that vital exposition was cut from the film. Ruffalo is the highlight – using a beard, a receding hairline and a bedrock faith in his family life to embody the peculiar Dave Schulz. His scenes with Tatum, for example, are more Svengali-like than familial, making him the juiciest character in the very narrow story spectrum.

Mark is Consoled by Brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) in ‘Foxcatcher’
Photo credit: Sony Pictures Classics

The story is very choppy, as mentioned, and flits from one scene to another without much regard to ambitions or explanations. Timelines are severely shrunk in the telling of the real events, which when the reality is looked up it gives a new meaning to “based on a true story.” There are some things that can’t be manipulated for the purpose of symbolism if dealing with actual happenings. Even if the Lincoln assassination were made into a ballet, Abe wouldn’t have a pas de deux with John Wilkes Booth.

The character study is the thing in this cautionary tale, as du Pont is a King Midas with the inability to touch his own soul, due to his lifelong impression of “family honor.” Anthony Michael Hall has a small role as a dynastic bagman, and his cat-like movements is the “eggshell walk” to keep his cushy gig. Multiple that by billions, and the result is John du Pont.

By PATRICK McDONALD Writer, Editorial Coordinator HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.0/5.0

CHICAGO– “Jupiter Ascending” is certainly one of the oddest and densest of sci-fi movies, this side of “Dune,” and has some of the most laughable acting and dialogue seen in a major film in awhile. But the worst offense is that the film is dull, and practically without emotion or human empathy.

There is one major current Oscar nominee is in the film – Eddie Redmayne – and fellow cast member Channing Tatum is also in the Best Picture nominated “Foxcatcher.” There might be a “Norbit Effect” (the horrible film starring Eddie Murphy, that was released the month he was favored to win Best Supporting Actor for “Dreamgirls,” which has been attributed to his loss of the trophy) for Redmayne, as the character “Balem Abrasax,” which nicely can be described as an “eccentric performance.” Not that anybody else survives the wooden script by Andy and Lana Wachowski (the “Matrix” series), and in addition Mila Kunis portrays a toilet scrubber, as she did in last year’s “Third Person.” It all adds up as mishmash of non-comprehensive moviemaking, both in form and execution, with some showy partially-set-in-Chicago special effects.

Mila Kunis is Jupiter Jones, a Russian emigrant who cleans toilets for a living (as a montage shows us). For some inexplicable reason she is a descendant of the Queen of the Universe, which is ruled in space by a family resembling the Greek Gods. The two brothers are Balem (Eddie Redmayne) and Titus (Douglas Booth), and they vie for the capture of Jupiter’s soul.

Caine (Channing Tatum) and the Title Character (Mila Kunis) in ‘Jupiter Ascending’
Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Luckily, there is a genetically engineered warrior name Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), who is programmed? predisposed? to protect Jupiter, and the stand off becomes between him and the brothers. Through many worlds, spaceships, a destructive fight over modern day Chicago and Channing Tatum’s dog roots, Ms. Jupiter just might be the key to saving the Earth and the Universe.

This is one of those “many explanations” sci-fi flicks, where the action stops so the characters can give a lecture about what is going on, but in “Jupiter Ascending” WESTILLDON’T KNOW what’s going on. Like a comic book trying to sell a new superhero, there is a new power or territorial premise every 15 minutes in this film. For example, bees love Jupiter, which is suppose to mean that she is a Queen of the Universe. That explanation is hilarious, and it did give the special effects team the opportunity to create “background bees.”

The sibling filmmakers – Andy and Lana Wachowski – has lost a step or two in creating original material. In the bloated story, the alien beings have the laziest names, like Titus, Stinger (the bee keeper), Gemma, Greeghan, Phylo and Ibis – ripping off Greek mythology. They also seemed incapable of providing some real human emotions for their characters, and that results in some deadly dull interactions and false love connections. The Wachowski record since the “Matrix” series – “Speed Racer” and “Cloud Atlas” – were mostly noted for their overreach. “Jupiter Ascending” is in overreach overdrive.

The special effects are only interesting when set against the modern day skyline of Chicago (the Wachowski’s headquarters). Caine Wise (giggle) skates on his anti-gravity boots over the city as if he’s a roller blader in Lincoln Park. But not to worry, through some hypnotic power the Windy City doesn’t remember a crazy alien starship battle that occurs over it. The buildings reassemble, and those who do remember are dismissed as loons. How convenient. The rest of the FX is set in outer space, and the production design is overwrought and fashioned to mostly blow up real good.

I WILLWINTHEOSCAR!: Eddie Redmayne as Balem in ‘Jupiter Ascending’
Photo credit: Warner Bros.

And one thing I’ll never understand in epic sci-fi like this, when a “chosen one” is plucked out of everyday obscurity into a new realm of being (Queen of the Universe), that they don’t just scream their heads off for hours, as if in an asylum. The calm reaction of Jupiter to her fate is good for several laughs, along with Oscar nominee Eddie Redmayne’s “Peter O’Toole’s School of Acting” performance as Balem. First talk real softly…THENSHOUTREALLYLOUD! It’s better comedy than “The Wedding Ringer.”

This might be renamed, “Jupiter Con-desending,” for the way it treats the audience and science fiction storytelling. It is half-wit puns like that which keep me in a rubber screening room, screaming at the top of my lungs.

