Export thread
Just saw 'Kick Ass'
#1
Hansagan
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
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
#2
Steven Soderburgin
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.
#3
Espy
Espy
Man... I cannot wait another week for this!
#4
evilmike
evilmike
Allegedly a bad review:
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
After reading that, I'm sold.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.
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
#5
CynicismKills
CynicismKills
I hear this movie does it right. The roomie and I have been dying to see it.
#6
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
To be honest, that's a pretty fair criticism of pretty much anything Mark Millar has done.Allegedly a bad review:
After reading that, I'm sold.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.
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
#7
sixpackshaker
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.
sixpackshaker
Allegedly a bad review:
After reading that, I'm sold.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.
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.
#8
R
Raemon777
R
Raemon777
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.
#9
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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."
#10
Steven Soderburgin
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.
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.
#11
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
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....
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....
#12
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
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.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.
#13
R
Raemon777
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.
R
Raemon777
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.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."
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.
#14
Iaculus
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.
Iaculus
It's a Mail article. This is a distinct possibility.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.
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.
#15
R
Raemon777
R
Raemon777
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.
#16
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
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.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.
#17
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Yeah, legit. I'm also against people saying the review is wrong when they haven't seen the filmFair 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.
#18
Steven Soderburgin
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*
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*
#19
Espy
Espy
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.
#20
Steven Soderburgin
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.
#21
Dave
Dave
His whole review was based on the little girl. Sorry, I sense personal bias got in the way pretty bad here.
#22
Espy
Espy
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:
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.
My point being:
The non red parts are what are not about the 11 year old girl.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.
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.
#23
Steven Soderburgin
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?
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?
#24
Espy
Espy
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.
#25
sixpackshaker
It is his moral background that he brings to the review.
sixpackshaker
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?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?
It is his moral background that he brings to the review.
#26
Dave
Dave
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?!?
What the hell happened to my favorite critic?!?
#27
Steven Soderburgin
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.
#28
Espy
Espy
It's don't see whats "silly" about saying "that review doesn't really tell me about the film" but whatever floats your boat...
#29
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I didn't know you had seen the Funeral remake already!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?!?
#30
Steven Soderburgin
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.
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.
#31
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
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?
#32
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Why, yes, the comic was written by Mark Millar.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?
#33
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
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...
#34
Espy
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.
Espy
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]It's don't see whats "silly" about saying "that review doesn't really tell me about the film" but whatever floats your boat...
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.
#35
D
Dubyamn
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.
D
Dubyamn
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?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?
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.
#36
Espy
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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, totally agree.
Espy
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?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?
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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, totally agree.
#37
ThatNickGuy
Sure, that's the obvious, but I think you're missing the rest of your argument, here.
Mind you, Wanted was quite possibly one of the worst pieces of crap that I'd ever read...and yet, the movie was surprisingly a lot of fun. Of course, they ignored about 90% of the comic and spun it basically out of the first three or four pages, which might have helped.
Kick-Ass is sounding like a more straight and loyal adaptation.
ThatNickGuy
Why, yes, the comic was written by Mark Millar.[/QUOTE]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?
Sure, that's the obvious, but I think you're missing the rest of your argument, here.
Mind you, Wanted was quite possibly one of the worst pieces of crap that I'd ever read...and yet, the movie was surprisingly a lot of fun. Of course, they ignored about 90% of the comic and spun it basically out of the first three or four pages, which might have helped.
Kick-Ass is sounding like a more straight and loyal adaptation.
#38
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
I hated both the comic and the movie versions of Wanted but I hated the movie slightly less, so I agree with your point.
#39
sixpackshaker
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.
sixpackshaker
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?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?
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.
#40
Steven Soderburgin
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.[/QUOTE]
Your problem with the review seems to stem from his comment that it is "funny, efficient, and well-shot" but that is taken wildly out of context. The full comment is "As a rip-off of its Hollywood betters, it is sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot - hence my arguably overgenerous award of one star." That's not very complimentary at all. That and a later sentence saying that Chloe Moretz plays the character of Hit Girl with confidence and charisma are the only two positive sentences in the entire review. So I don't get where you got the idea that he liked the movie at all.
Steven Soderburgin
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?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?
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.[/QUOTE]
Your problem with the review seems to stem from his comment that it is "funny, efficient, and well-shot" but that is taken wildly out of context. The full comment is "As a rip-off of its Hollywood betters, it is sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot - hence my arguably overgenerous award of one star." That's not very complimentary at all. That and a later sentence saying that Chloe Moretz plays the character of Hit Girl with confidence and charisma are the only two positive sentences in the entire review. So I don't get where you got the idea that he liked the movie at all.
