I had hopes. Deadpool is notorious for breaking the fourth wall and making sarcastic asides about the whole premise of comic book superheroes, so I thought maybe it would be funny. Maybe it was, but it was buried in over-the-top, nonstop violence — limbs lopped off, decapitations, multiple stabbings, and that was just in first ten minutes. The whole premise of the entire movie is that Deadpool has the superpower of instant healing, Wolverine is also able to heal any damage, and they didn’t like each other…so there were multiple overlong scenes which consisted of nothing but the two of them stabbing and chopping at each other in gruesome ways. I was bored.
Also, it’s a multiverse movie. I hate the multiverse concept. It erases the possibility of tragic mistakes, because you can just hop to a different timeline, or go back in time and fix an error, and it lowers the stakes. It also opens up the possibility of all kinds of cameos from other Marvel movies — even dead characters can pop in for a visit — and this movie worked that angle thoroughly and repeatedly to the point that I just stopped caring that so-and-so from an old superhero movie showed up.
It was not amusing when the culminating battle (it’s always a battle nowadays) was bringing in hundreds of alternate universe superheroes in a climax of pointless hacking and slashing. I was ready to fall asleep. The plot was also a mess, with two villains, neither of whom cared about the knifings and choppings going on, they were operating on a different plane of existence, apparently.
Skip it, unless you’re really into fan service.
The idea of mutants acquiring ridiculous superpowers (like blades springing from knuckles, spider silk spewing from palms of hands and all that) certainly worked on eight-year-olds in the 1970s, but with the infantilization of today’s adults it’s more popular than ever, especially when excessive CGI violence, sex and puerile plots are thrown in. I don’t know why an intelligent man like Dr. Myers even bothers discussing it.
Color me unsurprised. I’m sure it’ll make a couple billion.
Oh, it’s doing phenomenal box office this weekend, for sure. Because stupid people like me fall for it.
I think I’ll just wait until someone makes a supercut of Deadpool wisecracking at Rob Liefeld (his original creator and legendary for bad anatomy drawing) and stay home in the meantime.
There was one good joke in the movie: in the wreckage of a city street the “heroes” had demolished, there was a Liefeld’s shoe store.
Sweet.
There were definitely long sections that dragged (the minivan fight for one), but overall, I thought it had enough amusing cameos, dorky gags, and creative gratuitous cussing to keep me mostly amused for 2 hours. I did definitely enjoy the part where Deadpool starts yelling at Marvel for overdoing the multiverse stuff. “Just flop after flop!”
Frankly, I don’t understand why any intelligent adult would watch any of these Marvel movies (and most other Hollywood movies), but I realize that living in Morris, MN, there are few entertainment opportunities.
I did see Barbie and Oppenheimer last year and thought both were worth the time and money (and there is a theatre literally one block from where I live in my own small town), but I can’t recall the last time I saw a movie in the theatre as nearly all of them have Roman numerals in their title.
@ ANB : What’ve you got against Roman numerals? Okay, they’re bit less familiar and awkwarder than the Arabic ones but still..
Long ago (1968), Larry Niven addressed multiverses in “All the Myriad Ways”. He hated them, too.
https://archive.org/details/Galaxy_v27n03_1968-10/page/n31/mode/2up?view=theater
Rocky, from Project Hail Mary, could count on one claw –hand!, the Marvel movies I’ve seen. I scanned through the character list on the Marvel web site. Discounting the recycled mythological characters, and the movies on Direct TV that I skip over, I don’t think he’d need two claws –hands! to count the ones I’ve heard of. I plan to keep it that way.
While scanning the character list, I had to do a double take to realize that Lila Cheney was not Liz Cheney.
@ 8 & 9: The only movie with a roman numeral that comes to mind as being better than the original is Star Trek II.
I live in a small town with one movie theater — the next closest is 45 minutes away. I like the ambience, but have very limited choice in movies, and we just came off a long streak where there was nothing but kids’ Minion movies, Troll movies, and Pureflix stuff (children’s movies and Christian movies are reliable money makers around here). When something different comes along, I’ll walk down to the theater and spend my $6 to see it. And too often regret it.
weylguy@1 to be picky Spider Man isn’t a mutant, and in the original comics his webs are produced by a chemical he cooks up in his bedroom(, fired from a spray device. (And that should have made him rich because of their potential spinoffs.) Wolverine’s claws were originally the product of comic book mad science and weren’t natural. Of course as is typical of comic books they’ve tinkered with that subsequently.
