Deadpool Review

Marvel's super hero movies have been flooding the movie theaters for some time now. Many of the ones produced by Disney have been fantastic, while the ones produced by Fox have been hit or miss. Fox still owns the film rights to the X-Men franchise, and most of those have been good. The eighth installment in the X-Men series is Deadpool (2016); something fans have been begging studios for for sometime, especially after that horrible depiction of the character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The Deadpool movie is not so much about the story as it is about this bizarre and well loved character of the Marvel Universe.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is a former Special Forces operative who now works as a mercenary. His world comes crashing down when he develops terminal cancer. Even though this fiancé, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), remains by his side, he fears losing her. A recruiter from a secret program approches Wade and offers him an experimental cure for his cancer. Initially he refuses, but later decides to leave Vanessa and undergo the procedure. At the sketchy laboratory, evil scientist Ajax (Ed Skrein) tortures, disfigures and transforms him into a mutant. The rogue experiment leaves Wade with accelerated healing powers and a twisted sense of humor, and shortly thereafter adopts the alias Deadpool. With occasional help from X-Men mutant allies Colossus (Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), Deadpool uses his new skills to hunt down the man who nearly destroyed his life.

In the X-Men Origins movie, Deadpool was one of several characters who were horribly misrepresented in all the wrong ways. I was bent out of shape about how Gambit was depicted, but that was nothing compared to how inaccurate their disparaging and repulsive version of Deadpool was. The Deadpool in this movie is a vulgar and loudmouthed goofball and was what we were expecting in X-Men Origins. Here, he is highly talkative, cracks more jokes and wisecracks than Spider-Man, suffers from psychosis which itself makes him unpredictable and random, he's gratuitously violent and crude, and is aware that he is a comic book character, so he breaks fourth wall often to humorous effect. During one such gag in the movie he turns to the camera, looking at the audience and says, "A fourth wall break inside a fourth wall break? That's, like, sixteen walls!" At another point in the movie, Colossus is dragging Deadpool away and says, "You will talk with Professor Xavier." Deadpool responds by asking, "McAvoy or Stewart? These timelines can get so confusing." referencing Patrick Stewart's role and James McAvoy's role as a younger version the same character in prequels, and commenting on how the timeline in the X-Men movies don't actually make a lot of sense.

Ryan Reynolds played Deadpool in both movie depictions, and he's so perfect for the role. I mentioned in my review of Woman in Gold that Ryan Reynolds is frequently typecast as an arrogant, handsome, cocky, and rude young man. Wade Willson is certainly handsome before the secret Project X scientists get a hold of him, but not so much afterwards. Pretty much every other aspect of Reynolds' usual typecasting is present in the character of Deadpool. Deadpool's wacky and sometimes crude quips make the whole movie hysterical, and they are often the sort of sarcastic things Reynolds says in other movies. One of the cleaner lines from Deadpool has the titular character surrounded by henchmen with guns early in the movie. "You may be wondering why the red suit. Well, that's so bad guys don't see me bleed." He points at one of the henchmen to his left. "This guy's got the right idea... He wore the brown pants!" At which point Deadpool proceeds to kill all of them. I almost wonder how much of the movie was scripted and how much of it was Ryan Reynolds ad-libbing or just being himself.

One of the fun things about the Deadpool character is that he's not by any means typical. He frequently reminds us and other characters in the movie that he's not a hero. Deadpool has always been a mercenary who is in it for his own reasons and for whomever tends to have the bigger paycheck offer. Superheroes and villains are often depicted as having cool gadgets, weapons, and fancy hideouts. Deadpool lives in the ghetto, and shares a dilapidated apartment with and elderly, bitter blind woman. Deadpool is so lacking in resources that he has to take a taxi in his costume to get to the big fights. He doesn't have fancy powers outside of his accelerated healing. His healing powers make him effectively immortal and are so advanced that the character has literally recovered from decapitation in the comic books. Since he has no offensive powers, he fights with guns of various sizes and a pair of swords. "Okay guys, I only have twelve bullets, so you're all going to have to share!" It's these combined quirks that make the character so likeable and enjoyable. He doesn't take himself seriously, and that's why fans love him. The character wears a colorful, cheap Adventure Time wrist watch under his crime fighting costume for goodness sake!

