Deadpool & Wolverine (R)
28/08/24 22:57 Filed in: 2024
Starring: Ryan Reynolds
July 2024
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
“Is nothing sacred anymore?”
That saying is extremely relevant to the proceedings in the third Deadpool movie, Deadpool & Wolverine.
As crass and crude as the previous two films were (and they were…to a superlative degree), D&W plunges us into new depths of degradation. We’ve become so desensitized to violence (at least since the advent of 80s action flicks) that we just keep laughing during the movie’s multiple splatter-fests, especially the graphic visuals of soldiers having their skull and spine ripped from the rest of their body (video games are complicit here too) or when a man is reduced to a pile of blood and entrails. Worse still, one character describes, in explicit detail, how he’ll kill his enemy and have sex with the corpse.
Have we become ISIS?
Was the debauchery and thirst for bloodshed in ancient Rome any more pervasive, any more pernicious, than what’s evident in our society today?
But we keep coming back for more. Which allows the studios—regardless of whether it’s 20th Century Fox or Marvel (some of the best jokes in the movie involve the studio swap)—to finance future films containing even more detestable language and lewd, crude and socially unacceptable behavior. And so the downward spiral goes until we eventually lose our country (a la Rome), and more importantly…our souls.
So, why do we continue watching such grisly, graphic and gratuitous movies (that, in turn, produce deranged citizens)? Because the guy in the red suit is really charismatic, and really funny; he’s less a superhero than a stand-up comic (but one that would make George Carlin blush). Another reason is that the overblown, uber-gory fight scenes appeal to our inner barbarian. These sequences recall the brutality of the Roman gladiatorial games, Medieval tournaments, Old West showdowns, gangster-era shootouts, and Asian blood sports; all haunting reminders of our savage past.
Question: do these murderous melees help exorcise our inner demons (by providing a cathartic release when our heroes slaughter an army of enemies) or unleash them (by reinforcing evil desires that can lead to aggressive or heinous behaviors)? If the nightly news is any indication, the answer is definitely the latter.
And then there’s the off-kilter stories in these Deadpool movies, which are essentially loose associations of plot ideas held together by humorous dialog and heavily-choreographed action sequences. The story in D&W is one step above abysmal. It’s fitting that a movie so filled with filthy language and raunchy dialog would spend a significant portion of its screen time in a trashed-out realm that contains allusions to Mad Max (ramshackle motorcade) and Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (half buried ships protruding from the desert sand).
Once inside the enemy fortress, which is built out of a gigantic Ant-Man suit, we’re introduced to Cassandra Nova (Emma Corrin, who was exceptional in A Murder at the End of the World). She claims to be Charles Xavier’s sister, but looks like his granddaughter. Normally, the villain is the most over-the-top character in an action movie, but here, Cassandra is the most constrained and realistic person in the film (other than Wolverine—Hugh Jackman is eternally reliable as the gruff, laconic adamantium-man).
Sadly, Corrin’s talents are wasted on a second-rate story that dispenses with her character before we even get to know her. Also wasted are the cameos of Wesley Snipes and Jennifer Garner, who reprise their roles as Blade and Elektra, respectively. However, the scenes with Chris Evans boast a really nice twist and represent the only hint of writing acumen in the entire film.
The most underserved character in D&W is Wolverine. He doesn’t show up until about 30 minutes into the movie and merely serves as the straight man to Deadpool’s flamboyant (all aspects of the word) funny man. The titular characters become embroiled in not one, but two fight scenes. These conflicts are utterly meaningless other than to fill up the screen time with more action beats to help gloss over the fact that there’s very little story here.
Ironically, the finest aspect of the film is its self-reflexive comments about how awful Marvel’s multiverse movies have been. The inference is that this movie is the exception…it isn’t. Also, anyone who hasn’t watched Loki on Disney+ might be thoroughly confused when the TVA agents arrive and attempt, but fail, to inject some narrative complexity into the listless story.
