Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

Deadpool movie review: origin story with a potty mouth

Deadpool red light

Callous, crass, unpleasantly smug. Supposes it’s being edgy because its protagonist swears a lot, but it’s like a child saying bad words just to be naughty.
I’m “biast” (pro): nothing

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

The more I think about this movie, the more I dislike it. And I only just saw it last night, less than 24 hours ago. Gimme a few more days, and who knows how much I’ll hate it. Maybe this is the sort of movie people are referring to when they say you need to switch your brain off to enjoy it. “Don’t think about Deadpool too much! You’ll ruin it for yourself.”

This is not the sort of recommendation I will ever give a film.

The opening credits of Deadpool are pretty darn brilliant, and you don’t even have to think too much about them to see that, though it’s plain the movie believes it’s being extremely witty and clever with them. I won’t spoil them for you, but suffice to say that my hopes were momentarily piqued: this seemed to be a hint that the people involved here were interested in deconstructing the comic-book movie, that Deadpool was going to hold up the tropes of the genre for, if not outright ridicule, then at least a goodnatured ribbing. We’ve had a solid decade and a half of mutants in spandex since the rebirth of the comic-book movie with 2000’s X-Men, and it’s inevitable that the clichés can get a bit tiresome at times.

But then Deadpool dives right into the clichés and splashes around in them for an hour and 45 minutes, showing no interest in being anything other than an utterly conventional origin story, as former special-forces solider Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds: Self/less, Woman in Gold) gets his mutant genes activated — this is happening in the X-Men universe — becomes virtually indestructible, and hunts down a bad guy who, ultimately, kidnaps the woman he loves (Morena Baccarin: Spy, Stargate: The Ark of Truth) as a threat to Wade. (In one of the movie’s trailers, she gets to say: “I’ve played a lot of roles. Damsel in distress ain’t one of ’em.” That line did not end up in the movie, perhaps because she is nothing but a damsel in distress. This could not, needless to say, be any more cliché. Oh, wait; yes, it can: she’s a hooker with a heart of gold. Really.) Deadpool supposes it is being edgy because its protagonist swears a lot, because it tosses out jokes about anal sex, and because it grubs its way through a completely gratuitous scene in a strip club that gets some naked breasts onscreen. It’s like a child saying bad words just to be naughty. Or like someone emotionally stunted who doesn’t want to confront the horror of what’s in front of him and so makes a joke about it. This is one of the supposed new breed of “adult” comic-book movies — like last year’s Kingsman: The Secret Service — but it’s the same old shit with any genuine emotion and subtlety ripped out and replaced by whatever callous and crass flotsam would garner it an R-rating. (The director here is first-timer Tim Miller. He worked on FX on Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. This is precisely the sort of superhero movie you would expect to get with that pedigree: “cars tossed around in slo-mo” and “guys complain about how women have romantic agency” appear in about equal measure here.)

There are genuinely dark and adult places this story could have gone, but it avoids them completely. Wade is lied to and tortured by villain Ajax (Ed Skrein: The Transporter Refuelled, The Sweeney), whose motives are completely absent: the plan is to mutate Wade and turn him into some sort of “super slave,” but what this means and what purpose it would serve for the bad guys, we have no idea. Deadpool could have been brutal like, say, Robocop, but instead it’s more like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, except it gets meta in a way that fails to substitute for the ferocity that is not here. The unfunny “comic relief” character (T.J. Miller: Big Hero 6, Transformers: Age of Extinction) suggests that Wade do something he wouldn’t normally do because it “might further the plot.” Wade breaks the fourth wall to offer snarky asides to the audience. He doesn’t have anything terribly sharp to say, it’s just meant to be clever on its own that he knows he’s a character in a movie. I don’t know the precise form that takes in the comic books — in which he apparently knows he’s a character in a comic book — but here he doesn’t merely know that he’s a character in any ol’ movie but in the specific X-Men movies we’ve been watching since 2000.