By PATRICK McDONALD Writer, Editorial Coordinator HollywoodChicago.com pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Rating: 2.0/5.0

CHICAGO– You know those amateur porns with no-name actors that use cheesy dialogue in between the sex scenes those viewers simply want? You never expect a real story or actually developed characters because it’s a collection of sex scenes. It’s not a real, you know, movie.

“Magic Mike XXL” is a soft porn with professional, “A”-list actors, but the film’s script takes the same substanceless qualities of its amateur porn brethren. Unlike soft porns, the sequel’s cinematography is Hollywood caliber and its actors know how to act, but its script is just as insulting. And the film’s purpose for being is the same: just to show you their dancing naughty bits with cheap words in between.

Though I’m not the demographic for “Magic Mike XXL,” I can recognize the value of pure shut-your-brain-off entertainment. Sometimes that comes in the form of a brainless popcorn flick that just blows stuff up and uses CGI to make special effects look appealing.

Left to right: Stephen “Twitch” Boss as Malik, Matt Bomer as Ken, Kevin Nash as Tarzan, Joe Manganiello as Richie, Channing Tatum as Mike and Adam Rodriguez as Tito in “Magic Mike XXL”.
Image credit: Warner Bros., Claudette Barius

Other times it’s well-oiled strippers turned actors who revisit their stripper days just to strut around shirtless for two hours and dance into the smooth recesses of every woman’s fantasy. I know “Magic Mike XXL” has that as its primary mission, but I can’t forgive it for having nothing else to say.

Targeting a “girl’s night out” movie, the primary purpose for this film is seeing mostly nude strippers dancing with little concern for the story that propels them. But when a film has a $14.5 million budget and decides to write one of the laziest, non-existent stories I’ve seen in 2015 – and in Tuesday pre-shows it’s outpacing“Terminator Genisys,” which actually attempts to have a real story – something is very wrong and Hollywood is laughing to the bank.

“Terminator Genisys” isn’t a perfect film either, but “Magic Mike XXL” is proving how unintelligent audiences are willing to be in exchange for flashing some flesh and dancing smooth grooves.

Jada Pinkett Smith as Rome in “Magic Mike XXL”.
Image credit: Warner Bros, Claudette Barius

At my female-dominated screening of “Magic Mike XXL,” though, the audience was more vocal, sexified and entertained than any other film I’ve screened in 2015 – certainly much more so than “Fifty Shades of Grey”. The audience at my screening collectively blew a gasket when Channing Tatum first appeared on screen and I threw up in my mouth and spoiled the taste of my hot dog.

When I can sum up a film in one line and have there be nothing beneath the surface, it’s insultingly oversimplified. It’s replacing important cinematic elements – such as the need for an actual story and engaging characters you care about – with superficial fillers like attractive mostly naked dancers.

Here’s the plot: “Group of has-been hot guys get back together to make a sequel for ‘one last ride’ so Jada Pinkett Smith has a reason to be sultry and Channing Tatum can show off more of his abs.” It’s as simple as that.

Channing Tatum as Mike in “Magic Mike XXL”.
Image credit: Warner Bros., Claudette Barius

Their road trip to a stripper convention, which so out of place finds Elizabeth Banks in charge of it, is entirely pointless. It could have just as easily been replaced with a trip to Disney World to pet the dolphins and then strip for all the children’s stressed-out parents. Actually, that would have been a better plot. At least you’d be able to laugh at it instead of this, which treats you like you’re a dumb monkey just wanting a jiggling banana.

“Magic Mike XXL” forgot to watch films like “Striptease” and “Showgirls”. Sure, those films feature women instead of men, but they have the same mission. The difference is “Striptease” and “Showgirls” really do have a story and create actual drama between characters you grow to care about.

It’s unacceptable to defend “Magic Mike XXL” with: “I just wanted to take my girlfriends out for a fun time. I don’t care about the story or the characters.” We’ve seen films that have offered this “fun time” with much more depth and cinematic merit.

Joe Manganiello (center) as Richie in “Magic Mike XXL”.
Image credit: Warner Bros., Claudette Barius

I got somewhat excited for a moment when “Magic Mike XXL” decided to have its strippers throw out their tried-and-true costumes and age-old routines for the notion of originality. But even then, the dances showing off new routines serve no more purpose than to be a collection of one-acts. Perhaps audiences who wanted exactly that would have been happier without any of the “story” and just two straight hours of themed dance sequences instead – one even stealing a page directly from “Fifty Shades of Grey” and other from Bruno Mars’ song “Marry You”.

Even if you’re satiated by the dance sequences and the in-between attempt at a story that tries to build up to them, you can’t say you actually gave a dirty rat’s butt about what happened to anyone or were invested in anything except for escaping your regular life for 115 minutes. The only character who had an ounce of interesting plot progression going for her is Amber Heard as Zoe.

Zoe is a mysterious, aloof, flaky and free-spirited woman who artificially gets wrapped in Channing Tatum’s stripper web because he happens to be peeing in the woods while she conveniently pops up to heckle him. But for a moment – and then the moment passed – I wondered what might be for Zoe. Though her character could have actually gone somewhere, she also ended up being a red herring like the rest of this pointless film that fails to be anything more than a soft porn with some filler words to keep it rated “R”.

By ADAMFENDELMAN Publisher HollywoodChicago.com adam@hollywoodchicago.com