It seems a lot of people were all worked up over Deadpool being rated R. Apparently they didn't think comic book movies were supposed to be R rated. But allow me to point out comic book movie titles that preceded Deadpool which were rated R, such as Watchmen, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Kick-Ass, 300, and Dredd to name a few. "But this is a Marvel movie, those aren't supposed to be R-rated." Oh, you mean like Punisher and a whole trilogy of Blade movies? I generally don't prefer R-rated content. But given the character of Deadpool, a PG-13 version of the movie would have been an insulting, watered down version of what the iconic character is. I feel like it was important to have an R rating to get this character done right for a movie. There were a couple of times I averted my eyes during the movie so as to avoid something I prefer not to see. But that's my preference and I would have been frankly disappointed if that sort of content was absent. Even sex scenes and graphic violence was imbued with Deadpools iconic, bizarre humor. The profanity and violence which permeates this movie is not simply thrown in to get a higher rating. It's intelligently incorporated and used in creative and witty ways. It's not vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity; it's well written and fits perfectly with setting and characters that use it. This is not a super hero movie for children; no matter how much your ten-year-old loves Iron Man and The Avengers, Deadpool is not for kids. And that's the way this movie should be.

Deadpool was everything that Deadpool fans had hoped for: fast, hilarious, and gleefully profane. The fourth-wall-busting Deadpool subverts the superhero movie formula with wildly entertaining and absolutely non-family-friendly results. This immature action-comedy is Marvel's biggest breath of fresh air since Guardians of the Galaxy. The movie makes self referential jokes as soon as the opening credits start rolling. The story may be a little on the cliché side but the narrative format makes it more interesting, and Deadpool himself makes it even better. This movie isn't about the story, it's about this character and depicting him the way he was meant to be depicted and the wacky humor he brings to every situation. And Deadpool succeeds in that endeavor with flying colors! I recommend seeing Deadpool if you're a fan of the character or the Marvel universe. However if you prefer classic, heroic, morally centered characters, you may want to skip this one; that's simply not who Deadpool is. Also, leave the kids at home if you plan on seeing this. I liked it enough to get a copy when it's available on home video.

Even though it's been done before, it was a bold move to make a R-rated superhero movie amidst all the other Marvel and DC superhero movies hitting theaters which were designed to be a bit more family friendly. What are some other Marvel and DC superhero movies titles you'd like to see that could reasonable have an R-rating? Comment below and let me know!

Fantastic Four Review (2015)

In order to remind us that Fox owns the film rights to a couple of Marvel series, a reboot of the Fantastic Four (2015) was made. Fox still has movie rights to X-Men, as well. If not for the last two amazing X-Men movies, I'd say Disney is the only one that does Marvel movies right anymore. This is the fourth attempt at a Fantastic Four movie, including 1994 movie that never got released. Sooner or later Fox will have to accept they can't do a Fantastic Four movie that's worth seeing, and  it would probably be better in the hands of another studio. Perhaps this cinema atrocity will put them on the right path.

Transported to another dimension, four young outsiders gain superhuman powers which alter their physical form in shocking ways. Reed Richards (Miles Teller) becomes able to stretch and twist his body, while Reed's friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) gains immense strength and a rock-like body. Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) is able to control and project fire, while his sister Sue (Kate Mara) can become the invisible and generate force-fields. Together, the team must harness their new abilities to battle former colleague, Victor von Doom (Toby Kebbell) who poses a threat to Earth.