The joke that I suspect screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (who together wroter G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Zombieland) intend to be their most incisive meta-reference might garner a laugh at first, but then, as you think about it — that dread “thinking” — it brings this flimsy excuse for a movie collapsing in on itself. Wade isn’t just breaking the fourth wall, and he’s not just breaking those X-Men movies, he’s breaking his own movie. And he’s really unpleasantly smug while he’s doing it. Deadpool is so intent on making fun of superhero movies that it forgets we need to care about this one. Wade is a psychopath — he was even before he got mutated — who enjoys killing: he keeps telling us he’s “not a hero,” but he’s the hero here, and we are meant to cheer for him without reservation. We’re supposed to like that he’s a psychopath — perhaps it’s meant to be okay for us to cheer for him because, as we are constantly reminded, this is only movie fakery. But that’s not how that works. (The most self-referential joke here reminds us that Reynolds is hardly a great actor. This also may have been ill-advised.)

It all adds up to absolutely nothing. This is the end of comic-book movies if this is the only place left to go.


red light 1.5 stars

Like what you’re reading? Sign up for the daily digest email and get links to all the day’s new reviews and other posts.

shop to support Flick Filosopher

Independent film criticism needs your support to survive. I receive a small commission when you purchase almost anything at iTunes (globally) and at Amazon (US, Canada, UK):

    
Deadpool (2016)
US/Can release: Feb 12 2016
UK/Ire release: Feb 10 2016

MPAA: rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity
BBFC: rated 15 (strong bloody violence, strong language, sex references)

viewed in 2D
viewed at a semipublic screening with an audience of critics and ordinary moviegoers

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine | Rotten Tomatoes

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, you might want to reconsider.

  • Tyler

    This sounds exactly how Deadpool should be. A sour old lady hates the movie? Perfect. Maybe you should’ve done a little more research on the character.

  • PeterDarker

    So…you’re disappointed that a movie introducing a character that 90% of the population has no idea of is an origin story? Okay. I was pissed there were no shark attacks in Selma. What?

  • Tonio Kruger

    And there goes two more reasons why I won’t be wasting my money on this movie (three if you count the trailer).

  • Tonio Kruger

    The most self-referential joke here reminds us that Reynolds is hardly a great actor.

    Hold the phone! Ryan Reynolds is not a great actor?

    Didn’t you see the millions of people who flocked to see him in Green Lantern and R.I.P.D.?

    Come to think of it, I didn’t, either…

  • Leeerooooy Mmnnjeeeenkinsss

    ”This sounds exactly how Deadpool should be”. What, shallow, afraid to take risks, afraid to delve into the characters much, and being outright hackneyed? Not to mention unfunny because of lame and predictable jokes that you’ve heard before from terrible stand-up comedians? There’s also plenty of people who would disagree with you and say that this movie doesn’t represent the Deadpool character very well (not talking about me, just what I saw on YouTube).

    You should read the review more attentively instead of (probably) scanning it. At the start of the fourth paragraph it’s clearly explained why this isn’t a good movie in her opinion, and then once more at the start of the fifth, starting with ”There are genuinely”. Yeah, maybe the review focuses on one particular aspect a bit much, but that doesn’t make everything she wrote invalid.

    Whether you agree or disagree, nobody cares if you can’t present decent arguments.

  • Tyler

    Clearly you cared enough to write all this out. LOL. tl;dr.

  • Tyler

    Yeah, you’re right. This movie clearly isn’t for snooty douchebags. Good call.

  • Zeroed Out

    It’s funny that MaryAnn pretends to understand what the movie is trying to do by poking fun at the genre, but then clearly shows that she doesn’t understand it at all.

    The origin story is supposed to cliche. That’s the whole point. Same goes for the “hooker with a heart of gold.” If you really don’t understand that this overused cliche was used purposely, then you have no business reviewing this movie.

    I have to wonder what she thought of the deus ex machina at the end of Adaptation. She probably wrote, “And then this stupid alligator shows up. How trite and anti-climactic.”

  • Zeroed Out

    The problem I have with her review is that she says the movie had the opportunity to poke fun at the genre, but then doesn’t understand that the idea of a “hooker with a heart of gold” is doing exactly that… or, more accurately, poking fun at hack-storytelling as a whole.