#41
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Unless he's from the Bizarro World and means the opposite of everything he says. Bizebert?
#42
sixpackshaker
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.[/QUOTE]
Your problem with the review seems to stem from his comment that it is "funny, efficient, and well-shot" but that is taken wildly out of context. The full comment is "As a rip-off of its Hollywood betters, it is sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot - hence my arguably overgenerous award of one star." That's not very complimentary at all. That and a later sentence saying that Chloe Moretz plays the character of Hit Girl with confidence and charisma are the only two positive sentences in the entire review. So I don't get where you got the idea that he liked the movie at all.[/QUOTE]
It still comes down to everything he did not like about the movie is his personal view on sex and violence. I don't think morality has much place in art or commerce.
I am tired of moralist telling me, "DON'T DO "X" THAT YOU WILL ENJOY BECAUSE OF MY TEMPTATIONS."
If I don't find something entertaining on quality grounds I'll speak out against it. But if my trouble with something comes down to my morals, I'll give an honest review and then post "my" issues with it.
sixpackshaker
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?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?
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.[/QUOTE]
I am talking about the rating of the quality of a film. This related mostly to the first review posted here, where the guy liked the film, but had a moral objection to content. And because of the moral objection he downgraded the rating of the film.
By that review Taxi Driver would be a horribly made movie because it dealt with child prostitution. Or Leon/The Professional because Natalee Portman's character plotted/attempted violence and tried to seduce the male lead.[/QUOTE]
Your problem with the review seems to stem from his comment that it is "funny, efficient, and well-shot" but that is taken wildly out of context. The full comment is "As a rip-off of its Hollywood betters, it is sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot - hence my arguably overgenerous award of one star." That's not very complimentary at all. That and a later sentence saying that Chloe Moretz plays the character of Hit Girl with confidence and charisma are the only two positive sentences in the entire review. So I don't get where you got the idea that he liked the movie at all.[/QUOTE]
It still comes down to everything he did not like about the movie is his personal view on sex and violence. I don't think morality has much place in art or commerce.
I am tired of moralist telling me, "DON'T DO "X" THAT YOU WILL ENJOY BECAUSE OF MY TEMPTATIONS."
If I don't find something entertaining on quality grounds I'll speak out against it. But if my trouble with something comes down to my morals, I'll give an honest review and then post "my" issues with it.
#43
MindDetective
MindDetective
Attachments
-
11 KB Views: 389
#44
D
Dubyamn
They're saying that they thought it was a bad movie. Which is their opinion which is all they have to say.
They thought Hit-Girl was explotive and wrong and they said so. Nothing wrong with that.
D
Dubyamn
But it does have a big place in consumption. Which means that it has a place in reviews.It still comes down to everything he did not like about the movie is his personal view on sex and violence. I don't think morality has much place in art or commerce.
Except that isn't at all what any of the reviewers are saying. They are just saying that the movie is bad because they didn't like it. They aren't calling out for the film to be destroyed on a bonfire made up of the set and costumes of the movie.I am tired of moralist telling me, "DON'T DO "X" THAT YOU WILL ENJOY BECAUSE OF MY TEMPTATIONS."
They're saying that they thought it was a bad movie. Which is their opinion which is all they have to say.
Both Ebert and the other guy gave it an honest review. They didn't like the movie and they said why. They don't need to do a point by point breakdown of a movie they believe to be grabage all they need to do is say that they think it's garbage and why.If I don't find something entertaining on quality grounds I'll speak out against it. But if my trouble with something comes down to my morals, I'll give an honest review and then post "my" issues with it.
They thought Hit-Girl was explotive and wrong and they said so. Nothing wrong with that.
#45
R
Raemon777
R
Raemon777
I honestly don't have all that much interest to see this film APART from the ability to return to this conversation and say "yeah I totally agree with Ebert and that other review" or "nah, they're overreacting." But I'm feeling increasingly motivated to see it just for that purpose.
I will note that the positive reviews focus almost as much on Hit Girl as the negative reviews do. The actual "review" parts of the positive reviews seem to mostly say "Lotsa sweet violence!" and "Hit Girl is awesome!", repeating that in a few different ways interspersed with a summary of the plot. Conversely, the "review" parts of the negative reviews basically say "Lotsa sick violence" and "Hit girl is terrible." I think both of them give a pretty accurate picture of the entire movie, and if you have any experience with these types of movies you'll know from reading either review whether you'll like it or not.
