Just saw 'Kick Ass'

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, totally agree.
 
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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
S

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.
 
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.[/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.
 
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?
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.[/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.
 
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.[/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.
 
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.
But it does have a big place in consumption. Which means that it has a place in reviews.

I am tired of moralist telling me, "DON'T DO "X" THAT YOU WILL ENJOY BECAUSE OF MY TEMPTATIONS."
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.

They're saying that they thought it was a bad movie. Which is their opinion which is all they have to say.

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.
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.

They thought Hit-Girl was explotive and wrong and they said so. Nothing wrong with that.
 
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'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?
 
I

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.
 

Dave

Staff member
I think this might be a pretty good review.

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.
 
S

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
S

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
C

Chibibar

My wife and I watched this film Friday Night. We like it. As a film, it was entertaining and we enjoy it.
 
L

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. :p
 
Interesting note: They used the themes from 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine in the movie. Odd.
i'm not surprised, the rest of the movie seems cobbled together from other movies that didn't suck[/QUOTE]

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.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

What stood out to me was a very distinct lack of riffing on the cliches in the last half.
 
Interesting. I saw almost no point it wasn't following some pretty well established comic book concepts and story ideas.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Interesting. I saw almost no point it wasn't following some pretty well established comic book concepts and story ideas.
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top