In the final analysis, D&W is morally reprehensible in every way imaginable (and in many ways you couldn’t possibly imagine before subjecting your brain to the movie’s rancid and putrid subject matter). With dialog that flows like sewage on tap, D&W is crass, rank and vile for the sake of being crass, rank and vile. Aiming at being controversial, irreverent and vulgar, the movie tosses three bull’s-eyes.
Much to our detriment and shame, D&W represents the high art of our crooked and depraved generation. It has glorified and normalized every form of sin, including vicious bloodletting and necrophilia.
In a time when evil is called good and we’ve become so enamored with the vain and profane, D&W’s steady diet of dung tastes like a five course meal from a five-star chef.
But don’t be fooled…that brown liquid flowing from the fondue fountain isn’t chocolate.
Rating: 1 out of 4
Twisters (PG-13)
22/08/24 22:06 Filed in: 2024
Starring: Daisy Edgar-Jones
July 2024
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
Avid storm chaser, Kate Cooper (Daisy Edgar-Jones), leads a team of fellow enthusiasts in a coordinated effort to dissipate a twister by releasing chemicals inside the swirling cloud of debris. When her experiment goes awry, the team frantically flees the raging tornado on foot, but only Kate survives the tragic run-in with nature’s fury funnel.
Five years later, Kate is working in the weather department of a major news outlet in New York City. One day an old friend, Javi (Anthony Ramos), pays her a visit. Javi entices her to return to Oklahoma, which is experiencing a record summer for tornadoes. Still haunted by her earlier failure, Kate only agrees to a one-week excursion because newer technology might aid her research and help validate her experiment—which has the potential to save millions of lives.
What ensues is a series of close encounters with the titular terrors.
In case the name of the movie wasn’t a dead giveaway, yes, Twisters is a loose sequel to Twister (1996). I say “loose” because none of the characters or actors from the earlier film appear here. In fact, the only direct reference to the original film is the sensor-dispensing bucket, named Dorothy V (Dorothy I-IV were deployed by the weather wizards in the first film).
That isn’t to say the films have nothing in common. On the contrary, both movies take place in Oklahoma and spotlight rival groups of storm chasers; Kate’s chief competitor, Tyler (Glen Powell), is a cocky social media star who seems more concerned with sensationalism than science. Also, both films feature a number of deadly tornadoes and show the wreckage left behind in their wakes, i.e., demolished crops, farms and small towns (including a drive-in theater in Twister and brick-and-mortar cinema in Twisters).
Another area of connective tissue between these movies is how both heroines were traumatized by tornadoes in the past. This psychological scarring causes both Dr. Jo Harding (Helen Hunt) and Kate to become obsessed with the awesome power of twisters. There’s a clever allusion to Moby-Dick here; Jo and Kate are stand-ins for Captain Ahab and the twisters they chase are their version of the white whale (indeed, the inciting incidents that trigger their persistent perilous pursuits are when the whale chomps off Ahab’s leg and the tornado wounds Kate’s leg). Unlike Ahab, however, Jo and Kate create experiments to help them better understand tornadoes and give individuals in harm’s way advanced notice of an approaching twister. In other words, Ahab turned his pain into revenge, while Jo (who lost her father to a tornado) and Kate (who lost three friends to a tornado) turn their pain into purpose.
Kate exhibits a sixth sense about the movements of tornadoes. This is a trait she shares with Bill Harding (Bill Paxton) from Twister. In similar scenes, both Bill and Kate step away from the main group of characters to scrutinize the storm clouds on the horizon (Bill tests the direction of the wind by releasing a handful of dirt into the air; Kate does the same with a handful of dandelion seeds).
Where the films diverge is in their casts and story elements. Hunt and Paxton were established movie stars when they made Twisters, but Edgar-Jones (Where the Crawdads Sing) and Powell (Top Gun: Maverick) are hardly household names. Also, the supporting team members here are far less colorful and memorable than those in Twister (especially Philip Seymour Hoffman and Alan Ruck as “Rabbit”).
