Review – Kick-Ass
As a movie, Kick-Ass works.
It is a bit episodic, a bit too long, a bit lacking in structural finesse, and uninterested in challenging itself to ask its own internal questions. But if you find it funny to see a cute 12-year-old murder a parade of comic-booky bad guys, it works and works really well.
Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman are working inside of the iconography of comics and comic geeks. So while much of the film’s fun is overtly manipulative. But so is almost everything else that audiences enjoy.
There is a much darker, much better movie possible here. That’s the movie that takes what is happening in the story a lot more seriously… a bit more like the truth. But it would play to seven people before winning the Village Voice Critics Poll.
SPOILERS
The movie is basically about a kid with a high concept idea, a villain and henchmen that are more out of Batman: The TV Series than out of the good Batman feature films, and a vicious psychopath who is more than willing to sacrifice himself and his daughter in the name of bloody revenge.
The pieces, while they are often mismatched, are compelling, each in their own way.
The big pieces that the film fails to address completely are; 1. How a 12-year-old values life and why splattering people’s brains against walls is not remotely disturbing to her, 2. What the relationship of the apparent teen girl who is Kick-Ass’ love interest is with a 30something drug dealer and pimp, 3. The movie is about a guy without superpowers… but it is key to the film that he gets a form of super power, which is a lack of sensitivity to pain, 4. A clear interest in reconstructing family is not as clear as it should be, and 5. Endless minor leaps of logic, primarily regarding Kick-Ass remaining a target and not being found.
#5 is just one of those movie things. If you want to poke at the film, you can… but you probably are fighting having a good time.
#2 really struck me, because the relationship she had with the bad bad man is quite instructive about who she is. Why was she there? Does she, at the same time she seeks out a gay best friend, have a thing for bad boy cock and coke? The script goes for her being sweet and never answers this pretty obvious question. But for me, the sexually and socially aware version of that character is far more interesting and fits the story better.
The character of Dave Lizewski / Kick-Ass is a na
I am having a good feeling about this Lyndsy Fonseca angle you mention. I might be bowing if this is the case…
Been bad-mouthing this all along because it TOTALLY looks generic and cheap and lame in ALL the trailers… to the point where now I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE IT. I see clips and spots where it looks like some warehouse-shot, no-filters, SUPERHERO MOVIE-level $5 kids’ movie, then you’ve got the CHUD wagon acting like it’s the most transgressive and brilliant thing ever committed to celluloid. Can’t get around HOW DORKY it looks, how lame that STIR CRAZY RIPOFF LINE is about “That’s right, we’re superheroes,” can’t get around the fact that I don’t want to watch teenaged dorks instead of awesome actors and hot chicks…
But again, the disconnect is SO WEIRD; To read Twitter or fanboys, you’d think this was some hard-R cross between Requiem for a Dream and RoboCop; Instead it looks like Bugsy Malone meets Meet the Spartans…
Will say, the clip Cage showed last night on Leno was scored to the IN THE HOUSE, IN A HEARTBEAT CUE from “28 Days Later.” Since when are movies allowed to WHOLESALE SCORE their big sequences to the theme music of other films?
Maybe the NIGHTMARE remake in two weeks can score its scare sequences to Bernard Hermann’s Psycho cues.
Roger Ebert did not care much for Kick Ass:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/REVIEWS/100419986
The A Nightmare On Elm Street remake looks about as scary as a PG-13 Hollywood remake of a mediocre Asian horror movie. I know the Platinum Dunes guys claim to love horror and all that, but they sure make shitty horror movies.
DP: Have you ever read the comic book… er, sorry, I mean graphic novel? I know the script was written before the graphic novel was complete, so there are some striking differences between the two. But you might be even more intrigued (or appalled) by the backstory of Hit Girl and her dad in the graphic novel.
Bluenose alert: Carmike Cinemas has banned “Kick-Ass” chainwide because of the title. Mr. Two Thumbs Up isn’t aware of that as Carmike doesn’t have theaters around Chicago.
(Alert reprised from earlier BYOB thread)
Ebert also called LaBute’s Death at a Funeral the best comedy since The Hangover, which is strangely reminiscent of the four stars he gave Lakeview Terrace
Let’s just say I’m still waiting for his belated review of the the Wicker Man remake.
(For the record, I LOVE the Wicker Man remake, but I’m not sure if I love it for the right reasons.)
I see that some are already accusing Roger of not getting the movie because he isn’t sure what it’s satirizing. For me a red flag goes up when I see certain people raving about it because it’s so “morally reprehensible,” as if there’s nothing cooler and more laudable than that in the entire film universe.