    I’m glad it’s not trying to be more than it is. I love the Marvel movies, but they’re getting long in the tooth. Each one is now almost recognizable from the last… and they’re so intent on making a big, spectacular ending that the second part of Infinity War will probably just be a two-hour fight against Thanos.

  • timmy

    An insecure dick needs the movie to be special? Perfect. Keep eating this crap up that you’re being fed while paying for the honour to be fed it.

  • timmy

    bye

  • timmy

    Bless.

  • timmy

    If you really don’t understand that using a shit cliche deliberately still gives a shit movie, you have no business patronizing a stranger. I have to wonder what excuses you make for the Transformers movies. Oh, I don’t.

  • timmy

    bye

  • Pinkk

    Not the big Deadpool fan as you may see post here (I feel they just go to far with his fourth wall breaking in the comics and over saturated in the comics, but okay in smaller doses…a movie would be smaller dose and not something akin to being seen in multiple comics), but your review does make it sound like they’re staying true to what Deadpool is in the comics.

    Which, really, never felt like it was trying to be anything new or edgy or even a critique on comics and is basically about the the jokes you said.

    All that said, I think the critics are getting it wrong. This HAS to be an origin movie. There was just no getting around that. You didn’t know who Deadpool was. Most of the movie going audience won’t know who Deadpool is. What they need to bank on is the X-Men movie fan base (who aren’t part of the comic book fan base) and the R-Rated, raunchy, action movie fan base.

    So, yeah, needs to be an origin movie. To say otherwise would be as dumb as those who thought it was stupid for Spider-Man to swing from cranes instead of just taking the helicopter. It was Spider-Man, he HAS TO SWING, to do otherwise would have people going “Why isn’t he being Spider-Man” the same goes here “Who is this Deadpool?!”

    I would worry more about origin movies when it comes to new Batman and Spider-Man movies.

  • Pinkk

    While I don’t always agree with MA reviews, I can totally say she’s one of my favorite reviewers to read. So you should know…you sound like one of those fanboys who get upset when someone disagrees with their fandom :p

  • Sally Lee

    Maybe you should see The Green Inferno if you want a non-white female character who refuses to be a damsel in distress, I think it’s currently showing here in the UK and on demand.

  • Sally Lee

    You’re obviously a fan of Deadpool, maybe the “sour old woman’s” review is targeted to people who are going into this film knowing nothing — she’s not judging it based on how effective it will be for the target audience…

  • Trotting out clichés does not equal making fun of clichés. If you’ve seen the movie, please explain to us how you think it is poking fun at the “hooker with a heart of gold” trope.

  • This HAS to be an origin movie. There was just no getting around that.

    No, it doesn’t. It didn’t have to be made at all.

  • I’m going to see that. But it does not change my critique of this film.

  • you’re disappointed that a movie introducing a character that 90% of the population has no idea of is an origin story?

    Where did I say that?

  • Chad Hayes

    Granted, I haven’t seen the film yet, but it seems to me that you really just dislike the character of Deadpool, which is fine, (you’re entitled to your opinion) and that you went into it expecting either a more traditional superhero film or an outright parody of the genre. But Deadpool isn’t really a hero. He is an emotionally stunted, psychotic, off-the-wall antihero. He kills people for money and for fun. There’s even an issue of the comic where he’s hired to get Tony Stark to relapse into alcoholism and he does it gleefully. He’s a crass, immature character, (who I should note gets on the nerves of most of the Marvel heroes) and a lot of people love him for it. Essentially, he’s the Sterling Archer of the Marvel Universe.

    Now I haven’t seen the film yet, so I can’t testify to its elements yet, (plot, cliches, etc.) but the comics rely on a lot of meta humor and Deadpool plays racquetball with the fourth wall. Based on what your critique though, it seems like the film is true to the character and the comic, you just really don’t like it. But that’s understandable. Deadpool’s a very love-him-or-hate-him character.