This is the best review I've seen so far (insofar as it actually spends a lot of time reviewing the movie) but the bulk of the review sections there essentially say "This was a fun movie, but it is pretty frickin' twisted and I don't know what to make of hit girl." So given what all the reviews agree on (in particular that Hit Girl is what makes or breaks the movie for everyone) I'm guessing that Ebert's review is pretty spot on.
I will note that the positive reviews focus almost as much on Hit Girl as the negative reviews do. The actual "review" parts of the positive reviews seem to mostly say "Lotsa sweet violence!" and "Hit Girl is awesome!", repeating that in a few different ways interspersed with a summary of the plot. Conversely, the "review" parts of the negative reviews basically say "Lotsa sick violence" and "Hit girl is terrible." I think both of them give a pretty accurate picture of the entire movie, and if you have any experience with these types of movies you'll know from reading either review whether you'll like it or not.
This is the best review I've seen so far (insofar as it actually spends a lot of time reviewing the movie) but the bulk of the review sections there essentially say "This was a fun movie, but it is pretty frickin' twisted and I don't know what to make of hit girl." So given what all the reviews agree on (in particular that Hit Girl is what makes or breaks the movie for everyone) I'm guessing that Ebert's review is pretty spot on.
#46
Covar
Covar
I'm confused here. A movie is made that from what I've heard is a very faithful adaptation of Millar's comic and people are shocked that Ebert didn't like it?
#47
Iaculus
Iaculus
Well, I saw the movie on Wednesday, and feel that Ebert was taking it a bit too seriously. It's made quite obvious that the film-makers realise that Hit Girl is effectively a child soldier, and they play this up throughout for both uncomfortable laughs and occasional drama. For instance, there's a very good reason that her father never gives her the 'if you kill them, they are really dead' talk - namely, that he's a deranged ex-cop with an unhealthy fixation on comic-books who's been moulding her into a living weapon for most of her life. How effective the movie's attempts at deconstructing superheroes are is a matter of debate, given that they are evenly mixed with a certain sense of fun and spectacle that slightly undermines them, but I didn't find that the conflict detracted nearly as much from the movie's entertainment value as in, say, Inglourious Basterds.
As for how faithful the movie is to the comic... well, I must confess that I haven't read the latter, but from what I've managed to glean about it from the Internet, it's safe to say that there are changes. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In my experience, there are two types of story when you're dealing with anything other than straight-up black-and-white morality - the kind where there is a genuine affection for the cast, often regardless of alignment, and the kind where the entire thing seems to be saying to you "Hey, look at these losers. Don't they suck? Let me show you how much they suck." The latter greatly irritates me, and is one of the reasons that I couldn't stand Closer. It is also the category into which, by all accounts, the Kick-Ass comic falls.
The movie, meanwhile, allows a measure of humanity in its characters' portrayals, and a measure of optimism in their lives. The geeky protagonist gets over his vigilante fantasies. Hit Girl gets a shot at a normal-ish life. Big Daddy is shown to have had lines even he wouldn't cross where his daughter's training was concerned. Even Red Mist, the main villain's spoiled supervillain-wannabe son, gets a couple of humanising moments here and there. The changes may rob the story of some of its deconstructive edge, but they're quite welcome nonetheless.
See it yourselves. Make up your own minds. It's been said before, but it bears repeating.
As for how faithful the movie is to the comic... well, I must confess that I haven't read the latter, but from what I've managed to glean about it from the Internet, it's safe to say that there are changes. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In my experience, there are two types of story when you're dealing with anything other than straight-up black-and-white morality - the kind where there is a genuine affection for the cast, often regardless of alignment, and the kind where the entire thing seems to be saying to you "Hey, look at these losers. Don't they suck? Let me show you how much they suck." The latter greatly irritates me, and is one of the reasons that I couldn't stand Closer. It is also the category into which, by all accounts, the Kick-Ass comic falls.
The movie, meanwhile, allows a measure of humanity in its characters' portrayals, and a measure of optimism in their lives. The geeky protagonist gets over his vigilante fantasies. Hit Girl gets a shot at a normal-ish life. Big Daddy is shown to have had lines even he wouldn't cross where his daughter's training was concerned. Even Red Mist, the main villain's spoiled supervillain-wannabe son, gets a couple of humanising moments here and there. The changes may rob the story of some of its deconstructive edge, but they're quite welcome nonetheless.
See it yourselves. Make up your own minds. It's been said before, but it bears repeating.
#49
Dave
Dave
I think this might be a pretty good review.
http://www.omaha.com/article/201004...aking-the-world-a-safer-place-for-superheroes
http://www.omaha.com/article/201004...aking-the-world-a-safer-place-for-superheroes
It may not be the best superhero movie ever, but Matthew Vaughn’s “Kick-Ass” could very well be the last one.