Really, that simple synopsis is everything that happens in this one hour and forty-six minute movie. They spend a lot of time showing us montages of the group creating an interdimensional transport, broken up with token bits of poorly done, awkward character development. Then they go to another dimension for a little while and acquire some powers. Then Doctor Doom shows up when the group attempts a second expedition and then they have to fight him. That's literally everything that happens. The first fight scene in this action movie is at the climax at the end! This might be the most boring and uneventful super hero movie to date.

I appreciate the fact that they were trying to get this new version of the Fantastic Four to be more character driven and more realistic on some level, but the result was so sloppy and poorly written. Compounding that with the fact that it takes itself very seriously makes it hard to enjoy. I understand that in the world of comic book based movies you have to allow for a certain level of whimsy, but so many plot devices and character abilities were left unexplained. As an example of these infractions, just because you can fly, your body can be engulfed in flame, and you can throw fire balls, doesn't really mean you have the strength or physical structure to smash through colossal stone pillars like Superman might. Why is this weird radiation energy from another dimension able to alter people's physiology, and why does it grant someone powers who had never gone to that other dimension? Why do they need space suits to traverse the other dimension early in the movie, but not later? Most of that could be explained with one or two lines of dialogue, but that wasn't bothered with.

One of the fun things about superhero movies is seeing our protagonists discover their newfound abilities. I love watching Tobey Maguire learn about his new powers in the first Spider-Man movie, or Tony Stark try to perfect his Iron Man suit. It's even funny watching Thor having to acclimate to a lack of powers he's always had. That scene was completely lacking in Fantastic Four. Our heroes make it back to our dimension unconscious, but exhibiting signs of their powers. Then we get a slow fade to black and a caption that says "One year later" and we catch up with everyone who has basically mastered their abilities by this point. It felt like we were being cheated of crucial character development and potential for humor. We didn't even get to see much of their reactions to new powers, let alone them trying to figure them out. It's stunts like this that made the movie much worse than it should have been.

There were several annoying changes made to the characters, some of which are really going to upset Marvel fans. Reed Richards is the most intelligent person in the Marvel Universe, and a couple of times, Victor erases and corrects Reed's calculations during a montage. An often critical device when fighting Doctor Doom in the comic books is that Reed is one of the few people that can outsmart him, but we're just going to ignore that, apparently. Doctor Doom was really bad, though. Doctor Doom's powers include technological manipulation and some mystical abilities like energy projectiles and creating protective shields. In this movie, he's psychic, telekinetic, can open gateways to other dimensions, can convert matter into energy, and can control rocks and apparently some weather. He just walks down the hall, and people die without him lifting a finger or even looking in their direction. Not only does he look too far off from what he is in the comic books, his powers and personality are so off the mark that he's basically not Doctor Doom at all. They don't even call him Doctor Doom in this movie, just "Doom" maybe once or twice. Doctor Doom is as far from his source material in Fantastic Four as Deadpool was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and that disgraceful depiction of Deadpool made everyone furious!

I'd like to say that the graphics are at least good, and occasionally they were. There's a scene where Reed is trying to squeeze out of some constraints, and you see the muscles in his arm working even though his arm is stretched out. When you see him try to pull out of the constraints, still with his arm stretched, you can see his skin bunch up around the bands as he tries to free himself. Some things like that were pretty impressive. But there were other bits that were so lacking in refinement they may as well have come from a Sy-Fi Channel television movie, like Sharknado.

This latest Fantastic Four movie fails everything essential to make a good superhero movie. Good superhero movies need exciting action, colorful thrills, enticing visual effects, a few laughs, and characters we can relate to, root for, and watch grow and develop. Fantastic Four literally has none of that available. The story is extremely boring and slow. The first fight scene is at the end of the movie, for crying out loud! The characters aren't even likeable and are changed for the sake of the movie in all the wrong ways. The camera work was sloppy, transitions between scenes were often awkward and confusing, and the script is just terrible. The previous Fantastic Four movies were better than this, and that's saying something. This is the worst superhero movie I've seen since Daredevil or Elektra. I implore you not to see this in theaters; if this ends up as anything more than a box office bomb, Fox will just try to make a sequel. If for some reason you truly want to see this movie, wait for it on Redbox or something. It's certainly not worth the price of a movie ticket, and barely worth what you might spend to rent it.