  • RogerBW

    Flanders and Swann said it best:

    Ma’s out, Pa’s out, Let’s talk rude!
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
    Dance round the garden in the nude,
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
    Let’s write rude words all down our street,
    Stick out our tongues at the people we meet,
    Let’s have an intellectual treat for
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

    http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/tried_pee.html

    Meanwhile, Hollywood continues to be obsessed with origin stories, but really, how many fans of any given superhero read about where they came from as their first encounter with the character? You aren’t going to be completely lost if you come in in the middle of the story. That’s kind of the point.

  • Michael Sailor

    Yes, I suppose someone who has no knowledge of the comic book character would write a review like this one. I only hope not every critic views this movie with a stick up their rear end, though I know that’s an awful lot to ask.

  • Michael Sailor

    I’m picking up what you’re putting down, Roger, but Deadpool isn’t Superman or Spider-Man or Batman. He needs an origin story, IMO. As for coming in in the middle of the story, if someone’s interested in a character and goes back and reads the comics, that’s one thing. But if Hollywood went that route, it’d be a hard sell. Look at how terrible the Star Wars prequels were, my friend. :)

  • We have civil discussions here. If you’re not sure how to behave here, lurk for a while.

  • You’ll notice that I deleted your comment that suggested I had a stick up my ass. That sort of crap is not tolerated here. If you’re able to carry on adult conversation, you are welcome. If your Disqus history is representative of your conversation, however, it might be best for you to leave now.

  • My tolerance for bullshit is going to be very low in this thread. Tread carefully.

  • _Monkey_Boy_

    “it’s like a child saying bad words just to be naughty.”

    That’s Deadpool in a nutshell. So that’s a good thing :P

  • Unless it’s a sequel or based on a true story, every movie introduces a character we have no idea of, but only superhero movies feel the need to explain their origins.

  • Then this film is only of interest to kindergartners.

  • Krunoslav Lacković

    “No, it doesn’t [have to be an origin movie]. It didn’t have to be made at all.”

    That can be said of any movie.

    There isn’t any movie in history that had to be made. No matter the quality or lack there of.

    If you introduce a new superhero character in his own movie, esspecially a comic adaptation it’s almost always an origin story.

    “There are genuinely dark and adult places this story could have gone, but it avoids them completely.” — No wonder it does, as it’s derived from a comic-book line that does just that, avoids dark and adult places.

    From the critique and the comments it seems your main downside of the movie is that it very faithfully portrays a comic-book which you don’t think
    merrits a movie.

    The original material doesn’t suit, so the execution or faithfullness to the material is meaningless.

    ” I don’t know the precise form that takes in the comic books — in which
    he apparently knows he’s a character in a comic book — but here he
    doesn’t merely know that he’s a character in any ol’ movie but in the
    specific X-Men movies we’ve been watching since 2000″

    If you don’t know the precise form how can the form presented be critiqued? You don’t know if it’s portrayal is a mistake or bound to the source material, as seen in one of the closing comments:

    “as we are constantly reminded, this is only movie fakery. But that’s not how that works.” — That’s exactly how it works in the comic-books that are the material from which the character that you can’t grasp the appeal of is transfered to the movie.

    In the end — A movie, very clearly, not for all; but to claim one of it’s strengths, and that’s faithfullnes, is a downside from the very clear dislike for it isn’t really a critique of the movie.

  • Bluejay

    Saying a movie is very faithful to the source material is not a defense of the movie. If its flaws are an accurate reflection of the source, that just means the source is flawed as well. It doesn’t make the film better.

    And MaryAnn is reviewing the film, not the comic. What she sees as the film’s flaws are still its flaws, whether they’re unique to the film or borrowed from the source.

  • Danielm80

    There isn’t any movie in history that had to be made. No matter the quality or lack there of.

    That’s true, but some movies make themselves essential, simply by being well-crafted films that connect with the people in the audience and—in some cases—say something important about our culture.

    There are generations of people who love The Godfather and The Wizard of Oz. Many of those people never read the books. And those movies changed the source material in a number of different ways.

  • If you don’t know the precise form how can the form presented be critiqued?

    Because I am not critiquing the comic book. I am critiquing the movie.

