Skip to main content

Are You Watching Deadpool or is Deadpool Watching You?


         In 2009, comic book fans were excited for the appearance of Marvel favourite Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. They even got massive Deadpool fan Ryan Reynolds to play the character. Then they saw the movie and quickly wanted a refund; among other reasons for the fact that they got everything about Deadpool wrong. And maybe no one was more upset than Ryan Reynolds himself.
          The fact that 20th Century Fox gave Reynolds another chance to play this character was more than generous. As was the decision to completely reboot the idea of Deadpool for his own feature. And with Reynolds getting more creative control of the character, as well as the film being granted an R rating to better reflect the tone of the comic, and an amazingly impressive marketing campaign including online holiday videos, a cancer PSA, and even a TV spot for The Bachelor, the hype for this film was growing. And now finally Deadpool has arrived, but is it good?
          Wade Wilson is a Canadian (nice!) mercenary who contracts terminal cancer, and in an effort to be cured of it undergoes an operation that to his shock, mutates his cancer to the point that he is permanently disfigured, but has the power to heal himself of any injury. During the process he undergoes severe torture by a scientist who calls himself Ajax but who Wilson tauntingly addresses by his real name Francis. Escaping, Wilson becomes the anti-hero Deadpool and sets on a mission to kill Francis before he can unleash this experiment on anyone else, least of all Wilson’s lover Vanessa.
          The story is very standard in fact in the last act strikingly so to the point that you’d see similar plots in old Superman serials. It’s a pretty general origin story and the beats that play out are easy enough to predict. What drives the film is the Deadpool character who in a word, is fun. Not likeable, but fun to watch in his antics. Reynolds is clearly grateful for this second chance and gives the character an attitude and sense of humour that’s instantly memorable. The supporting cast consists of Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, and T.J. Miller who are all fine but leave almost no impression next to the film’s title personality.
          Another thing that drives this film is the comedy. One of Deadpool’s gimmicks apart from his dark sense of humour and profanity, is the fact that he often breaks the fourth wall (i.e. he addresses the audience directly). And a lot of these jokes work and fit perfectly with the character and tone of the film. But they’re not the best I’ve seen in a movie. What Deadpool has over other comedies that break the fourth wall though is the volume of this kind of humour and variance, with meta jokes popping up in the most unlikely places. This movie may have had the funniest opening title sequence I’ve seen since The Naked Gun. Still I actually preferred the meta pop cultural comedy, and the shots taken at superhero movies. Deadpool not only takes aims at his previous cinematic incarnation, but also Reynolds’ superhero disaster Green Lantern, and even Reynolds himself. Though some jokes and plot points come at the behest of story and character consistency. For every reference to the multiple Professor Xaviers or noting of the fact that only two minor X-Men appear (Colossus and the ridiculously named Negasonic Teenage Warhead), there’s a “hero” joining Deadpool’s vendetta despite having opposing principles. There were also a couple moments where other characters made meta jokes which I felt should have been just Deadpool’s thing. And while the comedy was overall good, it didn’t balance the seriousness as well as it should have. It’s hard to invest in Deadpool having a tender moment with Vanessa after we’ve just seen him make a snappy remark while killing a guy.
          Still though flawed, Deadpool is nothing if not entertaining. I don’t know much about the comics but I think fans for sure will be satisfied (at the very least he doesn’t have his mouth sewn shut!). It’s got moments of sloppiness, but it’s fun and funny; a summer movie in February, and definitely worth seeing.
          Unless your thirteen years old. It’s rated R, and complaining about it is not going to change anything!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...