Nah, just kidding. As long as arrested adolescents by which I mean most of us continue to ooh and aah over the digitally enhanced capers of Spandex-ed hunks and babes, superheroes will populate our multiplexes.
But this film might just change the way we look at them.
By turns scathingly satiric and fan-boy celebratory, ridiculously violent and politically incorrect (at least when it comes to our notions of childhood), the movie is an absolute hoot, a giddy deconstruction of caped crusaders and men of steel.
Our hero is Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a comic-book obsessed teen dweeb who dreams of heroism but admits that his only superpower is that he’s invisible to girls.
Nevertheless, Dave goes for it. He orders a cheesy green scuba wet suit on the Internet and caps his costume with lace-up work boots and a couple of billy clubs in a holster on his back. He calls his tough, fearless alter ego Kick-Ass.
Then he ventures forth to fight evil only to have his own backside kicked badly enough to put him in the hospital. This ignominious thrashing proves inspirational at least to the copy cats who create their own masked heroes and set out to make the city a safer place.
Foremost among these are ex-cop Damon Macready (Nicolas Cage) and his young daughter, Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). Damon is a blend of survivalist paranoia and Old Testament paternalism (Cage perfectly captures the character’s madness) who has reared young Mindy to be a knife-throwing, gun-savvy, pint-sized vigilante.
They even have their own crime-fighting costumes. Damon has a sort of black Batman cowl and calls himself Big Daddy. Mindy looks like a mutant Catholic schoolgirl dipped in Day-Glo purple paint; she calls herself Hit-Girl.
They’re as smoothly lethal as Kick-Ass is inept. And when they all team up, even Kick-Ass’ game improves.
The plot centers on our crimefighters’ battle against gangster Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong, the villain in “Sherlock Holmes”), a raging cauldron of hate unaware that his own son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, McLovin’ of “Superbad”) has been bitten by the vigilante bug and now patrols the streets in the guise of Red Mist.
This film is terrifically violent, but director Vaughn (“Layer Cake,” “Stardust”) somehow delivers loads of sadism without breaking the comic tone. Somewhat more problematic are scenes of Hit-Girl slicing up drug-dealing thugs and intoning some of the vilest curses this side of a Tarantino flick.
Having an 11-year-old character behave in this manner may be too much for some potential moviegoers. But if you’re that uptight you shouldn’t be watching this film anyway.
I loved Hit-Girl, and young Moretz will soon be regarded as a rising star. Her grasp of the character she can slide from demure to deadly in the blink of an eye would be a challenge for an actress three times her age. She pulls it off effortlessly and does most of her own stunts to boot.
This isn’t a particularly good-looking film, but it needn’t be. Though filmed in England it feels thoroughly American, thanks to a creative production design and a cast of English thesps (you’ll recognize many of them from Guy Ritchie films) who have their New Yawk dialect down pat.
In the same way that Kick-Ass the character tries to save his world from bad men, “Kick-Ass” the movie tries to save cinema from lame superhero movies. That’s a big ambition, but this movie delivers.
Nah, just kidding. As long as arrested adolescents by which I mean most of us continue to ooh and aah over the digitally enhanced capers of Spandex-ed hunks and babes, superheroes will populate our multiplexes.
But this film might just change the way we look at them.
By turns scathingly satiric and fan-boy celebratory, ridiculously violent and politically incorrect (at least when it comes to our notions of childhood), the movie is an absolute hoot, a giddy deconstruction of caped crusaders and men of steel.
Our hero is Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a comic-book obsessed teen dweeb who dreams of heroism but admits that his only superpower is that he’s invisible to girls.
Nevertheless, Dave goes for it. He orders a cheesy green scuba wet suit on the Internet and caps his costume with lace-up work boots and a couple of billy clubs in a holster on his back. He calls his tough, fearless alter ego Kick-Ass.
Then he ventures forth to fight evil only to have his own backside kicked badly enough to put him in the hospital. This ignominious thrashing proves inspirational at least to the copy cats who create their own masked heroes and set out to make the city a safer place.
Foremost among these are ex-cop Damon Macready (Nicolas Cage) and his young daughter, Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz). Damon is a blend of survivalist paranoia and Old Testament paternalism (Cage perfectly captures the character’s madness) who has reared young Mindy to be a knife-throwing, gun-savvy, pint-sized vigilante.
They even have their own crime-fighting costumes. Damon has a sort of black Batman cowl and calls himself Big Daddy. Mindy looks like a mutant Catholic schoolgirl dipped in Day-Glo purple paint; she calls herself Hit-Girl.