  • Pinkk

    Well, that could be said for any movie. The Graduate didn’t need to be made. Wizard of Oz didn’t need to be made. Gone with the Wind didn’t need to be made.
    Some of the best reviewed movies feel like retreads of past movies, and then you can see reviews that bash other movies for doing the same thing. :p
    This movie, by the trailers, look to me to be a X-Men meets Your Highness. :p

  • Krunoslav Lacković

    You’re questioning it’s premise in multiple quotes like – “We’re supposed to like that he’s a psychopath” — yes, we are, cause that’s the character, and there are obviously people who like him, So that’s not apriori an error. You’re critiquing a character not the movie in most of it — you’re questioning why should you like a psychopath, not if he’s made likeable in the movie.

  • Krunoslav Lacković

    If there were more of a case or stress why the depiction in the movie is either poorly or done technically wrong than make most of the criticism about the main character of the movie as he’s definied elswhere.

    I get that’s it’s not her preference, but that’s hardly a quality issue.

    Objecting to a movie not taking a path that the movie not only doesn’t have to take, and it wouldn’t make it a better movie, but in itself a path that it simply can’t take is a pointless observation. And there are a few through the text.

  • Krunoslav Lacković

    They wouldn’t be essential if they were never made in the first place, now would they? So saying that a movie didn’t have to be made is without any point.

    You’re right in the changing of the material but the core of the stories wasn’t changed and from the critique it seems that here it’s presented as a flaw.

  • RogerBW

    Some films have made psychopaths likeable while retaining their psychopathy. (Silence of the Lambs, for example. And I imagine Warners is hoping that Suicide Squad will do it again.)
    But if all a film does is say “here’s the guy in the ‘lead character’ slot, so you like him, oh and by the way he’s a psychopath, isn’t that fun” – if it doesn’t even acknowledge that there’s some tension between “hero figure” and “nasty person” – then the film’s doing a poor job.

  • Kyle

    The problem I have with this review is you obviously don’t understand how genius this movie is. Looking at your previous reviews this isn’t a movie you’d understand, nor humor you’d like. I mean…didn’t you give “Bedazzled” a 9/10? Instead of breaking down how wrong you were with majority this review, i’ll leave you with this. They green-lit Deadpool 2.

  • Wade

    You want kindergartners to watch that? He is the definition of a man child. It is escapism

  • Michael Sailor

    I see, so you can talk to others however you want, but discard others’ comments claiming to be a victim? Considering your review and it’s holier-than-though vibe, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me.

  • Michael Sailor

    *snicker*

  • _Monkey_Boy_

    You clearly don’t know the character then if you believe that :P

  • Matt Hardwick

    Yet another critic who totally misses the point. No matter, you’re in the minority.

  • Josh Weikel

    “Callous, crass, unpleasantly smug. Supposes it’s being edgy because its protagonist swears a lot, but it’s like a child saying bad words just to be naughty.” It’s odd that, what is essentially, a bad review for a movie actually makes me want to see it more. If the take away is that Deadpool is playing out like a child going unpunished for bad behavior, that’s hitting the right notes for the character.

  • _Monkey_Boy_

    Exactly. The review says precisely what the character is, so it’s technically a good review xD

  • _Monkey_Boy_

    Yep, completely lost. This is why you should always know what you’re talking about when reviewing something based on something else.

  • Bluejay

    Then, congratulations! You’ve successfully used this review the way reviews are meant to be used — to help you get a better sense of the film so YOU can decide if you want to see it. You can’t control whether the reviewer likes a film or not, but if her description of it helped you make up your OWN mind, then she did her job.

  • Jonathan Dalmolin

    Neither of those movies were bad because of him. He was great in “Buried”, “Smokin’ Aces”, “The Nines”, “Foolproof”.

  • Bluejay

    She’s calling for civil discussion. There are other comments here that disagree with her review without attacking her, and she’s not deleting them. But yeah, she’s the host of this site, so if she smacks you down for saying she has a stick up her ass why should you be surprised? Just don’t be a douche, man.

  • I respect your opinion, but you’re not writing this review on the actual movie itself. What you actually don’t like is Deadpool the character himself, from the comic books. Everything you’re stating about the ‘movie’ is how he is within the comics. So why even bother reviewing the movie if it’s not your cup of tea in the first place? Just seems like you’re throwing a bad review out there to generate publicity.

