Just saw 'Kick Ass'

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hansagan

Heaps of fun:) I was grinning all the way through. Hit Girl was amazing (The character and the actress). The fights were cool and inventive, the script was clever and Nicolas Cage's voice when he was in costume was hilarious. Highly Recommended :)
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

I've heard that Chloe Moretz really shines in the movie, and not just because she's an 11 year old who kills people while dropping F-bombs. I'm looking forward to it.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Allegedly a bad review:

It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children and glorifies violence, especially knife and gun crime, in a way that makes it one of the most deeply cynical, shamelessly irresponsible films ever.
After reading that, I'm sold. :)

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
To be honest, that's a pretty fair criticism of pretty much anything Mark Millar has done.
 
Allegedly a bad review:

It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children and glorifies violence, especially knife and gun crime, in a way that makes it one of the most deeply cynical, shamelessly irresponsible films ever.
After reading that, I'm sold. :)

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html

That had to be one of the worst reviewers that I've seen in a while.


Basically, the movie is well shot, funny, efficient and a terrible movie. Because of a character that looks to be a comment on Robin.
 
I think it's fair to criticize a movie for having a bad social impact. There are movies that might have taken the extreme of hit girl and said something poignant with her. From the sounds of it, Kick Ass doesn't do that. That's not necessarily bad, but I think it's the sort of movie where the's a demographic of people who might have seen it because they thought it would communicate an interesting comic book subversion (as opposed to seeing it because super hero violence is fun no matter what). The trailer is vague enough that I could have seen the movie going either way. This article is addressing those people in particular. I might see it anyway, because it looks fun, but I definitely think the reviewer has a valid point.
 
To knock down a film for lack of social commentary is utter crap. If it entertains for 2 hours and does not insult the intelligence of the viewing audience, then why should it matter that it is not "socially responsible."
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

How dare someone analyze a film. I am all for taking a film on its own terms, but I absolutely understand where that critic is coming from, based on my familiarity with Mark Millar's work. If the movie sets itself up as a deconstruction of the hero worship of comic book superheroes - which is something that no one in the thread can confirm or deny at this point, other than the OP, but doesn't seem that far-fetched - then I can definitely see someone coming to the conclusion that critic came to. I want to see the movie to see how it stacks up to what the movie actually presents, but there is nothing wrong with reacting to the movie in the way he did unless he is pulling an Armond White and being deliberately contradictory.

Also, it's ridiculous to imply that it doesn't matter if a film is socially responsible. Films exist in the world. A film - like any piece of art - is designed to spark feelings or inspire thought, discussion and debate. The film does not exist in a vacuum, so it's relationship with the world we live in is a perfectly legitimate avenue of discussion.

EDIT: To be honest, that's a pretty well written review if it accurately described the movie while still expressing the problems the critic had with it. You get a good sense of what the movie is like, and you can decide whether his objections to it are important enough to you to prevent you from seeing it. That's a hallmark of a well written review.
 
But on the main point, it sounds like he enjoyed himself, but hated the movie. It does not reflect his world view. He is taking personal feelings into the theater. To me that makes for a bad critique. Yes complaining about it being violent and putting a kid in an odd situation is a valid point to argue. But if you describe a film high on all marks but take exception to moral content, then marking it down to one star.

It was like the critics HATED Scarface (Al Pacino) because of the violence, then with in ten years it was considered one of the greatest films of the last quarter of the 20th century.

Or watching Casablanca, and saying I laughed, I cried, It was better than CATS! 5 stars, but I felt he was unfair to Hearst, so I'll give it one star.

I meant Citizen Kane....
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

But on the main point, it sounds like he enjoyed himself, but hated the movie. It does not reflect his world view. He is taking personal feelings into the theater.
Well, you can't really not take personal feelings into the theater. If a film offends you on a moral level, then that affects your reaction to it, and a critic has to be honest about what reaction he or she had. I mean, if I were to write a review about Hot Tub Time Machine, I'd have to be honest about the fact that the blatant, rampant sexism and all the gay panic jokes made me uncomfortable, and that I wish it had done more to really explore ridiculous 80's party/relationship movies, but I would also have to be honest about the fact that I laughed a lot.
 