They’re as smoothly lethal as Kick-Ass is inept. And when they all team up, even Kick-Ass’ game improves.
The plot centers on our crimefighters’ battle against gangster Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong, the villain in “Sherlock Holmes”), a raging cauldron of hate unaware that his own son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, McLovin’ of “Superbad”) has been bitten by the vigilante bug and now patrols the streets in the guise of Red Mist.
This film is terrifically violent, but director Vaughn (“Layer Cake,” “Stardust”) somehow delivers loads of sadism without breaking the comic tone. Somewhat more problematic are scenes of Hit-Girl slicing up drug-dealing thugs and intoning some of the vilest curses this side of a Tarantino flick.
Having an 11-year-old character behave in this manner may be too much for some potential moviegoers. But if you’re that uptight you shouldn’t be watching this film anyway.
I loved Hit-Girl, and young Moretz will soon be regarded as a rising star. Her grasp of the character she can slide from demure to deadly in the blink of an eye would be a challenge for an actress three times her age. She pulls it off effortlessly and does most of her own stunts to boot.
This isn’t a particularly good-looking film, but it needn’t be. Though filmed in England it feels thoroughly American, thanks to a creative production design and a cast of English thesps (you’ll recognize many of them from Guy Ritchie films) who have their New Yawk dialect down pat.
In the same way that Kick-Ass the character tries to save his world from bad men, “Kick-Ass” the movie tries to save cinema from lame superhero movies. That’s a big ambition, but this movie delivers.
#50
Espy
Espy
Hey! A review that actually reviewed the film! Nice.
#51
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
That is a horribly written review. Where was the editor? Who let that thing go to print? Look at these fucking sentences, copied directly from the website without any editing:
"As long as arrested adolescents by which I mean most of us continue to ooh and aah over the digitally enhanced capers of Spandex-ed hunks and babes, superheroes will populate our multiplexes."
"Her grasp of the character she can slide from demure to deadly in the blink of an eye would be a challenge for an actress three times her age."
Also, he doesn't really discuss anything interesting about the film, and smugly insists that if you don't like the movie then you must be "uptight." He kept repeating that it's a satiric deconstruction of super-hero films and says it'll change how we look at them, but doesn't even begin to suggest how it will do that. It smacks of someone who has read other people suggesting the same and agreed with them without having any idea what they actually meant. What a poorly written, smug, bullshit review.
Though he did describe the plot, so points for that.
EDIT: Sorry, I take film criticism pretty seriously and read a TON of it, and there are plenty of really good critics who are having trouble finding work right now, so seeing a review like that make it to print sort of makes me angry.
"As long as arrested adolescents by which I mean most of us continue to ooh and aah over the digitally enhanced capers of Spandex-ed hunks and babes, superheroes will populate our multiplexes."
"Her grasp of the character she can slide from demure to deadly in the blink of an eye would be a challenge for an actress three times her age."
Also, he doesn't really discuss anything interesting about the film, and smugly insists that if you don't like the movie then you must be "uptight." He kept repeating that it's a satiric deconstruction of super-hero films and says it'll change how we look at them, but doesn't even begin to suggest how it will do that. It smacks of someone who has read other people suggesting the same and agreed with them without having any idea what they actually meant. What a poorly written, smug, bullshit review.
Though he did describe the plot, so points for that.
EDIT: Sorry, I take film criticism pretty seriously and read a TON of it, and there are plenty of really good critics who are having trouble finding work right now, so seeing a review like that make it to print sort of makes me angry.
#52
klew
klew
Always a fun site to read if you want to know how much sex and violence is in it: http://www.kids-in-mind.com/k/kickass.htm
#53
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
You don't say.Sorry, I take film criticism pretty seriously
#54
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
answer: NebraskaThat is a horribly written review. Where was the editor? Who let that thing go to print? Look at these fucking sentences,.
#55
Espy
I sure couldn't tell.
Espy
You don't say.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I take film criticism pretty seriously
I sure couldn't tell.
#56
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Wow, ok, saw it earlier today. I've read the comics, thought they were alright (I actually enjoy Millar's immature bloodfests). Holy fuck is the movie terrible. Well, at first it isn't, but it fucking falls apart towards the end.
In one word, what is absolutely retarded about Kick-Ass. A word that is generally equated to pure awesomeness.
I liked it all the way until the final act. I really, really liked Nicholas Cage (whom I usually hate) and Hit-Girl. They were both fantastic. I don't know man, the last act absolutely spoiled the entire movie for me. I'd have been happier had the film burned out before the last 20 minutes of the movie had played.
In one word, what is absolutely retarded about Kick-Ass. A word that is generally equated to pure awesomeness.
