ShareThis Page
Movies/TV

Review: 'Deadpool 2' is more of the same, snarky, one-note writing

| Thursday, May 17, 2018, 11:36 a.m.

“Deadpool 2” is annoying and bad.

That's all you really need to know, but criticism requires argumentation and examples, and it just so happens that the sequel to the shocking (and shockingly successful) superhero satire is rife with evidence for just how annoying and, yes, also bad it is.

Point the first: As portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, the character of Deadpool, also known as Wade Wilson, has always been annoying. The sarcastic, quippy, red-suited burn victim who can't die is one of those guys who substitutes movie references for a personality and thinks he's a lot funnier than he actually is.

It's just that way back in 2016, under the crushing weight of all those endless, self-serious superhero movies, the snarky, silly send-up of “Deadpool” was a refreshing tonic — essentially the “Scary Movie” of superhero movies. Now, all our superhero movies are funny and self-referential, lessening the unique value proposition at stake for “Deadpool 2.”

As our super-antihero opines in an opening sequence, with all these R-rated comic book movies on his tail, he's got to up the ante. But then for some reason the movie just doesn't up a single ante.

More of the same

“Deadpool 2” is a whole lot more of the same, but to extremely diminishing returns. It's a thin facsimile of the original film, eschewing storytelling for disorganized bits of hyperviolent cheekiness.

Deadpool doesn't assemble his team until almost an hour into the film. The main villain's motivation isn't articulated until an hour and 20 minutes. Until then, it's just a chaotic mess of bland fights and sarcastic one-liners.

That's just incredibly sloppy screenwriting, something that writers Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and star Reynolds think they can get away with by having Deadpool deadpan “lazy screenwriting,” directly into camera. They're aware of it, so it's OK!

The thing is, for all of its self-awareness, the film isn't even aware of its own overreliance on tired tropes, such as The Dead Wife — there are so many Dead Women Motivating Men to action in “Deadpool 2,” it could have been a Christopher Nolan movie. Now, there's a ripe opportunity to parody the overused cliche, but that just happens to be the one thing “Deadpool 2” takes completely seriously.

Series of sketches

Directed by David Leitch, who helmed “Atomic Blonde” last year, the whole thing feels weightless, a series of comedy sketches peppered with a few fun cameos, but there's nothing with any real physical or even emotional heft. It's a shame that the action and stunts are messy and maintain little sense of space or geography. Even the moments between Wade and his girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) feel overly affected and ironic.

Deadpool's crew X-Force, featuring a spunky Zazie Beetz as the uncommonly charmed Domino, is fun to watch, and provides the freshest, lightest laughs of the movie. You just wish it happened way sooner, instead of all the overly complicated plot setup, wherein Deadpool realizes he has to save the soul of a young, tortured mutant, Russell, aka Firefist (a crackling Julian Dennison).

Who the heck is Cable?

Josh Brolin, double-dipping on Marvel villain roles, plays Cable, a time-traveling super-soldier who's come back to butterfly effect the future. You spend most of the movie whiplashing between comic book references and wondering just who the heck Cable is and what it is he wants.

The fact of the matter is, if you're already on board for this particular brand of irascible irreverence, “Deadpool 2” just might work for you. But the severe lack of storytelling and spectacle in the film shouldn't win any new converts.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me