To knock down a film for lack of social commentary is utter crap. If it entertains for 2 hours and does not insult the intelligence of the viewing audience, then why should it matter that it is not "socially responsible."
Every reviewer is going to have biases. The best you can hope for is to find a reviewer that generally represents you and you can trust for information. There are people who like movies that are funny and/or violent. They are going to read this review and say (as evilmike did) "funny violence and sex? Awesome!" But there are plenty of other people who might have been disappointed by this movie because they thought it's subject suggests a certain level of social commentary and wit, and it didn't. There may also be people who ordinarily are okay with sex and violent jokes, but have experiences with abused children (either direct or academically) and so the notion of a sexualized 11 year old (even if film that HAD employed a clever subversion to make a meaningful statement with her) is not something they want to pay money in support of. Both of those groups benefit from this review. I may turn out to be one of those people, dunno yet. I wouldn't criticize a dumb movie that is supposed to be dumb for not being smart, but I think it's very fair to criticize a movie that's trying to be smart for failing. Not having seen the movie I can't tell whether I agree with the review or not, but it's a valid article.

As for "social responsibility" (which is different than "social commentary"), people are largely defined by the stories we tell each other and that are told to us. Media (collectively) has the power to change society and movie critics have a right to discuss elements of movies that they find detrimental to the world.
 
I

Iaculus

How dare someone analyze a film. I am all for taking a film on its own terms, but I absolutely understand where that critic is coming from, based on my familiarity with Mark Millar's work. If the movie sets itself up as a deconstruction of the hero worship of comic book superheroes - which is something that no one in the thread can confirm or deny at this point, other than the OP, but doesn't seem that far-fetched - then I can definitely see someone coming to the conclusion that critic came to. I want to see the movie to see how it stacks up to what the movie actually presents, but there is nothing wrong with reacting to the movie in the way he did unless he is pulling an Armond White and being deliberately contradictory.

Also, it's ridiculous to imply that it doesn't matter if a film is socially responsible. Films exist in the world. A film - like any piece of art - is designed to spark feelings or inspire thought, discussion and debate. The film does not exist in a vacuum, so it's relationship with the world we live in is a perfectly legitimate avenue of discussion.

EDIT: To be honest, that's a pretty well written review if it accurately described the movie while still expressing the problems the critic had with it. You get a good sense of what the movie is like, and you can decide whether his objections to it are important enough to you to prevent you from seeing it. That's a hallmark of a well written review.
It's a Mail article. This is a distinct possibility.

Just as Mark Millar is apparently known for cheap, cynical glorification of violence, et cetera, so the Daily Mail is known for its staff being contractually obliged to look for the slightest excuse to bitch, moan, and stir up some spurious moral panic at the drop of a hat.

I'd advise not reaching an opinion until you see it yourself.
 
Fair enough. I'm not against people saying the review is wrong, but I am against people saying that it is wrong to write that kind of review, period.
 
the Daily Mail is known for its staff being contractually obliged to look for the slightest excuse to bitch, moan, and stir up some spurious moral panic at the drop of a hat.
Yep. They lost me at Daily Mail. Aren't they also the ones working themselves into a lather over Brewdog's latest offerings? Going off on the "irresponsibility" of the ~40% ABV craft beers? Moral outrage is their reason for being.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Fair enough. I'm not against people saying the review is wrong, but I am against people saying that it is wrong to write that kind of review, period.
Yeah, legit. I'm also against people saying the review is wrong when they haven't seen the film
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

With the film opening in the U.S. tomorrow, U.S. reviews are beginning to pop up. Currently, the movie is sitting at 76% on Rotten Tomatoes, but a few of my favorite critics (Roger Ebert, Karina Longworth, Michael Phillips) hated it. Though another critic I really like, James Berardinelli, loved it. Still looking forward to it, though.