The only Marvel movies I’ve actually watched all the way through are the first Iron Man movie, the first Toby McGuire Spider Man movie, and The Wolverine, which mixed together bits of his solo adventures related to Japan. All much more low key movies than the current MCU movies are.
The first film titled Dead Pool was the last film in the Dirty Harry series. By then, the premise of the films was getting old and there were no sequels. But I like the films Eastwoid made later in his career.
PZ Myers @ 12
You get Pureflix films on the big screen?
I only interact with those film titles through God Awful Movies!
If you must watch large-scale mayhem, watch the Soviet-era film version of ‘War And Peace’. I doubt any western film has had that many extras charging each other. And they were not cheating with digital effects!
.
If you want to watch a film with science fiction elements, watch either Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” (very slow, but hypnotic) or his “Stalker” (even slower, but worth your time).
A science fiction/action film that is well worth your time: “Source Code”.
Using theoretical quantum physics the branches of time make sense.
.
Dumb premise (but not worse than in Matrix, or Deadpool /Wolwerine and quite fun): “Lucy”, 2014 .
timgueguen
If you didn’t see Logan, you missed easily the best superhero/comic film released in decades.
So, you hate comic book films, PZ. It’s obvious at this point. Considering movies about scientists and mathematicians usually make bank — just look at the profits the films A Beautiful Mind, The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, and Oppenheimer made — which scientist’s life would you like see turned into a film?
I’m curious to see your answer. Personally, I’d like to see Hollywood tackle Jack Paarsons or JBS Haldane.
Part of the problem was that shooting occurred during the writer’s strike, so alterations, re-writes, and ad libs by Reynolds who could only work in his capacity as an actor, were not possible.
[OT]
Walter, you can see all 50 comics here:
https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Old-Man-Logan-2016
Walter, I’ve already seen Herbert West, Reanimator. :)
$6? Wow. I recognize there’s a currency conversion, but when I would take the kids to a movie in Vancouver, it was insanely expensive. But the littles loved the experience, and that made it worth it to me.
@19– Those biopics, with the exception of Oppenheimer, were successful because they invented popularist lies about the scientists involved and generally avoided discussing the actual meaning of their work. Even Oppenheimer turns an important historical figure’s story into a courtroom drama about how unfairly he was treated by Lewis Strauss (which is true, but is one of the least important aspects of Oppenheimer’s life). Meanwhile, a genuinely amazing life story of far more moral interest is that of Joseph Rotblat, who doesn’t even appear in Oppenheimer despite being one the key scientists at Los Alamos and making a far more momentous decision than anything Oppy ever did.
Making movies look like video games does get boring after awhile. Even the old Batman TV show in the 60s included some actual humanity.
I also don’t like the multiverse plot hole
@chrislawson #24:
Oppenheimer also avoided discussing where the uranium came from: Navajo and Congolese miners. The latter inspired Marvel’s Wakanda and its secret vibranium hoard.
Fuck, the level of smug intellectualism in these comments…
Not understanding why intelligent people would enjoy the MCU, or any ‘mindless’ entertainment is a failure of your intellect, and no evidence of a lack on their part.
Enjoyment of movies is purely subjective, and as such opinions about them need no justification. Don’t like it? Great! Want to tell people that? Go for it! But as soon as you start to imply that people must be stupid for enjoying what you do not you’ve crossed over into assholery.
I used to work in an used bookstore. There was a woman who came in regularly to trade in her Harlequin Romances for new ones. Never thought much about her until one day a bike courier who was hanging around between tickets pointed her out. “That’s (name forgotten), she’s one of the top trial lawyers in this city.” Huh.
I got to know her a bit in a ‘regular customer’ way and found her to be polite, patient, obviously intelligent, and present in conversation in a way that most folks aren’t. And her clothes, shoes and accessories spoke to a very high level of financial reward for her work, backing up the courier’s assertion.
Eventually I felt comfortable asking ‘Why the Harlequins?’ Her response shouldn’t surprise: she earned her living using her brain in complex and real-world impactful ways. People’s lives hung on her abilities, all day, every day. Cheesy, formulaic romances were a timeout, a balm that helped her deal with the stresses of her work life.
So, there you go, one answer to the asinine question as to why an intelligent person might enjoy unintelligent entertainment.