Okay, what is the worst superhero movie you've ever seen? Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, any comic book series that has had a movie based on it. Comment below and let me know!

Woman in Gold Review

I do enjoy viewing art museums, though my articulation of art criticism outside of film is somewhat limited to something akin to, "Now that is an aesthetically pleasing... whatever that is." When I see good art, I can recognize it as good art. The artist Gustav Klimt's iconic painting "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I" is what initially caught my attention in the trailer for Woman in Gold (2015); it's a beautiful painting that used real gold and silver foils to create a beautiful paining. On top of that, seeing two mismatched actors together on screen was also intriguing. Finally, some World War II history was involved and it sent me over the edge; I had to see it. While it is a good movie, it's not as deep or profound as it thinks it is.

Sixty years after she fled Vienna during World War II, an elderly Jewish woman, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), starts her journey to retrieve family possessions seized by the Nazis, among them Klimt's famous painting 'Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I'. Together with her inexperienced but plucky young lawyer, Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds), she embarks upon a major battle which takes them all the way to the heart of the Austrian establishment and the U.S. Supreme Court, and forces her to confront difficult truths about the past along the way. Maria does this not just to regain what was rightfully hers, but also to obtain some measure of justice for the death, destruction, and massive art theft perpetrated by the Nazis.

I was privileged in college to study World War II history coupled with psychology, culminating in travels to Munich, Germany to see historic sites firsthand. It is one of the greatest experiences I've had in academia. The combination of these two disciplines was positively fascinating and ever since, I have been engrossed by that time period. World War II dramas tend to resonate with me. Woman in Gold was particularly interesting, because it explored how the actions of the Nazis of the day have an effect on the present, even when well over half a century has passed. Nazi Austria is only visited briefly in flashbacks throughout the film as Maria reflects on memories. The movie shows how history is still very much alive and continues to influence us today. The past isn't just stories, it is our personal history, our family history, our heritage, and the long standing narrative that defines who we are now.

Woman in Gold tries to portray this idea of returning to our roots and preserving our histories, but seems somewhat lacking in its ability to do so. Initially, Randy is helping Maria for the money and prestige that the lawsuit would grant him; but he eventually he sees how it's not just Maria's history they are fighting for, but his as well, and he gains new conviction as the case becomes more relevant to him. How this is portrayed is that Maria and Randy visit the Austrian Holocaust memorial, and Randy excuses himself and cries in the privacy of a public restroom with no prior indication of interest. This could have been a deeply dramatic scene, but we're not shown why this change of heart happened so much as we were shown that it did happen. It causes this turning point to seem like a convenient plot development. This is just one example of some dramatic action being over simplified and weakened. It was well acted, no doubt, but without establishing enough context so many of the scenes felt lacking.

Helen Mirren is a beautiful and regal actress who often plays very dramatic roles. She has played three British queens in different films and television series, and she fits the role of nobility with remarkable astuteness. I particularly liked her in Hitchcock and The Hundred-Foot Journey. Ryan Reynolds is frequently typecast as an arrogant, handsome, cocky, and rude young man. And he plays that role very well. He's essentially the same character in Just Friends, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Waiting. While I hate to oversimplify his career, I think this is one of the only times he's taken on a dramatic role. He does a pretty good job of it and emotes remarkably well. In one scene, he loses his patience and is downright intimidating as he vents his anger and frustration. There are moments when his characteristic humor shines through, but overall he does quite well in a dramatic role. These two mismatched actors bounce off of one another beautifully; their character's contrasting views and personalities make for some great scenes between the two. It's an odd coupling of actors, but they do a splendid job together.