Side-note: Who wants to play the Kick-Ass film review drinking game?! Take a drink every time a critic employs wordplay to incorporate the title of the film into the description of the film! *dies of alcohol poisoning*
 
I was disappointed with Eberts review. He didn't review the movie, he merely spent x-number of words struggling with the issue of the 11 year old girl mixed with such intense violence (which isn't odd, I expect many will struggle with that). I expect more from Eberts reviews. For once I actually kind of agreed with Harry Knowles consistently poorly written articles where he responds to Eberts review.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

He does review the movie, though. He talks about the performers, the tone it sets up (which he liked) and what it turned into (which he hated), he discusses what the movie is trying to achieve and why he feels it fails at that and the flaws in the premise.
 

Dave

Staff member
His whole review was based on the little girl. Sorry, I sense personal bias got in the way pretty bad here.
 
Yeah, I just don't see the review you see SS. I love Ebert, I agree with him 99% of the time but this review feels like it falls well short of his normal standards.

My point being:
Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let's say you're a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the movie does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.

The movie's premise is that ordinary people, including a high school kid, the 11-year-old and her father, try to become superheroes in order to punish evil men. The flaw in this premise is that the little girl does become a superhero. In one scene, she faces a hallway jammed with heavily armed gangsters and shoots, stabs and kicks them all to death, while flying through the air with such power, it's enough to make Jackie Chan take out an AARP membership.

This isn't comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don't you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her?

I know, I know. This is a satire. But a satire of what? The movie's rated R, which means in this case that it's doubly attractive to anyone under 17. I'm not too worried about 16-year-olds here. I'm thinking of 6-year-olds. There are characters here with walls covered in carefully mounted firearms, ranging from handguns through automatic weapons to bazookas. At the end, when the villain deliciously anticipates blowing a bullet hole in the child's head, he is prevented only because her friend, in the nick of time, shoots him with bazooka shell at 10-foot range and blows him through a skyscraper window and across several city blocks of sky in a projectile of blood, flame and smoke. As I often read on the Internet: Hahahahaha.

The little girl is named Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). She adopts the persona of Hit Girl. She has been trained by her father, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage), to join him in the battle against a crime boss (Mark Strong). Her training includes being shot at point-blank range while wearing a bulletproof vest. She also masters the martial arts — more, I would say, than any other movie martial artist of any age I can recall. She's gifted with deadly knife-throwing; a foot-long knife was presented to her by Dad as, I guess, a graduation present.

Big Daddy and Mindy never have a chat about, you know, stuff like how when you kill people, they are really dead. This movie regards human beings like video-game targets. Kill one, and you score. They're dead, you win. When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny.

Hit Girl teams up with
Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson), the film's narrator, a lackluster high school kid who lives vicariously through comic books. For reasons tedious to explain, he orders a masked costume by mail order and sets about trying to behave as a superhero, which doesn't work out well. He lacks the training of a Big Daddy. But as he and Hit Girl find themselves fighting side by side, he turns into a quick learner. Also, you don't need to be great at hand-to-hand combat if you can just shoot people dead.

The early scenes give promise of an entirely different comedy. Aaron Johnson has a certain anti-charm, his problems in high school are engaging, and so on. A little later, I reflected that possibly only Nic Cage could seem to shoot a small girl point-blank and make it, well, funny. Say what you will about her character, but Chloe Grace Moretz has presence and appeal. Then the movie moved into dark, dark territory, and I grew sad.
The non red parts are what are not about the 11 year old girl.

I'm only being half serious here, clearly he is "reviewing the film", I just feel that he's really spending 90% of his review dealing with an issue he has with it rather than discussing the actual film.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Maybe the whole movie is really about the little girl?

And is he not supposed to discuss issues he has with the film? What if that is the overwhelming factor in his reaction to the movie?
 
I never said he isn't allowed to discuss the "issue" he has with the film, I just wish he hadn't sacrificed a more "whole" look at the film for the sake of his personal issue. Clearly he's allowed to do that, it's his column. It doesn't change the fact that, to me, it's a bad review from a great film critic. It's fine that you think it's sliced bread, but I find it lacking and missing his normal critical eye.
 
