Deadpool (third-pass)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
Deadpool is a success. The fact that I adore the film (even with its faults) has already been committed to the aether here and here, but it's fairly safe to say that with an IMDB score of 8.5, Metacritic's 8.5 and Rotten Tomatoes scores of 84% and 94% for critics and audiences respectively, it's been generally accepted as A Very Good Thing Indeed.
And so it has begun. The frantic scrabbling by the movie-studios and rights-owners to replicate the critical and commercial success of Deadpool*1. DC have brought Batman's standalone flick forward (although to be fair, this is also partially due to their uncertainty surrounding the upcoming Dawn Of Justice), Fox themselves have suddenly decided that the next needs to be R-rated (roughly equivalent to a 15 in the UK). And that's not even accounting for the slew of indie-clones which will surface on the bargain-shelves in no time at all. A hyper-sweary, hyper-violent comic-book movie from a major studio will change not only how the cinema-going public watches superheroes, but also the superheroes they're given to watch.
Whether he'll be a saviour or a destroyer, Deadpool is a game-changer.
And as Guardians Of The Galaxy director James Gunn has already noted, this reactive attempt to ape the film's success will probably harm the genre far more than it will reinvigorate it. Writing-teams and studio-heads alike are now looking for the magic new ingredient that made Deadpool stand out. Was it the dry, self-referential humour? No, Guardians and Iron Man have that in spades. Was it an established fan-favourite character who nevertheless isn't beholden to a fifty year legacy of back-story interpretation? No, again Guardians of the Galaxy. Maybe it was the gleeful and wanton violence combined with self-aware analysis of the genre? No, Kick-Ass already went there back in 2010. Was it Ryan Reynolds, after all? With the best will in the world, no. It was the surprise. Not necessarily the audience's surprise - comic-book fans had been expecting great things anyway. More the surprise of an industry that a mainstream superhero flick with a character largely unknown to mainstream audiences could be so well received, especially when it's packed with the sort of content that makes the MPAA generally nervous. But it has been well received, with a sequel being green-lit before the movie even landed properly in theatres.
And it's this sequel which will carry the burden of expectation. After last year's Fantastic Four debacle, no-one would have batted an eyelid if Deadpool had failed to set the world on fire, but suddenly the bar has been raised. Fox are going to have to work far harder to top what they've given us this time if they're going to keep the goodwill of audiences and critics (exhibit a: the fantastic Kick-Ass vs the frustratingly derivative Kick-Ass 2, which recycled everything from its predecessor and brought nothing new to the table). 'More of the same' just won't do; although I expect the writing team capable of bringing us Deadpool in the first place to already be smart enough to know that. The real danger for the sequel will be studio-interference, as boxes are ticked and demographics are catered for.
The important thing to remember is that Deadpool wasn't successful solely because it had that R-rating. Sure, this particular film needs the rating to be what it is, but this worked because it's a great movie. Great movies (generally) succeed. The skill of the writers, performers and production and editing crews combined to made a great movie that (mostly) everyone enjoyed. Which is, generally speaking, the aim of everyone involved in the production anyway. And while it was fun to see severed limbs and heads flying away from torsos in this movie, what defined it more was the laughs that accompanied the whole thing. Comedy is way more subjective than action, so far harder to 'get right'. The occasional humour of the X-Men movies has always been patchy at best, so as Fox rush to make Wolverine's next outing "darker and edgier", they'd be wise to remember that while Batman benefited from this approach, Punisher and Ghost Rider certainly didn't.
Ultimately, the Deadpool wins because it was only ever trying to succeed on its own terms. And not giving a fuck was pretty high on that list of terms. This film had little to prove. Deadpool 2 on the other hand, could be a different matter entirely…
Superhero things, swearing, shooting.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, indeed.
Could well be.
Yes, indeed.
Y'know what? I actually don't think there is.
Level 2: Deadpool stars Morena Baccarin, who appeared in Spy, as did Rose 'Dormé' Byrne.
*1 Although not, from what I can see, by Marvel Studios themselves. As an established and successful franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (ie the Avengers timeline) doesn't really need to chase fans at this point, and the Disney-ownership with its associated merchandising knows that nothing will be gained by suddenly having the heroes running around swearing (although this in itself was also highlighted to humorous effect in Age Of Ultron, where Captain America berated Iron Man over his potty-mouth).
