Review: Channing Tatum and His Dog Co-star Raise the Woof

This image released by MGM shows Channing Tatum in a scene from "Dog." (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures via AP)
This image released by MGM shows Channing Tatum in a scene from "Dog." (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures via AP)
TT
20

Review: Channing Tatum and His Dog Co-star Raise the Woof

This image released by MGM shows Channing Tatum in a scene from "Dog." (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures via AP)
This image released by MGM shows Channing Tatum in a scene from "Dog." (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures via AP)

Something would have had to go very, very wrong for “ Dog ” not to work on a basic level. Pairing Channing Tatum, one of our most likable leading men, with a dog in a road trip two-hander is probably the closest you can get to a guaranteed win in Hollywood.

This is also a project that was born out of utter sincerity in the wreckage of a few years wasted on a squashed superhero movie. Tatum and his longtime producing partner Reid Carolin put their heads together to make something small, something meaningful, something they could do by themselves and something that they would want to see in a movie theater. And “Dog” was born, with both Tatum and Carolin making their directorial debuts.

In addition to directing, Tatum plays former US Army Ranger Jackson Briggs, who is a lost soul when not in deployment. His day job making sandwiches at a Subway-type fast casual restaurant isn’t exactly giving him life. And all he wants is to get back overseas. There, he feels, he has a purpose. But though he has the motivation, he needs a recommendation, too, and his superior is not budging on that.

Then he gets an assignment: Take Lulu, a Belgian Malinois who Briggs served with, from Washington to Arizona for her handler’s funeral. If he can do this, maybe he’ll get the recommendation and be back in the field. Lulu, who is played by three different dogs, is not doing well, though. She can’t handle flying and she’s prone to attacking people, so they have to drive the 1,600 miles to make the service.

The start is a little rough and meandering. Briggs sees Lulu as just a means to an end and basically a nuisance that he has to deal with for a few days. On their first stop, he leaves her trapped in his truck while he goes prowling for women in Portland — a fruitless endeavor that seems to be played for comedy, but ends up just feeling sad. The film has several over-the-top gags, including one with a sadistic cannabis farmer and another bit where Briggs impersonates a blind man to get a fancy hotel room. All may theoretically work on their own, but they also don’t quite mesh with the overall tone.

It’s an interesting conundrum, too, because Tatum and Reid were not wrong to want to inject some humor and levity into a pretty heavy subject. But perhaps the issue is that Briggs is not your average Tatum character. He is not Magic Mike or Jimmy Logan, who are both fundamentally good guys in himbo packaging: He’s selfish, he’s got an ego and a temper and a young child (with an estranged partner played by Q’orianka Kilcher) who doesn’t even recognize him when he comes to the door bearing a gas station stuffed unicorn. Briggs is someone who doesn’t even really know how broken he is.

The disjointedness starts to mesh after an illuminating stop in Los Angeles (where there is still a strange showdown in a homeless encampment near the boardwalk) and the film gets back to its roots, which is Briggs and Lulu, without distractions. Together they have some genuinely moving breakthroughs and Tatum is allowed to flex his dramatic muscles more than usual.

Ultimately it does work, but “Dog” is a movie that is trying to do quite a bit, and perhaps bites off a little more than it can reasonably handle in 90 minutes.



So You Saw ‘Conclave’ the Movie. Here’s What It Got Right – And Wrong – About Real-Life Conclaves

This image released by Focus Features shows Ralph Fiennes, left, and Stanley Tucci in a scene from "Conclave." (Focus Features via AP)
This image released by Focus Features shows Ralph Fiennes, left, and Stanley Tucci in a scene from "Conclave." (Focus Features via AP)
TT
20

So You Saw ‘Conclave’ the Movie. Here’s What It Got Right – And Wrong – About Real-Life Conclaves

This image released by Focus Features shows Ralph Fiennes, left, and Stanley Tucci in a scene from "Conclave." (Focus Features via AP)
This image released by Focus Features shows Ralph Fiennes, left, and Stanley Tucci in a scene from "Conclave." (Focus Features via AP)

Speculation surrounding a conclave to elect a pope is a time-honored tradition. But for the impending conclave following the death of Pope Francis, the ranks of armchair Vatican experts have swelled thanks to Hollywood.

“Conclave” the film, a moody 2024 political thriller, introduced many laypeople to the ancient selection process with its arcane rules and grand ceremony, albeit with a silver screen twist packed full of palace intrigue and surprise.

Though it has its critics, the film treats the gravity of a papal election with respect and accurately portrays many rituals and contemporary problems facing today’s Catholic Church. But Vatican experts warn the movie doesn’t get everything right.

Here's a look at what “Conclave” does get right — and wrong — about conclaves. (Spoilers ahead.)

Scenery and aesthetics The movie excels at re-creating the look and feel of a conclave.

“The film gets a lot right. They tried to reproduce the mise-en-scene of the Vatican accurately,” William Cavanaugh, a Catholic studies professor at DePaul University in Chicago, said in an email. “They show that a lot of the drama is around the preconclave conversations among cardinals.”

It’s not a perfect re-creation, according to the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst with the Religion News Service and a Vatican expert.

He called the movie’s production values “marvelous,” but noted slight discrepancies in the cardinals' dress.

“The red in the cardinals’ garments was a deep red, while the reality is more orange. Frankly, I like the Hollywood version better,” Reese, a Jesuit priest who wrote “Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church,” said in an email.

Papal protocols The movie aligns with real-life expectations for a quick conclave, said Massimo Faggioli, a historical theology professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

“A long conclave would send the message of a Church divided and possibly on the verge of a schism. The history of the conclaves in the last century is really a story of short conclaves,” he said via email.

Reese pointed out other discrepancies. While the voting process was depicted accurately, he said, the ballots are burned not after each vote, but after each session, which is typically two votes.

Holy plot holes There are a few particularly egregious errors that, if corrected, would lead to a very different movie.

A key character in the film, the archbishop of Kabul, Afghanistan, arrives just before the conclave with paperwork declaring the late pope had made him a cardinal "in pectore" — “in secret” — allowing him to vote for the next pope.

“The biggest mistake in the movie was the admission of a cardinal in pectore into the conclave,” said Reese. “If the name is not announced publicly by the pope in the presence of the College of Cardinals, he has no right to attend a conclave.”

Cavanaugh agreed and noted that while the movie's twist about the Kabul archbishop was far-fetched, it does point to a certain truth about conclaves.

“The cardinals do not always know who they’re getting when they elect a pope,” he said. “If the cardinals knew how (Jorge Mario) Bergoglio would be as Pope Francis, many of them wouldn’t have voted for him. Pius IX was elected as a liberal and turned into an archconservative. John XXIII was supposed to be a jolly caretaker pope, and he unleashed Vatican II,” a series of modernizing reforms.

Another of the movie's more outlandish storylines involves the dean of the College of Cardinals breaking the seal of the confessional by revealing to another cardinal what a nun confessed to him, said Reese.

“He committed a mortal sin and would be automatically excommunicated. Such an action would be egregiously wrong,” Reese said.

In addition to that, a cardinal paying for votes, as shown in the film, is unheard of in modern times, said Cavanaugh, and the politicking is exaggerated.

And so are the politics.

The movie errs in making cardinals into either liberal or conservative champions, said Kurt Martens, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America in Washington.

“Those labels don’t help us,” he said because cardinals are very cautious in expressing their opinions and “even someone we think is a liberal cardinal is pretty conservative by secular standards.”

And he added that even in an unusually large conclave like this year’s, the rule requiring the next pope wins at least a two-thirds majority of the vote ensures that “whatever we call extreme” likely won’t get enough votes.