Woman in Gold was not a bad movie, but wasn't as deep as it seems to think it is. It is at its core the true story about legal proceedings meant to resolve ownership of a painting. While that is an interesting story, frankly there isn't a whole lot of actual story to tell with that. Fortunately it is more character and theme driven than story driven, and the characters and theme are excellent. I'd never have imagined seeing Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds acting opposite each other, but here they are. Woman in Gold benefits greatly from the talented leads, but their strong work doesn't manage to overshadow the fact that there isn't a whole lot actually going on otherwise. It expresses the idea of getting in touch with our heritage and preserving our histories, but it doesn't do a whole lot outside of that. I like the movie overall and I recommend seeing it once it hits home video, but I don't think it's quite worth going out of my way to see a second time.

Can you think of another great movie that urges you to get in touch with your family history and heritage? Comment below and let me know!

The Wolverine Movie Review

So, we've got a 6th X-Men movie out now. The Wolverine (2013) follows the events of the 3rd X-Men installment, X-Men: The Last Stand. X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: First Class were both prequels. In my review of Origins I said I was worried there wasn't much left that could be done with Wolverine. That said, I was worried that The Wolverine was going to be as weak and shoddily done as Origins. There are times I enjoy being wrong.

Logan, a.k.a. Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), has sworn off violence after he was forced to kill his beloved Gene Grey (Famke Janssen) and is still haunted by her memory. Logan is summoned to Japan by a sword-wielding mutant named Yukio (Rila Fukushima) on behalf of one of Logan's old friends. This friend, Yashida (Hal Yamanouchi), was a Japanese soldier whose life Wolverine saved in during the bombing of Nagasaki in World War II. Yashida is now the head of a powerful technology corporation, and upon his deathbed asks Logan to protect his granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamato), whom he has personally chosen to take over the family business - much to the chagrin of her plotting father Shingen (Hiroyuki Sanada). The Yakuza, a transnational crime syndicate in Japan, stages a high-profile kidnapping of Mariko during Yashida's funeral and Wolverine comes to her rescue. But Logan finds his mutant healing powers slowly disappearing and the two barely escape with their lives. With the Yakuza, a group of ninjas, and a ruthless mutant named Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) hot on their trail, Wolverine may not be able to protect Mariko for long.

Of all the X-Men movies out there, this one is the least X-Men-like. There are only three mutants in the movie, and Yukio has precognitive abilities and can foresee people's deaths. So Wolverine and Viper are the only ones with very "flashy" powers. That said, most of The Wolverine could have simply been a Japanese crime movie. I think that's really interesting; while there are plenty of action scenes, it doesn't have a huge scale and with lots of buildings being destroyed or entire cities and populations at risk. Things don't get comic book-standard over the top until near the end. That's not very common in superhero movies and it brought the story and characters more down to earth.

It's good to see Hugh Jackman return as to this role in a movie that understands the character's inner conflict. Contrary to what was the case in Origins, Wolverine is well developed. With his healing powers that have kept him alive for over a hundred years, disappearing Logan is forced to face his own mortality, what he has done with his life, what his purpose is, and what he might do in the possibly short time that remains. The character becomes rather existential at moments which helps define the character in new and interesting ways. On the other hand, the comic book version of Wolverine was a kind of rage monster. Wolverine was a bit of a softy in the previous films. In The Wolverine we get to see him do a lot more hack 'n slash fight scenes that herald back to the classic Wolverine.

The movie does become a little ridiculous at times; there are lots of crime organization thugs that pop up at every turn, a clan of ninjas whose loyalties and intents are vague, and some fight scenes push credibility at times. There is a fight scene on one of Japan's bullet trains which was highly enjoyable and possibly more creative and fun than the train fight with Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2.  Not every scene is particularly good, but the poorer scenes aren't bad and the good scenes are very good.

The Wolverine features some excellent Japanese scenery, suspenseful and fun action scenes, a better than average production, and some interesting characters, some of whom register more powerfully than others. I feel like overall it could have been a little bit better, but it's a far cry better than Origins was. It's worth renting, possibly worth buying if you're collecting the X-Men movies like I am. Make sure you stick around for the mid-credits scene, if you're an X-Men fan, you'll be even more psyched for next year's X-Men: Days of Future Past.