In a story dominated by heart-stopping chases, multiple scrapes with death and maximum destruction, there’s little time for characters to stop and reflect on the deeper meaning of life. Still, despite its furiously-paced plot, the movie does explore a few meaningful themes. Sadly, none of them are as weighty as the one that hovers like an angry thundercloud over Twister—namely, divorce.
Twister begins with Bill serving divorce papers to Jo (which would never happen in real life) and Jo finding every excuse in the book not to sign the documents. Bill gets swept up into chasing storms with his old crew and discovers he has far more in common with Jo than his new, prim and proper fiancée (Jami Gertz). At the end of the movie, Bill and Jo kiss and appear to be well on their way toward rekindling their marriage.
Interestingly, another disaster movie from the same year, Independence Day, includes a subplot where a divorced couple, David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and Constance Spano (Margaret Colin), is reunited after the devastating alien attack. At the end of the movie, they embrace and seem to be back together as a couple.
These two movies represent a rare, and brief, trend in modern movie history where Hollywood offered positive examples of couples pushing through hard times and giving their relationships another shot.
An ancillary topic in Twisters, that avoids being whisked away by drilling its augers deep into the action-centric plot, is greed. An unscrupulous businessman swoops in after a town has been leveled by a tornado and offers to purchase the property from people who’ve lost everything—in essence, making a profit off the misery of others. When given the choice between lending aid to the citizens of a town ravaged by a twister or making shady deals, one of his employees says, “I don’t care about the people.” Those whose sole focus is financial gain will surely lose in the end, because, as the saying goes, “You can’t take it with you.”
Though the entire story revolves around characters chasing tornadoes, woven into the fabric of the movie’s subtext is the more meaningful matter of what the characters are really chasing in life. Early in the movie, Kate chases a grant that will allow her to attend a prestigious meteorological program. Later, she chases her dream of saving lives by “choking tornadoes.” At the beginning of the movie, Tyler is chasing fame and thrills. Later, once he comes to see what’s really important, he chases Kate. Javi chases a career where he makes really good money helping people, or so he thinks. Javi’s boss and righthand man are chasing money…at all costs.
So, what’s the point? Everyone is chasing something. The question is, are we chasing things that serve self or others?
Ironically, some people’s evil ambitions are more dangerous than chasing a tornado.
One area where the new film has a clear advantage over the original is in the visual effects department. Granted, the FX in Twister were excellent for the time, but they can’t compete with today’s CGI. The technology in Twisters is also a quantum leap ahead of what was used in Twister: crude computer graphics displayed on bulky laptop screens have been replaced by high-definition digital images projected on 4K monitors. The coolest piece of new tech in Twisters is the drone that’s in the shape of a small plane—the images it captures as it approaches a tornado are breathtaking.
In honor of the original film, Twisters was shot on Kodak 35mm film to capture the rich colors of the various Oklahoma locations. This is a really nice touch that helps unify the overall look and feel of both movies.
Some may criticize Twisters for hewing too close to the OG film. However, though occasionally paying homage to the 90s disaster film, this is an original story that makes a concerted effort to cut its own path. And, other than its fits of foul language, Twisters is fairly clean and will appeal to a broad audience.
Though Twisters probably won’t win any awards for writing or acting, it is entertaining. And, at the end of the day, that’s all most people who go to see this movie will care about.
So, is Twisters as good as Twister? No, but it’s a pulse-pounding popcorn flick with a serviceable plot and some really good visual effects. Though admittedly influenced by its heavy dose of nostalgia, Twisters was the most fun I’ve had at the cineplex in quite some time.
It remains to be seen whether or not this movie will blow away audiences, but if a sequel is in the offing, I’ll see you at Twisters 2—a surefire winner over at Rotten Tornadoes.
Rating: 2 ½ out of 4