Film review: Deadpool

 

Well… he’s finally made to the big screen – one of the most politically incorrect superheroes ever created. I don’t think there’s much point explaining Deadpool’s background: you either know him or you don’t.

deadpool.jpg

What? Okay, here’s the short version: a former special forces operative suffering from terminal cancer agrees to undergo an experimental procedure to make it a bit less terminal. It works, after a fashion, granting him healing abilities hijacked from Wolverine and amped to a level where he can regenerate missing body parts.

Now, you’d think that being granted a second chance at life would make him a little more grateful. Unfortunately, the experiment leaves our anti-hero horribly disfigured, so no, there’s not a lot of gratitude, but an awful lot of sour grapes.

Deadpool is one of Marvel Comics’ surprise success stories. He has no moral compass, so it’s a happy accident that he seems to end up fighting on the right side.

And the film itself is brilliant; possibly my favourite comic flick of all time. It’s like National Lampoon decided to make a superhero movie. The plot is simple and workable, and along the way the movie pokes fun at itself and the whole genre with the occasional play to the camera (easy to overdo this sort of thing; Deadpool sails close, but just manages to keep it this side of tedious). The fight sequences are excellently staged and the action scenes are tightly directed and a little gory in places. But this is Deadpool; we weren’t expecting anything less from a man who’ll dismember himself while he’s drunk.

And woven through the mayhem, you’ll actually find a little bit of a love story; just enough to make you root for him anyway.

But best of all, it is very very funny; laugh-out-loud funny in fact. This film has been hyped for months and I’m glad that I wasn’t disappointed. I bought another ticket on my way out, so I’ve got no choice but to give it ten out of ten.

 

TV Review: Stan Lee’s Lucky Man

I don’t usually review tv shows based on one episode. I think it’s a little unfair to jump straight in without giving them time to ‘bed in’. I went straight ahead with Lucky Man though; after episode 1, I think Sky TV might be on to a winner. It’s from the same genius who brought you comic characters such as the Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four (though that doesn’t mean we should blame him for the FF’s last outing, which was a train wreck), so it has a good solid ideas man behind it. Surprisingly, it’s not your run-of-the-mill superhero thing… well, I don’t think it is anyway.

lucky_man

 

Our hero (and I use the term loosely) is a Harry Clayton, a sub-par London police detective with a failed marriage behind him and a gambling habit still way out in front. While investigating the murder of the man to whom he owes most of his gambling debt, Harry chances upon an ancient bracelet that endows its wearer with the luck of the gods. For a roulette addict things can’t get much better, except for the fact that one of the bracelet’s previous owners threw himself off a high roof… Doesn’t sound all that lucky to me.

Episode 1 was a blinder. The script was fresh, the acting superb (stellar performances from James Nesbitt and Eve Best (who I last saw in the final episode of Nurse Jackie), and most importantly, it didn’t take itself too seriously. I think the problem with a lot of the super hero stuff running on Sky (Green Arrow, The Flash) is that they’re really not much fun. I don’t this is going to be the case with Lucky Man.

For the first episode, a very creditable eight out of ten.