If you've seen The Wolverine or The Last Stand you can probably guess what's coming up in Days of Future Past. What would you like to see happen in the upcoming X-Men movie(s)? Comment below and tell me all about it!

John Carter Movie Review

Way back in the early 1900’s an author by the name of Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a series of pulp fiction stories. It was originally serialized as Under the Moons of Mars and was later published as a novel called A Princess of Mars. Ten sequels followed over the next three decades. Disney had bought the rights to make a film version of this book series back in the 1980’s. After being abandoned many times, Andrew Stanton (director of Pixar’s Finding Nemo and WALL-E) stepped up to the plate. Finally we received the John Carter movie in 2012, on the centennial anniversary of the first publication.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a world weary Civil War veteran who is tired of fighting other people’s wars and for their “noble” causes. While escaping being drafted into another battle for the military, he seeks refuge in a cave where he finds someone holding a strange medallion. When Carter touches it, he finds himself transported to a strange place where he can leap incredible heights and distances, as well as possessing amazing strength. Carter becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict among the inhabitants which include an alien leader Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and a human-like Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Carter learns from Dejah that he is on the planet earthlings call Mars and that his superhuman strength is caused by the lower gravity on Mars. Their world is on the brink of collapse and only John Carter has the power to end the conflict.

Something to take into consideration is that the setting in John Carter is based on now-obsolete ideas that were popularized by astronomer Percival Lowell in the early 20^th Century. This is why there is life on Mars and a breathable atmosphere in this sci-fi/fantasy story. It’s also based on pulp fiction, which is known for its over-the-top ridiculous action sequences and unrealistic settings. If you take all of that into consideration, John Carter is a more enjoyable movie.

Even when taking that kind of source material into consideration, the physics were a bit silly. Carter leaps 20 stories into the air because of the low gravity on Mars, but he still falls at the same speed he would on Earth. You’d expect his legs to break once he hits the ground falling that fast, but of course that doesn’t happen. Furthermore, Carter and the tribal aliens he teams up with bring swords and spears to go into battle against flying ships with laser cannons, and they still somehow manage to put up a decent fight. I’m going to use the “pulp fiction source material” excuse for that, too. It’s just visually a bit hard to swallow.

I’ve now seen Taylor Kitsch take on three different characters; Gambit in X-MenOrigins: Wolverine, Lieutenant Alex Hopper in Battleship, and John Carter. Yes, they are all action movies, but he really does an impressive job portraying different personalities. He’s far from a favorite of mine; I haven’t always liked the roles he’s played (such as Gambit), but he is a pretty good actor and did a fine job as John Carter.

John Carter didn’t seem to know if it was for kids or adults. On the one hand it has plenty of humorous scenes. I liked the part where he’s trying to adjust to Mars’ gravity. But on the other hand, it’s also kind of violent; decapitation and heavy-duty sword play aren’t uncommon here. I suppose that since the alien’s blood is blue, Disney assumed it wouldn’t be off-putting for younger viewers. Really, it’s not too bad, but I don’t think I’d want anyone under the age of 8 to watch it.

John Carter is a fun movie. The editing is a bit choppy and the pacing is kind of slow. It’s exciting, funny, and its visual effects are not bad. It is pure, joyous, escapist adventure cinema. You really have to take it for what it is; a fun action movie that requires very little thought. Edgar Rice Burroughs is best known for writing the Tarzan stories, but you can see how this sort of material (circa 1912’s) influenced a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and superhero adventures. If you like those kinds of stories, you’ll probably enjoy John Carter on at least some level. You just have to take some of it with a grain of salt. I enjoyed it, but not enough to want my own copy to watch over and over again. I recommend seeing it, even if it is another attempt for Disney to strike gold like they did with Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s worth the cost of a RedBox rental, but not the cost of the Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie? Like, where you're not sure if it's one or the other? What is it? Comment below and let me know!