  • Jonathan Dalmolin

    So you liked “22 Jump Street”, which literally did the exact same thing, but not this movie? How is it different for them? They literally say in that movie, “Do the same thing as last time. Everyone’s happy.” And then they literally do the exact same thing they did for the first movie.

  • Bluejay

    So why even bother reviewing the movie if it’s not your cup of tea in the first place?

    Because she’s a movie reviewer and it’s her job to review movies. Even ones she doesn’t like. And she won’t know if she likes a movie or not until after she actually sees it.

  • Michael Sailor

    Why thank you, I’ll certainly take that under advisement. (Is that comment too douchey?)

  • Reviewing movies of genres you don’t like in the first place is completely irrelevant. It’s like being a food critic and reviewing a rib shack when you’re a vegetarian. You’d only do it for the publicity, that’s all I’m saying.

  • Danielm80

    “It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.”
    –Roger Ebert

  • Bluejay

    What genre do you think she doesn’t like? Superheroes? Satire? She’s reviewed TONS of those films, some very positively.

  • I’m sure she has, and I’m not knocking that. If you don’t like the idea of the comic and the story behind it & the character its portraying that is what you don’t like. How in gods name are you’re going to review anything like that positively?

  • Bluejay

    She’s reviewing the film, not the comic. Is she supposed to be familiar with the source material of every movie before she sees it? She’s talking about her own personal response to what she saw on the screen. Whether or not it’s faithful to the comic is irrelevant. She didn’t like what she saw. (And, again, it’s not predetermined that she would dislike it. How would she know whether she liked it or not, before seeing the film?)

  • Matt Hardwick

    “Deadpool could have been brutal like, say, Robocop, but instead it’s more like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”

    That’s what the character is about. It’s not about the brutality, it’s about the silliness. There’s even a post-credits scene that parodies the post-credits scene from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off!

  • Kyle

    NOPE. You’re stupid and she’s stupid.

  • Danielm80

    She hasn’t read the comics. She doesn’t know what the idea or the story is. Would you like her to review the movie based on the trailer? The genre? Someone else’s description of the comic book?

    No, actually, you seem to be suggesting that she avoid the movie based on those things, which would be just as misguided and superficial.

  • “How would you know whether you liked it or not without seeing it?”

    That’s what trailers are for, and your average search engine. Are you telling me that no one finds out what a film is about before they go see it in some way or another? She would have had a decent understanding of what the film is about before hand regardless.

  • LaSargenta

    Hey Everyone!

    I brought popcorn. And beer.

  • LaSargenta

    No. He wasn’t. Reynolds should be cast in whatever the latest Baywatch-esque thing is on the telly.

  • I don’t even know how to respond to that comment.

  • Bluejay

    Again, reviewing movies is her job. That means she actually has to see the movie to have an opinion about it, in order to write about it.

    Trailers can be misleading, and they’re not enough to base a review on. Just because a trailer made me excited about “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace” doesn’t mean I actually LIKED the film when I saw it.

    Look, she has every right to her own personal opinion about this film, and every right to review it. If you disagree with her opinion, then why not just explain what you liked about the film?

  • kyle

    Seriously! So she thinks the movie would have been better if it avoided how the character actually is. She probably loved the Wolverine Origins movie

  • No, you’re missing my point here. I don’t understand why you’d review something you wouldn’t like anyway. That’s all. Yes, they can and that’s all well and good but I’m just stating what I think of it all.

    I wouldn’t like anyone to review the movie, the trailer or the story if it’s not something they’d be interested in. Why would you want to read a review about a movie that they’d never like in the first place? It’s predictable right?

    Plus, the trailer gives a clear indication of what he film is about regardless of whether you know the character from the comics or not.

  • Kyle

    Don’t bother, that was to Bluejay, which is probably Maryann in disguise as a guest to defend herself.

  • LaSargenta

    #NotAllKindergartners

  • Bluejay

    You keep saying she “wouldn’t like it anyway,” that she’d “never like it in the first place.” How do you know that? In her review, she says the opening credits were “pretty darn brilliant,” and her hopes were “momentarily piqued.” She was open to liking this movie! It just so happened that ultimately she didn’t.