I’m sure there plenty other reasons, maybe the folks here who profess ignorance about this could engage their compassion and superior intellect to think of a few more.
No, it’s not.
And your complaint is thereby rather ironic.
Might as well note that it’s a failure on your part to not get that, while there’s a place for the likes of Three Stooges, or Dumb and Dumber, t’s not for everyone.
(De gustibus non est disputandum)
—
I myself didn’t particularly mind Deathpool the first movie (of course, comics are not just better, but also more canonical), but I gave up as it was beginning for the second one, which I watched via Netflix.
It irritated the shit out of me how it was juiced for comic effect he was ostensibly trying to off himself but failing. Bah.
As with most movies these days, I gave up before 10 minutes was up.
(One can tell, by then)
Too fucking stupid for me. Worse, it’s not supposed to be absurd, it’s supposed to be clever.
And the protagonist is supposed to be cute whilst being an utter idiot who can’t figure things out?
Bah.
Sub-par pabulum for the plebs, that is.
—
Anyway, FossilFishy — your attempted jibe towards “smug intellectualism in these comments” is understandable, from a smugly intellectual viewpoint.
(There, there!)
[meh, tags. Still, when I take a comment sufficiently seriously, I generally remember to preview]
In general, I’m over the superhero movie thing (just like I’m done with police procedurals, mafia movies, etc.), although my wife and I are (very slowly) working through the MCU series as much to have some context when our adult children are talking about things as anything else. No disrespect intended to anyone who enjoys them – I’ve just been drained on the overall concepts at the moment. However, we do vicariously love Deadpool, as well as Ryan Reynolds and the Ryan/Hugh bromance, so we were looking forward to this. I liked the film but I didn’t love it – in large part for the reasons PZ gave above. It was over the top -for a Deadpool movie- which is saying a lot (I got really tired of the repeated Fox/Disney references). I rate it last place of the Deadpool series and probably won’t rush to re-watch it.
Deadpool, Deadpool 2, and Free Guy were movies which were packed with cameos already, and entering the multiverse was really the only way to bring back Wolverine after Logan. (The character even quipped that “you’d think that the studio couldn’t afford to license more X-men characters”, or words to that effect, in the first Deadpool movie.) Combine that with Ryan Reynolds’ previous comments from a past interview or two about Deadpool being a trilogy, and combine that with the promotional segment where the character referred to himself as “Marvel Jesus”, and it’s not unexpected that he’d try to cram as many cameos as possible into it.
Also, I went into the movie fearing it would be more Quantumania and less Deadpool, so admittedly that could be why I’m happier with it.
@ birgerjohansson : “The first film titled Dead Pool was the last film in the Dirty Harry series. By then, the premise of the films was getting old and there were no sequels. But I like the films Eastwoid made later in his career.”
I thought Sudden impact was the last one? The one with the avenging rape victim vigilante.
Wasn’t Dead Pool the second one with the group of vigilante cops who wanted to emulate Dirty Harry by being vigilantes Batman style minus the costumes, super-villains, personal wealth and executing rather than bringing the crooks into custody? Like just murdering suspects rather than arresting them. Diy Harry foudn out and stopped them. Sorry, SPOILERS warning?
The concept that everything happens in some universe means nothing we do matters.
Or would, if it made any sense at all.
@ ^ Howard Brazee : Well, in this ‘verse it does anyhow.. ;-)
(In another paralell cosmos you’re cool with that..)
I agree that Logan was a good movie that told an interesting story about aging and sacrifice. It would have been a great conclusion to the Wolverine franchise.
There is, in my opinion at least, a rule that should be applied to any form of satire: such works should NEVER be as long as the work they’re satirizing. Probably not even half as long.
So the first “Star Wars” movie was about two hours long; and “Hardware Wars” was only about 15 minutes — and that was long enough. It was hilarious the whole time.
Also, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was about four inches thick in paperback; and “Bored of the Rings” was only half an inch thick — and that was long enough. There really wasn’t enough good material for anything more.
I’ve seen the first two “Deadpool” movies, and there was lots of good, funny stuff in them — but neither of them had two whole effing hours of funny stuff. There were a few good, funny, memorable moments in each one, but they were mostly just plain tedious and downright unpleasant to sit through. So PZ’s take on it is very close to my own experience with the “Deadpool” franchise, and I’m still on the fence about whether I’ll see this latest one. (Maybe someone could make a career of putting selected high-points of such movies together into 15-minute mashups for the likes of us?)
