If you are interested in Cold War History and probably already know some things about it, this movie can be very entertaining. I liked it because I am interested in this part of history and I liked Bryan Cranston already. But I could imagine, that someone, who isn’t already familiar with the Red Scares in Hollywood, couldn’t quite as well follow along. It is a nice biopic, comparable to the one about Alfred Hitchcock. Some nostalgia with costumes and sets, the historical protagonist is of course very sympathetic. It’s nothing new, but it works. But I do not understand how Cranston could get an Oscar nominations for that. He is good, without a doubt, but it was nothing he would be remembered for. I think because Trumbo is already a Hollywood legend, that the academy nominated him for masturbatory reasons. It is a story about them. Hollywood celebrates itself, as always. Besides, John Goodman would have deserved a nomination as well. Simply magnificent.
No Marvel Character was so spectacular badly done like Deadpool in his appearance in the first Wolverine Spin-Off. Maybe it was the misguided humor of the creators to sew the mouth of the Merc with the mouth shut, maybe it was directed by studio officials, who didn’t believe in a Deadpool like he was in the comics, to give Deadpool, instead of his red suit, Katanas as hands, or maybe it was just stupidity what gave him his laser vision. I don’t know and I don’t want to know it (maybe in some sort of documentary, like the one about the Nic Cage Superman film). So can Deadpool – The Movie, starring Deadpool himself, save this frontal crash of a comic book character? To make it short: yes! If you just want to know if you should watch „Deadpool“, because you liked him in the comics, then go watch it. The rest of you, please read along.
Those of you, who are not familiar with Deadpool, he is a short history of the character: Created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld, Deadpool had is debut in New Mutants #98 in 1991. The unique about him is, besides his immortality and cancer-riddled body, that he constantly breaks the fourth wall, cracks jokes and overall takes himself not too serious. When in 2009 it was announced, that Deadpool will appear in the first Spin-Off X-Men Movie about Wolverine, fans had high expectations. But like in the introduction described, Deadpool failed hard.
Now, seven years later 20th Century Fox realized, that a real Deadpool could work. The trailers clearly show that they made a real effort to bring the comic book Deadpool to the big screen. Can this film revitalize the character, or have we here a Fantastic Four/the Amazing Spiderman Franchise Reboot Fail on our hands? Well, I spoiled it already, so whom am I kidding? I liked it very much, it was everything I expected it to be.
[spoilers may lay ahead]
Already in the opening credits, Deadpool is different. Not the names of the Director (*overpaid asshole*) or the screenplay writers (*the real heroes*) are shown, but what seems to be Deadpool opinions about them. And that is just the beginning. The movie is filled with little, easy to oversee gags. At one point one protagonist says: „There is a man waiting for you. I don’t know who he is, but I think he will advance the plot.“ Such things come unexpected, quiet and without any slapstick. Overall the movie has less than expected fart and dick jokes, more visual gags and dry humor. Don’t get me wrong, Deadpool is often just silly, too. But not so often, that it gets annoying. It seems to me, somebody watched „Guardians of the Galaxy“ real closely and adapted the recipe on the Deadpool franchise. Especially the soundtrack remembers at the GotG formula. One other big point, which worried Fans of the Franchise was the violence. At first, Deadpool was announced to be PG-13 rated, which would have killed a lot of the macabre side of the Comic Books of. But with an R Rating, the film is very brutal. It is the violence some Fans wanted for other franchises, for example for the Frank Miller inspired A man dressed like a bat. I for once wasn’t bothered by the plenty of on-screen violence. I think it wouldn’t have been necessary, but with a PG-13 Rating, some of the languages would have been cut, too, which would have watered down the experience for sure. It was a nice cherry on top but nothing more.
So we established that the humor and the horror were good, but what’s about the story? Well, it is not more than the classic Origin-Story, like Ant-Man, Iron-Man etc. before. But it doesn’t want to be more. It doesn’t want to sell us the plot as something new or brilliant, it’s just the vehicle to have fun with Deadpool. The back and forth between the current events in a short period of time and the backstory over a long period of time gives the movie a simple but clean structure. The events in it are densely packed so it never gets boring. The supporting cast is also good, but Morena Baccarin fell a bit behind with her given only the role of the damsel in distress at the end. Ed Skrein gave his best version of a two-dimensional psychopathic killer, but it didn’t need more to get sympathy for Deadpool in his fight against him. Like the plot in a whole, Ad Skrein’s Ajax was forgettable Marvel Villain #2335, but this time, they were aware of it.
In the End Deadpool is not the deepest Comic Book Movie, the story is plump, the villain is run of the mill. But all these things which would have made a bad movie, makes Deadpool great. Because you feel, that the actors and the writers wanted to have fun, wanted to have the audience have fun with one of the goofiest characters in the Marvel Universe. It’s not an X-Men DoFP, with it’s big story, grave characters, and the wide universe. But if you liked GotG and some macabre comedy, you certainly will like this movie.
Watched on Tuesday February 2, 2016.
As the filmmaker Casey Neistat often says: “Technology should only be an enabler, not the main topic. The gear doesn’t matter as long you have a story to tell.” Tangerine is the best example for that. Although the iPhone came a very long way in phone camera development it is still a very limited device in filmmaking terms. What Sean Baker achieved with it is amazing! And with it’s limited resources, the film tells a very good story.
If you hear about a film about transgender sex workers in L.A. you would expect a tragic story about all the struggle they would have with customers, with their profession itself, with being transgender. Or at least, I expected that. Often mainstream films drift into some sort of poverty porn.