Rocketpack
I liked it all the way until the final act. I really, really liked Nicholas Cage (whom I usually hate) and Hit-Girl. They were both fantastic. I don't know man, the last act absolutely spoiled the entire movie for me. I'd have been happier had the film burned out before the last 20 minutes of the movie had played.
#57
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Ebert was pretty wrong and off the mark.
But the movie still sucked.
In all honesty, Death at a Funeral was better.
But the movie still sucked.
In all honesty, Death at a Funeral was better.
#58
Gusto
Gusto
Buh.
As much as it would likely result in people getting hot-headed and and the tread getting locked, I almost think it's time for another thread about review process/etiquette/ideology again. I certainly have a much more learned opinion than I did last time, almost exactly one year ago.
Long story short, for the sake of keeping this thread sort of on topic, I have not seen the movie in question but Kissinger's thoughts on the review process are basically my own as well.
As much as it would likely result in people getting hot-headed and and the tread getting locked, I almost think it's time for another thread about review process/etiquette/ideology again. I certainly have a much more learned opinion than I did last time, almost exactly one year ago.
Long story short, for the sake of keeping this thread sort of on topic, I have not seen the movie in question but Kissinger's thoughts on the review process are basically my own as well.
#59
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
I just saw the film, and I see what Ebert is saying, but he's wrong.
The issue is not with the character of Hit Girl herself and what she does, it's with the movie around her and how clear it was that Matthew Vaughn didn't know what kind of movie he wanted to make and ended up with a sort of muddled mix of Sky High and Watchmen and not giving either part its due. Conceptually, it starts out strong with some interesting ideas about why the world of comic books is absurd and childish and about the nature of celebrity and violence in the media, but the execution undoes all of that and it becomes this cynical, cartoony but ultimately generic super-hero movie. There is a very blatant attempt to present this film as Spider-man meets Taxi Driver, but it doesn't follow through in any kind of satisfactory way. It starts out wanting to subvert super-hero movies, and ends up becoming exactly the same as other super-hero movies to a fault.
Some of the performances come close to saving the movie, though. Aaron Johnson is not very convincing in a role that feels phoned-in from the start - he's a Peter Parker surrogate but far less interesting - but I really liked Chloe Moretz. She is charming and charismatic and confident, much like Dakota Fanning when she was Mortetz's age. For all of the ways this movie fails conceptually - and many of those problems center around the character Kick Ass himself - the other characters are fun and engaging. Nic Cage as Big Daddy doing an Adam West impression in costume and a Ward Cleaver out of costume was very good, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse was also fun to watch. And while there are a lot of elements of the relationship between Big Daddy and Hit Girl that are disturbing, there's also a sweetness about that relationship that I quite enjoyed.
I just wish that Vaughn had been able to find a consistent tone and had explored the concepts more thoroughly and effectively. Instead, the movie ends up feeling like a mish-mash, overstuffed with scenes they thought would be cool and never really committing to any ideas.
EDIT: I definitely liked it a bit more than my esteemed colleague The Lovely Boner, but I wouldn't call myself a fan.
EDIT 2: Gusto, you my boy.
The issue is not with the character of Hit Girl herself and what she does, it's with the movie around her and how clear it was that Matthew Vaughn didn't know what kind of movie he wanted to make and ended up with a sort of muddled mix of Sky High and Watchmen and not giving either part its due. Conceptually, it starts out strong with some interesting ideas about why the world of comic books is absurd and childish and about the nature of celebrity and violence in the media, but the execution undoes all of that and it becomes this cynical, cartoony but ultimately generic super-hero movie. There is a very blatant attempt to present this film as Spider-man meets Taxi Driver, but it doesn't follow through in any kind of satisfactory way. It starts out wanting to subvert super-hero movies, and ends up becoming exactly the same as other super-hero movies to a fault.
Some of the performances come close to saving the movie, though. Aaron Johnson is not very convincing in a role that feels phoned-in from the start - he's a Peter Parker surrogate but far less interesting - but I really liked Chloe Moretz. She is charming and charismatic and confident, much like Dakota Fanning when she was Mortetz's age. For all of the ways this movie fails conceptually - and many of those problems center around the character Kick Ass himself - the other characters are fun and engaging. Nic Cage as Big Daddy doing an Adam West impression in costume and a Ward Cleaver out of costume was very good, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse was also fun to watch. And while there are a lot of elements of the relationship between Big Daddy and Hit Girl that are disturbing, there's also a sweetness about that relationship that I quite enjoyed.
