Annie H.

‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ is everything you’d expect from a Deadpool film, plus one bit superhero satire and one bit genuine love letter to all the Marvel comic book films that preceded the MCU and helped pave the way, even those projects that never actually came to be. The movie is basically a salad of nods to the original comic book material, tongue-in-cheek jokes, 4th wall breaks, and character cameos, that somehow mixes surprisingly well and delivers a perfectly enjoyable result.

It’s clear that both thought and effort went into securing those character cameos, and it’s impressive how they managed to keep them secret before the film’s release. As expected, for its biggest part, the film doesn’t take itself too seriously, which allows the movie to get away with quite a few things. After all, you can’t complain that a plot device is a MacGuffin if the film calls it a MacGuffin first. All in all, the majority of the jokes land, the chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds undeniably works and carries the plot, and when things do get serious it still manages to deliver a solid story.

Despite the film never pulling any punches when it comes to calling out the shortcomings of some of the more recent MCU projects, it’s pretty clear that it holds only love for its source material, the characters, and the creators that brought them to life. Something that becomes evident by all the nods, references, and credits it features.

I don’t think that the question whether or not it will “save the MCU” is fair for any Marvel project, because no film or show can guarantee what comes next beyond telling its own story. And above all else, ‘Deadpool and Wolverine’ is a Deadpool film. It’s violent, it pokes fun at itself, it’s often nonsensical and irreverent. It also has its serious and genuinely touching moments, but it can’t, it won’t, and it never set out to deliver the epicness and emotionally impactful story of ‘Avengers: Endgame', and if you go into the film expecting that, then that’s on you (though I would suggest that you may want to give the recent X-Men ’97 cartoon a chance, in order to satisfy that itch).

It may or may not be Marvel Jesus, but it definitely delivers some solid fun.

Poor Things is very pretty, I’ll give it that much. Colors pop, and the watercolor, blurry sky and the scaling but condensed environments of Lisbon and Alexandria both convey the miasma of Bella’s mind quite well. How the background blurs in our young memories and how we remember all the buildings and places that looked large over us but so rarely the walks to them. Those work for me. So much of the rest of the film doesn’t.

I see what it’s going for- it’s hard not to. A journey of womanhood through the conceit of a child’s brain in a woman’s body, when women are treated as children and property to begin with. But it’s so fucking weird, with that conceit, to devote so much time to sex. Sex is an important part of being human for many people, I’m not denying that. But the attention it gets here throughout compared to brief, paltry scenes of Bella reading, seeking knowledge, having an interest in medical science and surgery is disproportional. Especially when the film wants to play her coming home and following in Godwin’s footstep as a culmination of her journey when it’s a facet of the film that barely gets any play in comparison. Angelica Jade Bastien, whose Variety review you should all read, brings up how in a film ostensibly about a cis woman and her relationship with her body menstruation does not come up once. It’s so telling where the film’s true focus lies.

And yes, sex can be beautiful, and conversely so can sex scenes. But the ones here are done dispassionately yet voyueristically. There’s no interiority, no sensuality, no sense of emotion and character felt through them. Compared to films like The Handmaiden they are sterile in heart if not content. It’s a big swing to go from black and white to color, and I can see sex being the impetus for it, sure, but when it’s done like this I don’t buy it. It’s interesting to me that her first time having sex is portrayed like this, with penetration until the man comes, thrice over, and yet her first time with cunnilingus is off screen. I feel like all the sex in this film is similarly narrow and lifeless.

None of what this film is trying to say is new, but much of it is muddled. It wants to rail against the entitlement of men, how they see women as property, how they want them to be exciting and adventurous but only in service of them. And yet it gives Max no grief at all for falling in love with. A child. Literal child, this is not a metaphor, it’s a child’s brain. And marrying her but refusing to have sex with her until marriage because that would be taking advantage, as if marriage would not be taking advantage and has not been used as the ultimate control. On some level the film condemns this, but only in the opposite direction, as part of Emily leaving Max is her frustration over not having sex. It’s baffling that the film seems to take the viewpoint that we ought to let children consent to sex with adults, that it is part of their development and journey to personhood. The film is similarly forgiving to Godwin, who used a woman’s body in a way she would very likely not have consented to all while the film extols a woman’s choice and ownership of her body.

Everything the film has to say about the nature of man and people, about women’s place in society, about sex work, etc, is rote. Nothing here is new, and nothing is heightened by the core conceit. It’s so surface level. And the cast is game enough. Dafoe is Dafoe and that’s always a good time, but I wouldn’t call this one of his greatest roles. Carmichael, much as I love his standup, just is not working here. Stone and Ruffalo are acting for the back seats, and while that has its moments of charm, it’s too much for most of the runtime. And Stone is just. She’s playing into ableist stereotypes for so much of this performance. The film drops the r slur and we’re just gonna pretend that Stone isn’t doing an insulting caricature at the same time? I don’t even want to delve into all the questions raised by the mental disability angle, others could do that better than me, but it’s another level of thoughtlessness and surface level depth.

The score is similarly cloying and overbearing. It insists on a scene rather than being a part of it. It doesn’t enhance it or complement it, it beats you over the head with how the scene is meant to make you feel. I could enjoy the sound of it in isolation, but as a score it’s distracting more than anything else. It’s a bit surprising to me how much this film has been praised as outside of the production design, I don’t see it. I just don’t. For me, this is as much a misfire as Barbie, if not more. Poor things.

I'm disappointed. The movie looks and sounds beautiful - the costumes and the world both are very intricate. I enjoy the language that is used, how the dialogues are written and I especially love the concept of the movie. It's not something new, plenty of books cover basically the same idea of a "clean" human, who grew up without societies influence, discovering the world. Nontheless, I was intrigued. Sadly since Bella is a woman, clearly the only way for her to explore the world is through having sex with men, because how else. And that could have been fine, talking about sex and sexuality is important, but this movie just uses it as a way to make jokes and show her tits. It is shown as something great and liberating, even when grown man assault her as a child or when she works at a brothel. Besides this weird portrayal of sex, there is not much substance. A few buzz words are thrown around like socialism, worker unions etc., but the writers were happy with just mentioning this stuff. Even when talking about prostitution, the commentary is restricted to "what if the prostitues would choose who they have sex with" - what a great, elaborate thought. This shows just how little thought went into the writing. Overall there is nothing worthwhile to be found here - at best you will get an ignorant commentary about topics they clearly have never engaged with.