But this film is the opposite. It addresses the problems Sin-Dee and Alexandra have, but not in a condescending or voyeuristic way. They are real-life people with real-life problems. And the fact that the protagonists are played by transgender actresses shows that the movie wants to tell a story with transgender women, not only about them. Every time I see a cis actor like Eddi Redmayne or Jeffrey Tambor cast as transgender women I wonder how this could be. Obviously, there are good transgender actresses around and they are getting more. A white person wouldn’t be cast as a black character, for example. So why is this still a thing?
Getting back to the film, the story itself is captivating. Told on a single day, with a constant flow of action it feels like pumping blood. The story has a pulse. I was reminded at Pulp Fiction, at the feeling I have when I watch this movie. Tangerine is the new Pulp Fiction for me. It has a unique way of storytelling. The use of music is also interesting. The constant change between up-tempo dance music and classical songs gave me a feeling of conflict between Christmas time and the normal street life.
I hope this sets a new standard for transgender story telling.
A retrofuturistic story about men, women and family and how people think they should be.
The visual effects are low budget but well made, so that it’s not ridiculous. The setting takes the Kubrick space station and puts it in a nice, little indy comedy movie. The main focus lays on the actors and how they act together, which are remarkably good for such a production. But it is no wonder, if you know, that Jack Plotnick developed the script through improvisation with the actors. It’s almost a stage play. Liv Tyler and Patrick Wilson as melancholic protagonists are amazing. The comedy lies in sublime scenes, is always subtle and never over the top.
The frightening thing about Scientology is, that it has the brutality of some cult, founded by some nutjob, but at the same time a level of organization and international connections of the Roman catholic church.
What surprised me the most while watching the documentary, was how Scientology strongarmed the IRS into declaring them a religion. They make a ton of money, emotional and physical abuse people, even children etc. and are spared of paying any taxes. HOW IS THIS NOT ILLEGAL?
After all, that I heard about the practices of Scientology I think this documentary is a strong statement. Anyone who takes it up with them is immensely brave.
The film tries to tell a very powerful but complicated story. In order to keep the viewers attention over the two and a half hours, it has opulent art style. From superwhite, superclean future, to surreal scenes. From the 70s and 80s nostalgia to emotional love scenes. Nemo Nobody, the last mortal human reflects on his life (or lives). Rather than telling one life story he tells all possible. At every decision he made in life, he reviews the possible outcomes. And that’s the main motive of the movie: Choices. How would your life evolve if you choice this or that girl, to live at on place or another? The line between what’s real and what’s imagination is very thin. It is very hard to watch if you expect a contingent story. It is more a collage of possibilities and memories. Often the plot hops between one storyline and another very fast. If you stay focused, the movie is rich in ideas and philosophical questions. But for someone, who just wants to watch a movie, it is definitely too convoluted and boring.
all talk and no acting make Jack a dull boy.
Never was I more torn back and forth over a Tarantino movie. On the one hand, it’s brilliant. The setting itself tells a story, the cabin with tons of little things, the landscape, the snow. It is a place were weird things like you see in the movie are bound to happen. A group of people trapped in a cabin, nowhere to go, no communication with the outside, no trust. Every face is unique and you just want to look at it to see what happened to the person. Never before Tarantino borrows things so often from his own movies. It is Pulp Fiction, crammed into the hall of Reservoir Dogs in a Django Unchained setting with a British Hans Landa. All this makes this movie interesting and fun to watch.
But all these fantastic little pieces are like a badly stitched quilt. They fall apart because it lacks a red thread.
At first: Couldn’t Tarantino get Christoph Waltz and just did cast Tim Roth as Christoph Waltz, who played a role in this movie? When he was first introduced it seems Tarantino tried to recreate the beginning of Inglourious Basterds. And overall the talking was just too much for what was actually told the viewer in these conversations. (Even for a Tarantino Movie). It missed a storyline. Even Pulp Fiction had some sort of ongoing story. In Hateful Eight is in the essence: People talking in a cabin and, in the end, they are all dead. I missed the genius Tarantino who brought me, Hans Landa or Jules. As I wrote, every character is interesting and unique and in every other movie they would have been excellent. But for Tarantino they are just mediocre.
Maybe Tarantino tried to do syntheses of his other movies. Maybe he wanted to just focus on to do as many Tarantino-esque characters as possible in one movie. And while the movie is good, in the end, it doesn’t work out. But do not get me wrong, it is a good movie but I hold Tarantino to a higher standard.
I watched this film for a history seminar on the 40s and 50s in America. While I would never have watched it on my on, I rather liked the message. “Religion makes no difference except for Nazis and someone who is stupid.” Of course, it is a simple message, set out to be used in a propagandistic way, but it can be fun to take it and look on modern America. It would love to see reactions by any presidential candidate when shown this film.
Nice historical document for the short period, when religious tolerance was something favorable in the USA.
This review may contain spoilers.
On the musical side, the film is excellent. In no other movie did I see the love for the music and dedication for it like in “Whiplash”. But on the other side, it shows a very concerning vision of teaching. J. K. Simmon’s character touches on the stereotype of the rough coach who just wants to push his team. In many ways “Whiplash” has the characteristics of a sports movie. But with real-world examples of abusive teachers, misplaced trust in authority figures and broken Childs, the movie has a concerning message. Andrew goes back to Fletcher against the will of everyone who likes it, especially his father. The movie ends at that point where Andrew finally gets the approval of his teacher after months of emotional abuse. I really wished, in the end, Andrew would just walk away, and don’t give in the pressure of Fletcher. But so all the real world aspects of such a relationship until possible suicide were just forgotten in the end.