I just wish that Vaughn had been able to find a consistent tone and had explored the concepts more thoroughly and effectively. Instead, the movie ends up feeling like a mish-mash, overstuffed with scenes they thought would be cool and never really committing to any ideas.
EDIT: I definitely liked it a bit more than my esteemed colleague The Lovely Boner, but I wouldn't call myself a fan.
EDIT 2: Gusto, you my boy.
#60
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Yeah, the guy from Firefly and Dollhouse (Wash/Alpha) was probably the most hilarious.Ebert was pretty wrong and off the mark.
But the movie still sucked.
In all honesty, Death at a Funeral was better.
#61
Espy
Espy
It was a fun movie. Nothing terribly special but fun and over the top and it they did a good job of making it feel like a comic book.
Interesting note: They used the themes from 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine in the movie. Odd.
Interesting note: They used the themes from 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine in the movie. Odd.
#62
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I enjoyed it a great deal when I saw it with friends, but I more or less agree with a lot of the criticisms that I've read in this thread so far.
This film had really no idea where it wanted to go after the first half and just settled on a ton of cg-enhanced action scenes at the end. I found the scenes extremely fun to watch, but it left the last 40 minutes so empty feeling. It's extremely problematic when you can't really relate at all to the main character who you're obviously supposed to relate to.
Hit-Girl and Big-Daddy were super fun, however.
And I did have fun picking out actors I had seen before in Guy Ritchie/British-gangster films.
This film had really no idea where it wanted to go after the first half and just settled on a ton of cg-enhanced action scenes at the end. I found the scenes extremely fun to watch, but it left the last 40 minutes so empty feeling. It's extremely problematic when you can't really relate at all to the main character who you're obviously supposed to relate to.
Hit-Girl and Big-Daddy were super fun, however.
And I did have fun picking out actors I had seen before in Guy Ritchie/British-gangster films.
#63
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
i'm not surprised, the rest of the movie seems cobbled together from other movies that didn't suckInteresting note: They used the themes from 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine in the movie. Odd.
#64
Chibibar
Chibibar
My wife and I watched this film Friday Night. We like it. As a film, it was entertaining and we enjoy it.
#65
LordRavage
LordRavage
Nova and I saw it last night.
It was a fun movie for sure. I do have to say, I rather they called the movie Hit Girl then Kick Ass. The problem I had with the movie was that Kick Ass never really comes in on his own. It might have been more realistic that things started to get out of control and he started to panic. But I was hoping he would pull it together and bring a bit more focus to his character. I felt I was more interested in Big Daddy and Hit Girl's story then the rest going on.
I think Ebert has a problem with young people cursing and going against societies ideals. I have seen and been around young people. They curse and swear worse then most adults I know.
It was a fun movie for sure. I do have to say, I rather they called the movie Hit Girl then Kick Ass. The problem I had with the movie was that Kick Ass never really comes in on his own. It might have been more realistic that things started to get out of control and he started to panic. But I was hoping he would pull it together and bring a bit more focus to his character. I felt I was more interested in Big Daddy and Hit Girl's story then the rest going on.
I think Ebert has a problem with young people cursing and going against societies ideals. I have seen and been around young people. They curse and swear worse then most adults I know.
#66
Espy
Anything in particular stand out to you? I wouldn't deny it was full of cliche' but it seem to do so with the intent purpose of riffing on those cliche's. That being said using Danny Boyle film scores seemed very unusual to me.
Espy
i'm not surprised, the rest of the movie seems cobbled together from other movies that didn't suck[/QUOTE]Interesting note: They used the themes from 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine in the movie. Odd.
Anything in particular stand out to you? I wouldn't deny it was full of cliche' but it seem to do so with the intent purpose of riffing on those cliche's. That being said using Danny Boyle film scores seemed very unusual to me.
#67
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
What stood out to me was a very distinct lack of riffing on the cliches in the last half.
#68
Espy
Espy
Interesting. I saw almost no point it wasn't following some pretty well established comic book concepts and story ideas.
#69
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
That's... exactly what I mean. It was following them and wasn't making any sort of critique on them, especially in the last half.Interesting. I saw almost no point it wasn't following some pretty well established comic book concepts and story ideas.
#70
Espy
Espy
You assume it was meant to make a critique of them.
I doubt they intended to make a film that was anything more than a fun romp through the comic book narrative landscape.
I doubt they intended to make a film that was anything more than a fun romp through the comic book narrative landscape.
#71
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
I think it's pretty clear that it was meant to make a critique, especially with the way it starts out. If they did, they failed to follow through, and if they didn't then the film gives us a mishmash of cliches and stolen images and ideas without earning them at all.