Maybe the whole movie is really about the little girl?

And is he not supposed to discuss issues he has with the film? What if that is the overwhelming factor in his reaction to the movie?
If a film reviewer had issues with the homosexuality in Broke Back Mountain, should he be considered right to give the film one out of five stars?

It is his moral background that he brings to the review.
 

Dave

Staff member
Ebert is also giving the remake of Death at a Funeral 3.5 stars, says it's better and funnier than the original and that the British version was too reserved.

What the hell happened to my favorite critic?!?
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Okay, I've been sitting on a reply, but I don't really feel like continuing this rather silly argument. I still think that Ebert's review is fine, just as I feel that positive reviews which revel in the violence such as Berardinelli's are fine, but the truth is that we can't know how accurate, whole, or fair a picture it paints until we see the film. Which I plan to this weekend. :)
 
It's don't see whats "silly" about saying "that review doesn't really tell me about the film" but whatever floats your boat...
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

I think it's rather silly because we haven't seen the film, and so any comment about how accurately it describes the movie - which is what we are arguing about - is pure speculation, but I'm happy to continue.

To be honest, I don't agree with Ebert more than, say, 75% of the time, but his insights are always interesting. A critic's job is to honestly and accurately express his or her reaction to a film and to promote discussion about it. I don't begrudge Ebert's review expressing his distaste and disgust at the way the violence centered on Hit Girl is portrayed. From reading other reviews (including extremely positive ones) his description doesn't really seem off the mark to me, even in how much of the film is dominated by that violence. He does take time to point out that the actress Chloe Moretz is good, that Nic Cage brings some fun to the proceedings, that there was potential for some interesting and fun and compelling ideas in the beginning. His normal critical eye is present in his dissection of the supposed satire, which he feels is lacking any true target, and if there were one, he seems to feel that the film's glee at the violence it portrays undermines that. And yes, there is the discussion about how the film would be appealing to young teenagers, and how he feels that is irresponsible. That's what I got from the review.

And sixpackshaker, of course it would be the critic's right to give the film one star. But I don't believe that objections to homosexuality are equivalent to objections to glorifying children committing violence. Bigotry is also indefensible as an intellectual argument, while the objections to glorifying children committing violence are not.
 
How about those who are well aware of the comic beforehand? And decide to refuse to watch the movie because the comic reads like it was written by a 12-year old told to write a "mature" story?
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

How about those who are well aware of the comic beforehand? And decide to refuse to watch the movie because the comic reads like it was written by a 12-year old told to write a "mature" story?
Why, yes, the comic was written by Mark Millar.
 
It's don't see whats "silly" about saying "that review doesn't really tell me about the film" but whatever floats your boat...
Because it was a major problem that he had with the film which is the reason he gives for not recommending it. He says that some may watch and like the movie but he wasn't one of them and goes into the reasons why. I think it's a legit way of reviewing the film which is really nothing more than giving his opinion about a movie.
 
It's don't see whats "silly" about saying "that review doesn't really tell me about the film" but whatever floats your boat...
Because it was a major problem that he had with the film which is the reason he gives for not recommending it. He says that some may watch and like the movie but he wasn't one of them and goes into the reasons why. I think it's a legit way of reviewing the film which is really nothing more than giving his opinion about a movie.[/QUOTE]

Sure, and like I said, thats fair for him to do, it's his website/column, but it gave the reader little information and critique of the film itself which is what I look for in reviews. His piece is good commentary on the movie, no doubt, but it's (IMO of course) barely a review of the film.
 
Maybe the whole movie is really about the little girl?

And is he not supposed to discuss issues he has with the film? What if that is the overwhelming factor in his reaction to the movie?
If a film reviewer had issues with the homosexuality in Broke Back Mountain, should he be considered right to give the film one out of five stars?

It is his moral background that he brings to the review.[/QUOTE]

Should his moral background be put aside if he reviews a hypothetical movie called "Rape Hole"? People read his reviews because they trust his opinion on movies and part of his opinion is his moral background. If he puts that aside I don't think he is providing an honest review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top