Also, whose idea was this specific match-up? Why not “Deadpool & Magneto?” “Deadpool & Mystique?” “Deadpool & Dr. Strange?” Logan seemed to me sort of a tragic figure in the MCU: a working-class guy who most often found himself with the worst aspects of both superhero and ordinary life. And remember, he had TWO very hard and unfair lifetimes, not just one. “Logan” handled his life and mortality quite well, thankyouverymuch, so I really don’t feel inclined to see that serious and decent story taken down to the level of a Deadpool movie.
Enjoyment of movies is purely subjective, and as such opinions about them need no justification. Don’t like it? Great! Want to tell people that? Go for it!
Okay…that’s what we’re doing. So what’s your problem?
But as soon as you start to imply that people must be stupid for enjoying what you do not you’ve crossed over into assholery.
Who here said anything like that? Did you even read the OP, or do you just normally get triggered and defensive whenever someone criticizes a movie you like?
Solomon @19: Minor quibble — “The Imitation Game” does not belong in that list; it was so full of historical errors that they should have called it “The Fabrication Game.” Just for starters, Turing never met John Cairncross, never found out he was spying for the USSR, and never tried to confront him about it. And no, no one else “had their eyes on him” as a possible spy either, at least not until the 1950s, and even then they had nothing but vague suspicions, until he confessed of his own accord in 1991.
Also, the bit about Turing being reduced to a sobbing mess by the drug used to “cure” his gayness has been, IIRC, plausibly disputed by people who knew him: the drugs didn’t make him straight, of course, but they didn’t affect him as badly as the movie portrays.
Howard Brazee@33:
That may not follow.
First off: what this-you does matters to those others affected by this-you. If you decide to treat someone well, and another person decides to treat yet another person poorly, that doesn’t “cancel out” your choice, and I don’t see how putting a multiverse-wall between the two pairs of people changes that. In the end, the criticism you’ve given applies (or not) equally if the universe is infinite no matter how it manages to be infinite (including being a spatially-infinite monoverse).
Second: the choices of the parallel yous collectively affect the probabilities, or branching fractions, or amplitudes, or whatever. If the bulk of the yous make choices that reduce harm, then a random observer is much more likely to encounter a you reducing harm than a you not helping or even making things worse. This-you contributes a smidgen to enhancing that likelihood by choosing harm reduction. And if there are alternate-yous different enough to make wildly different choices, they’re different enough to count as wholly different people anyway, whereupon we’re back to my first point, which is that the same thing happens in a monoverse with an infinite population of sapients.
And all of this is presuming there isn’t a finite multiverse, with a relatively small number of discrete branches or parallels, rather than an infinite (or at least astronomically huge) one.
Consequently, I feel this oft-heard criticism of multiverses is misplaced, as it is possible to conceive of a multiverse to which it doesn’t apply, and of a non-multiverse to which it (arguably) does. In the end it boils down to a “drop in the bucket” complaint, which is already an issue in a world of 8 billion people most of whom seem to be rushing pell-mell toward the climate cliff.
The only real way to make this “stick” specifically to a multiverse is to go with a model where choice has no impact at all other than to specify which you you are: the one who made this choice versus that other one who made that choice, so all you’re “really” doing when you make a decision is steering your own path through a Choose Your Own Adventure that, taken in its entirety, is unaffected. Oh, wait, that version of the criticism “sticks” to any deterministic block-universe, mono or multi. It’s more a criticism of Calvinist belief than anything else (and of God, in the improbable event that Calvinist belief turns out to be true).
I read a review of the movie Capote where it was opined that the main reason to watch was to see Philip Seymour Hoffman do the voice. The movie was described as a delivery system for the voice. I think that’s oversimplified in the case of Capote, but it’s a perfect description of Deadpool & Wolverine. Do you want to watch Ryan Reynolds be Deadpool? Snark around and kick some butt? This movie is a great delivery system for that. I enjoyed it. If you liked the first two, then you’ll probably like this one. Not as good as the other two, but an enjoyable couple of hours.
PZ Myers @ 35
You are not the only one to have strong feelings about this film.
The Guardian
Deadpool & Wolverine: Marvel Jesus, potty mouths and bloody cameos – discuss with spoilers
https://www.theguardian.com/film/article/2024/jul/29/deadpool-wolverine-movie-review