    Have you seen the movie? What did you think of it? Where specifically do you think she got it wrong?

  • LaSargenta

    o_O

    Bedazzled?!? From over 15 years ago? I don’t even think she had a numerical or comparative ratings system in place on FF at that point. We just came here and read short essays that were reviews.

    And, genius, that’s a totally different movie. Personally, I didn’t see the same things in it as our Hostess, but, that didn’t make her review invalid.

  • Kyle

    Bedazzled.

  • LaSargenta

    Ya know, grown-ups don’t need the affirmation of strangers on the intertubz. There’s no sock puppets here among the regulars. Some of us know each other in vivo. Bluejay and MAJ are not the same person. Dig back in the archives and you’ll even see them disagree.

  • Bluejay

    Um, that was Kyle replying to me, not me replying to you. Kyle’s Trump-level insults don’t interest me. :-)

  • LaSargenta

    A REVIEW IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A SING-ALONG FEEL-GOOD MASTURBATION SESSION.

    Film criticism is a profession if done right. A critic who only writes about works they unreservedly like is not writing reviews, but, instead “reviews” which are actually puff pieces.

    I think you are conflating public relations and marketing releases with reviews.

  • Kyle

    So she disagreed with herself to prove they are in fact different people? Classic Deadpool move…Suprised she didn’t like the movie!

  • Bluejay

    Don’t bother, LaSargenta.

  • Danielm80

    Forget it, Jay, it’s Chinatown.

  • That’s just something I don’t understand about the film critics industry in general. You can still like a genre of movie and review it negatively. That’s what I’d call an accurate review. ‘Oh this person likes these kinda movies and said it wasn’t all that’ etc.

    The need of caps was kinda odd, are you trying to shout it at me? I can read without he caps thanks.

  • LaSargenta

    There’s no “9/10” in her review of it at http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2000/10/bedazzled-review.html

    She calls it “utterly forgettable” but “a … frothy, sweet-tempered, and ultimately optimistic [comedy]”. Even though she obviously enjoyed it, the review doesn’t even read like a 9/10 review.

    And, again, that is a totally different movie.

  • Danielm80

    I’m actually writing a musical based on this thread, to be acted out by sock puppets.

  • LaSargenta

    Yeah, shouting because you keep repeating yourself.

    If you understand that, why do you keep saying “I don’t understand why you’d review something you wouldn’t like anyway”?

    Also, you obviously haven’t poked around in her reviews. She has reviewed good films made from comics and graphic novels favorably and panned ones she thinks are crap. In several cases, she’s blessed films I thought were crap. I’m personally glad to see this pan as I think Deadpool *is* crap. But, I don’t go around saying her reviews that I disagree with are invalid.

  • I haven’t seen the movie. I’m not in anyway disregarding her review or her opinion on it. I’m merely stating how I don’t see reviews like these are accurate for people who decide whether they’d like to see the movie or not.

    I can see you reply to a lot of negative comments on here. I understand you are a fan of MaryAnn and that is all well and dandy but I commented to MaryAnn herself. Not the fan club it entails. Of course you’d disagree if you’re a fan of her reviews right? Not why I voiced my opinion.

  • LaSargenta

    Manipulated by Christopher Walken?

  • LaSargenta

    Nope, we’re disagreeing with people who jump on (frequently without having seen the goddamn film) and claim that she doesn’t like a genre so she has no right to have an opinion about a film and write the review.

    You’ve no clue,

  • Kyle

    Don’t bother Andy, Lasargenta is also MaryAnn in disguise

  • LaSargenta

    Awwww. Have some popcorn. I made it myself.

  • Bluejay

    This is a public forum. Anyone can start a conversation with anyone else. If you want to speak privately to MaryAnn, use her email. If you’re not interested in talking to me, you can always stop replying. :-)

  • LaSargenta

    *snort*

    No.

  • Good for you, yes. I don’t want to have to repeat myself, but the replies I’m getting are forcing me to at times. I’m not aware of her previous work, should I be before ruining the sacrilege of the comments section here? I have an opinion, that’s all. Let’s not blow this out of proportion here.