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Deadpool (second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
An interesting second-pass for 20th Century Fox's Deadpool, as it's a movie I scored full-marks initially yet didn't get a whole lot more out of when I re-watched it. That's not to say I enjoyed it less in any way, but other than a stronger grasp of the mechanics of Wade Wilson's superhero-transformation (more on that later), the movie holds that instant-classic feel of comforting repetition, rather than a film which is going to unfurl new secrets each time you watch it. In many ways it makes a nice change to not be bludgeoned over the head with Too Much Activity Obscuring The Plot Points™, but short of sequel ret-cons or back-referencing, it means that Deadpool has said pretty much all it has to say the first time you sit waiting for the end-of-credits scene.
And as much as I love this movie (I do, despite the picking apart I'm about to embark upon), it was this second-pass which highlighted a few of the cracks that were masked by the film's novelty the first time around. Whether Sunday night's audience just weren't as hyped as Wednesday's, the laughter wasn't as vociferous and the 'laugh-gaps' in the film become more apparent. The same can also be said of the classic-jukebox soundtrack, much of which is listened to in-movie resulting in a pretty firm nod towards Guardians of the Galaxy that also cuts down slightly on the cost of scoring the film. I'd been a little unclear on Wade's transformation, too, until a re-watch confirmed that yes, they basically just inject him with an accelerant then torture him until his mutant DNA kicks in. We aren't shown any scanning for traces of mutant DNA before that, so is it safe to assume that everyone has it, to some extent? So this process could apply to pretty much everybody? Really? Okay then.
The thing which really stuck out however, was what a sub-par villain Ed Skrein's Ajax (aka Francis) is. Not withstanding the fact that The Transporter Refuelled" is still making me be sick in my own mouth, the role itself seems to have been hastily sketched in at the last moment, never mind Skrein's inability to do much interesting with it. Don't get me wrong, he'd make a more than passable henchman (this portrayal and the actor), but he's just not boss-material here. Although is he more cringe-inducing than The Wolverine's Viper? Well of course not.
No, this movie is Deadpool's show in name and in spirit, and if that means eclipsing almost everybody else on-screen, then we should have been expecting that anyway, right? The movie has scored the goal which Marvel missed with Punisher and Ghost Rider, and made a fun, exciting flick for older (if not necessarily more mature) audiences. Then again, the central character is a creation of the 90s, and so isn't hampered with the baggage many heroes bring to the screen with them. Most importantly, Deadpool is a positive which more than cancels out the negative of last year's Fantastic Four reboot, but potentially sets the bar unfeasibly high for Fox's other Marvel output. Time will tell.
Superheroes appeal to us because they show us what we could be without our limitations, and dare us to aspire to that even with them.
And if we're allowed to have super-powers and still make dick-jokes all the time?
Even better…
As much as you'll scoff at this, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Yes.
Yes.
Ryan's on spectacular form, everybody else just about keeps up.
Oh, maybe a little.
I'm not hearing one.
Level 2: Deadpool features Gina Carano, who starred in Haywire alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Deadpool (Spoiler-free)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
The wait is over and like it or loathe it, Ryan Reynolds' previous outing as Wade Wilson has been well and truly scrubbed from the cinematic bathtub. With much anticipation and much promotional buzz, Deadpool lands in our cinemas with a crunch, a squelch and a scathing throwaway comment punctuated with profanities.
Yep, the red-band trailer wasn't exaggerating and the X-Men's longtime comic antagonist struts through his own movie with a potty mouth and more bloodstains than you can throw a bottle of Vanish at. The film is never exploitative, but it mixes the throwaway sass of Guardians of the Galaxy and the caustic edge of Kingsman with sociopathic glee, and it earns that 15 Certificate in no uncertain terms.
And of course Deadpool wouldn't be Deadpool without a little fourth-wall-breaking, which is undertaken regularly - if sparingly - and completely in the film's stride. There are also plethora of barbs thrown towards super-heroes generally, the X-Men franchise, the larger Marvel universe over the fence and even a couple at DC for good measure (although the Fantastic Four appear to escape a ribbing ~ maybe those wounds are still a little raw for Fox?).
But the film isn't entirely snark, it's also a ridiculous amount of fun. Visceral and adrenaline-fuelled, but fun. There are segments which are humorous and ones which are action-packed. The two tend to have a little trouble meeting in the middle ground, but whichever is being presented to the audience, the screenplay makes sure that no-one will be bored at any rate. Reynolds is fantastic with and without the mask (and with and without the scar-makeup), and is aided by a great supporting cast. Even Ed 'Transporter Re-tooled' Skrein is bearable, so the film must be doing something right.
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? See below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? No.
• Is there a post-credits scene?Yes.