#72
Espy
Espy
I understand why one would see that as a set up for a critique or even parody, but I think in the overall context of the film it's clear that was not the intent. But either way it's going to be viewed through one of those lenses by most who analyze it I'm sure.
#73
Shawn
Shawn
Just saw the film earlier today. My thoughts teeter on Totally Amazing and What Did I Just Watch? Going in with no knowledge of the comic besides the basic plot of a Super Hero Wanna-Be being recorded on a camera phone I had hoped that Kick-Ass would be a character that eventually became very good at... well... kicking ass. Looking back at other posts it seems that others had the same opinion. It was more the "Hit Girl" movie than it ever was about Kick-Ass. But Kick-Ass is definitely the glue the holds everything together (though it's probably only Elmer's at the very most), and at least comes through in the end.
.
.
#74
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I Mom was visiting and I took her to see it...
Does that make me evil?
Does that make me evil?
#75
Dave
Dave
iMom? Are they making those now, too? DAMN YOU STEVE JOBS!!I Mom was visiting and I took her to see it...
Does that make me evil?
#76
Shawn
Shawn
This reminds me that I'm glad this film came out now and not 15-20 years ago. I was still a kid, and I know for a fact I would have wanted to see the movie based on the trailers alone. And my parents might not take me, but my dear, sweet grandmother certainly would have. Guaranteed she'd have no idea what she was in for. I would still feel bad about it to this very day.I Mom was visiting and I took her to see it...
Does that make me evil?
#77
Espy
Espy
Took my wife to see it last night and I gotta say, it was even better the second time around. Vaughn did a great job of crafting a cheesy but compelling story. It's not Chinatown or anything, but it's a good fun popcorn flick.
#78
Cajungal
Cajungal
Hopin' to see it soon, maybe Saturday night after a heavy dose of Festival International.
#79
sixpackshaker
As to the original conversation...
I feel as though Hit-Girl is a good stand in for Robin, in a Watchman sort of way. As in, how would a kid that takes glee in beating the crap out of adults act in real life. She is a bit cartoonish in her glee for violence, but I laughed a lot at how she handled it.
The language did not bother me. I grew up on the Bad News Bears, and most of my friends talked that way, even at 11 years old.
sixpackshaker
I agree. It was not a great movie, but it felt more like a comic than most of the other comic book movies.Took my wife to see it last night and I gotta say, it was even better the second time around. Vaughn did a great job of crafting a cheesy but compelling story. It's not Chinatown or anything, but it's a good fun popcorn flick.
As to the original conversation...
When Hit-Girl killed all the thugs and bitch in the apartment, I cringed the whole time. I felt the use of the multipurpose twin bladed staff, was some of the most violent action yet in a film.
I feel as though Hit-Girl is a good stand in for Robin, in a Watchman sort of way. As in, how would a kid that takes glee in beating the crap out of adults act in real life. She is a bit cartoonish in her glee for violence, but I laughed a lot at how she handled it.
The language did not bother me. I grew up on the Bad News Bears, and most of my friends talked that way, even at 11 years old.
#80
Bowielee
Bowielee
I just got back from the movie and I have to say that I absolutely loved the film. I thought it was well shot and it's the first film I've seen in months where I actually cared about the characters.
#81
klew
klew
Just came back from the first showing here and also enjoyed it immensely, great fun. I thought I picked up on the use of music from 28 Weeks Later and a seemingly remixed version of music from Sunshine, both used effectively.
#82
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
For the record, there are hundreds of films that are not as good as Chinatown, but are better than this one.
#83
edzepp
edzepp
Saw it. Loved it. Hit Girl rules. Bazooka. Seeing it again.
#84
Espy
Espy
Oh you!For the record, there are hundreds of films that are not as good as Chinatown, but are better than this one.
#85
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Don't; he hates being "that guy".
#86
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I'm just saying it's ludicrous to assume I expect every movie to be Chinatown, there's a huge wide gulf between movies I don't like and great movies.
#87
Espy
Espy
I don't think anyone said that.I'm just saying it's ludicrous to assume I expect every movie to be Chinatown
#88
MindDetective
MindDetective
It was a fun movie to watch but after it was over, the first thing that popped into my head was, "Batman Begins kinda tackled this theme already." The performances were good enough (except the McLovin guy kinda bugged me) and I appreciated that most of the characters were clumsy at fighting. It definitely got a little cartoonish with Hit Girl (and the "special weapon" reveal...and the bazooka), which cut against the grain of the "realism" approach to superheroes. In the end, they kind of sold out the premise of the movie to keep the action interesting and I'm not sure that was necessary. Still, it was fun to watch, though I would recommend it as a matinee at best.