    I have no interest into speaking to fans of MaryAnn herself. However amusing it may be. This is something I wanted to discuss not something to argue and defend upon.

  • Kyle

    8.9/10?

  • Kyle

    Save it for someone who cares..MaryAnn!

  • RogerBW

    Angry fanboys are cheap, and all they need is to be primed with a couple of talking points.

  • Bluejay

    I have an opinion, that’s all.

    Yes. Can others not have an opinion about your opinion?

    This is something I wanted to discuss not something to argue and defend upon.

    What difference do you see between “discussing” something and “arguing” or “defending” your point of view? Did you just want everyone to totally agree with you?

    Also, what exactly are we “discussing”? Your claim that MaryAnn shouldn’t review certain movies? That’s a silly claim to make and we’ve already addressed it, many times. Now if you actually want to discuss the MOVIE after you’ve seen it, that might be a more interesting and substantial conversation.

  • Dave

    This is a Hardcore Marvel Fan who understands the source material would appreciate marketed to the masses for the first time ever to BEGIN understanding who this guy is and what it does in the marvel universe.I highly doubt this wretched old lady even begin to know or read however the source material and went blindly balls out to judge this what she cant understand thinking she is judging a big ass movie with no backstory or source at all.Lady,save your breath.This movie is not intended for everyone,alas,its not intended for most people its being marketed to.It intends to troll and make fun of counterpoints in life or making the best of the worst situations imaginable with a 15 year old spitting bad words sense of humor.Also to make people like yourself annoyed.And for that Old witch,its made its job.The point for the source material its never the story,its deadpool.Deadpool carries the whole damn thing.Not to mention,”Hey,Isn’t that what happens in this movie?” Ohhh… You pouty little old ball sack of critic”

  • I’m not jumping on here with every ‘god damn* film’ she reviews. This is the first time. I’m not saying she has no right to have her own opinion, I take you back to the first comment *lol*.
    “You’ve no clue,”
    Who is the one jumping on and trying to cause arguments? Oh that would be you buddy. At least be civilised while I’m expressing my opinion. I’m not a fan boy, I don’t get a joy out of bashing people like you may do, I’m just stating my own opinion, just like MarryAnn did.

  • Kyle

    Damnnn…Somebody just got served..

  • Dave

    This is a Hardcore Marvel Fan who understands the source material would appreciate marketed to the masses for the first time ever to BEGIN understanding who this guy is and what it does in the marvel universe.I highly doubt this wretched old lady even begin to know or read however the source material and went blindly balls out to judge this what she cant understand thinking she is judging a big ass movie with no backstory or source at all.Lady,save your breath.This movie is not intended for everyone,alas,its not intended for most people its being marketed to.It intends to troll and make fun of counterpoints in life or making the best of the worst situations imaginable with a 15 year old spitting bad words sense of humor.Also to make people like yourself annoyed.And for that Old witch,its made its job.The point for the source material its never the story,its deadpool.Deadpool carries the whole damn thing.Not to mention,”Hey,Isn’t that what happens in this movie?” Ohhh… You pouty little old ball sack of critic

  • Did you read what I commented or are you just defending her honour and leaving snide remarks, trying to be funny? I’m not an angry fan boy, and I’m certainly not cheap. The fact that I can’t express my own opinion on here without being bashed by MAJ fans is uncanny.

  • Of course you can have an opinion upon my own. But I have to repeat myself on here to express my point.

    No, I don’t want people to agree with me or anything of the sort. I commented to MaryAnn, not the MAJ fan club. I am just curious why movie critics in general review movies….(you know the rest as I’ve said it a million times already). That’s all I’m saying, no need to get worked up and sit here waiting for me to reply all the time.

    I’m not claiming MaryAnn shouldn’t review these movies, I just want to know why, in her own words.

  • kyle

    I do admire MaryAnns tolerance for bullshit.

  • Danielm80

    MaryAnn, “pouty little old ball sack of critic” not only needs to be the new pull quote, it should be on your business card

  • Closing comments. Might open them again in a few days. Might not.

Pin It on Pinterest