More punch than most action flicks, funnier than any comedy in recent memory and with the most down-to-earth super-powers you've seen since Cap' beat the crap out of a deck-full of mercenaries using his shield, Deadpool is utterly magnificent.
X-Men: Apocalypse really has its work cut out now, since the brazen attitude of this film makes the serious-nature of its stablemate look even more camp...
Not that I heard, but I spent a significant amount of time either guffawing, gasping or wincing.
Have you heard one in there? Lemme know in the box below ;)
Level 2: Deadpool is portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, of course, who 'played for the other team' in 2011's Green Lantern alongside Temuera 'Jango Fett' Morrison.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So, Fast & Furious 6 may be way too long for its own good (much like the apparent 18 mile runway at the film's climax), and it may have more casual sexism than an entire series of On The Buses, and it may have a plot so thin that you could hold it up and watch TV through it, but when the wheels are spinning and the fists are flying, it's undeniably enormous fun.
And it bears repeating that any movie which features an overt product placement for Seabrook Crisps deserves a misty-eyed respect from those of us on the Blighty-side of the pond.
Bravo.
Obviously not for everybody, and you probably won't get the chance now as this was a part-retrospective double-bill, but if you're a fan? Yes.
It's a buy-er.
I've probably seen each of its prominent stars better elsewhere, I think.
Without doubt.
Nope.
There bloody isn't. Don't worry, I'm going to write a letter.
Well, as it's the 6th F&F movie...
1) The film's bad-guy Luke Evans starred in The Battle Of The Five Armies, as did Sir Christopher 'Count Dooku' Lee.
2) Gina Carano played the central character in Haywire, alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
3) Dwayne Johnson appeared in GI Joe: Retaliation, as did Ray 'Darth Maul' Park (The Phantom Menace).
4) Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges starred in 2009's Gamer, which also featured Sam 'Darth Maul' Witwer (The Clone Wars).
5) Vin Diesel was of course Riddick, which also starred Katee 'Bo Katan' Sackhoff.
6) Paul Walker had a role in 2010's Takers, a film also starring Hayden 'Anakin' Christensen.
Oh, ka-BOOM.
.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Back in the very first 1755 edition of Dr Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, the entry for the word "Wowshit" read simply: "Adjective; Fast & Furious 6". From that day until this, no-one was entirely sure what that meant. And today, finally, all became crystally (if predictably) clear. F&F6 bursts onto our screens like a two-and-a-half-hour car chase, soundtracked by screeching tyres, white noise and awful hip-hop. And is all the better for it. Let's not dick about; this is part six of a franchise. Pretty much everyone in the auditorium should know what they're there for, right?
Like its predecessor, the movie is unapologetically OTT, but still (somehow) manages to maintain a level of sweet-spiritedness. A series of rubber-burning setpieces, strung together with a wafer-thin, bat-shit plot and some appalling dialogue serves as the framework for Vin Diesel to make Dwayne Johnson look like Daniel Day Lewis (seriously, what is Diesel for, these days?). Everyone else does exactly what they're paid to do; look moody and drive cars (or, in Gina Carano's case, look moody and punch people).
So, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'cared' about any of the characters (or cars, for that matter), I chuckled, winced and ooh'd along for the duration. And it's quite the duration. At a rollocking 2h25m, it's way too long, but it barely matters in a movie with as little downtime as this. That said, far too much of the film uses fast-cut editing in under-lit night locations for my liking, on more than one occasion I couldn't tell what was actually happening other than industrial amounts of petrol being burned.
And speaking of things which are too long, does that runway for the final act run down the centre of all of Spain? They seem to spend about 25 minutes belting down it at top-speed in some serious motors. There is, of course, always room for a sequel, and the final scene in the film is such an overblown setup that I'm actually looking forward to it. The villain*1 for the next film already looks far more interesting than the one we had for this one…
Despite those grumbles, this is a ridiculously enjoyable film. The franchise has got to a point where it no longer has anything to prove, it's just got to up the ante on what it did last time. And F&F6 pulls that off. This time, at least.
Oh, and when was the last time you watched a movie which featured actual product-placement for Seabrook Crisps? Not even kidding. That's awesome.
The phrase "Leave your brain in the car park and just enjoy the ride" has never been more appropriate. Get in the car.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Cinema if you like your skidmarks to be HUGE, but you won't lose too much by watching it in your living room.
Nah.
At some point.
No! I mean, come on...
Back in the days of Tokyo Drift, did you think this franchise would a) get this far, and b) still be at the cinema-release stage?
Comments section. Let me know. Go!
*1 The "villain" in a Fast & Furious movie is defined as 'the one who scowls more than the rest of the cast'.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
