I’ll admit some references and the full background of Deadpool were probably lost on me when I saw it last night, but what I did gather as the key characteristics and motives for the “anti hero” and especially the over-the-top style of the film did not work for me.
My friend, who knew the general build of the character going into the film, said one of Deadpool’s traits is that he breaks the fourth wall.
I noticed that early on and just thought the extent the style is used as well as continually making a point that Deadpool isn’t a typical super hero comic book movie or character were unnecessary.
I can appreciate and understand the filmmakers wouldn’t want to stray away from who Deadpool is in the comic books, but a little bit of restraint would have gone a long way in bringing his character to life in a full movie. Why not just make an “anti hero” movie rather than overtly show how and why you’re making one?
The idea could have been refreshing to watch play out and I usually enjoy movies based on comic books, even without ever having read them, but the creative minds behind Deadpool seemed to be trying too hard.
I did find some scenes funny, but the comedy that played as more immature and for cheap laughs took Deadpool down even more for me.
However, anyone who knows me as a comedy nerd will understand that T.J. Miller’s role as Weasel, who is probably Wade/Deadpool’s closest friend and confidant, was my favorite part of the film. His deadpan jokes as Wade’s story as an immortal man with a revenge mission was developed worked well in between the action scenes and gratuitous violence.
It’s at this point that I feel like I am missing something in the reasoning behind the style of the movie and doubting my opinions, maybe because I was really excited to see Deadpool and really wanted to like it.
While Deadpool is a new take on the flood of comic book movies in the last decade or more and a new character, I didn’t find much beneath the surface of that idea and wanted less – not more – from it by the end.