DP
I don’t think the girlfriend (who wasn’t especially hot, btw) was screwing the drug dealer. He was coming by the clinic and harassing her. I could be wrong because so much about this film made no sense.
I too got the idea that the dealer was a visitor to her clinic, someone that she was nice to which the dealer took as a sign of affection/sexual desire.
SPOILERS….
.
.
.
I disagree with both DP and Ebert, as I think the film does just enough of an examination of Hit-Girl’s personality to make the character more than just a cartoon. It’s made perfectly clear that she’s been brainwashed from birth. Cage isn’t training her to be a crime fighter who is allowed to kill people, he’s training her to be a soldier in a war. Thus, she’s been trained to view the mobsters in question as inhuman/sub-human, for whom killing of them has no real consequences (IE – training soldiers to view enemy soldiers as ‘the other’). Frankly, I specifically didn’t ‘turn by brain off’ and was relatively moved by Mindy’s plight. What exactly was she going to become, under Damon’s care, once D’Amico was dead? Sure, the movie didn’t obsess on it, as well as her likely PTSD stemming from the events of the film, but that’s perfectly reasonable territory for a sequel to deal with. And Vaughn specifically puts a scene in the film where characters specifically discuss the immorality of Cage’s choices towards his daughter. But Hit Girl is a supporting character in a movie with several major characters, so every choice that every character makes cannot be analyzed in full. For me, the fact that Vaughn and company took the time to acknowledge what a shockingly terrible parent Cage was, and the long-term implications of turning his kid into a heartless killing machine, was enough for me.
Actually, I thought the drug dealer was bothering somebody who either knew the girlfriend, or was a visitor to the girlfriend’s clinic.
Lex is right about the production values of this movie…half of the trailer looks like a Baltimore indie shot on HD for two hundred grand. Where did 35 million or whatever go, I’d think they could afford a filter or two.
So, David, how about a thumbs-up to Comic-Con, for clinching the sale of this movie that you actually liked?
“Aaron Johnson is a rising star.”
Well, he certainly makes something of mine rise…
GOOD JOKE.
They kept saying, “It’s over,” regarding whatever relationship it was with the drug dealer.
Pretty sure that a connected guy with money is not going to the local clinic for medical attention.
And if the behavior was all on his side, how was it manifested to the degree to which she wanted a superhero to go tell him to stop.
You could interpret it that way… but it makes no sense, really. Not to me, at least. Do you really see her as an innocent in the piece?
It could makes sense… but the movie doesn’t examine it… which is really the core of my complaint.
And Luke… I made the observation that ComicCon might be a part of this film being sold before anyone else had, so I don’t think I owe them a reach around. But in the end, it wasn’t ComicCon that sold the movie. Vaughn showed the film to every exhibitor in LA the week after and most seemed to really like the film, though many of them had real questions about the size of the commercial opportunity vs the price (in P&A commitment) that Marv was looking for. The movie sold itself… as is always the situation when you are looking at a movie that isn’t relatively cheap.
Maybe I wasn’t clear in my post: I didn’t mean the drug dealer was a visitor to the clinic. I meant that the drug dealer was bothering a visitor to the clinic.
The fact that none of us agree what was going on with the fucking drug dealer is an EPIC FAIL.
I agree with Lex G that Vaughn using the fantastic John Murphy’s scores to SUNSHINE (his best ever) and 28 DAYS LATER are a complete distraction to anyone who has seen those films (especially if you enjoy film scores as a standalone listening experience). John Murphy is so fucking talented that it blows my mind that Vaughn didn’t get Murphy to come up with new themes for the whole film – the entire score is a lame patchwork of mediocre original bits and great tracked in pieces. Murphy may have some original pieces as well, but they seem to be overshadowed by his previous work (ironically, both for Danny Boyle flicks). I personally hate it when great film scores get recycled and even more so when the films are fairly recent and pretty successful in their own right (Sunshine has certainly developed a strong following on DVD). This approach shows a lack of directorial vision and a lack of belief in the abilities of a top notch composer like Murphy to deliver something new and cool in a similar vein.
the drug dealer plot hole is the film’s second biggest problem.
The first problem is pacing and that it simply takes too damn long to get to Hit Girl in costume and the drug dealer scene that pretty much opens the movie. That’s where the movie takes off and starts becoming excellent–until then, it’s Scary Movie parody level. From that point the movie clips along at a breakneck pace of continuous awesomeness.
Despite those two glaring issues, the film is magnificent entertainment.
I do take issue with the assumption that Hit Girl has to be messed up. Remember folks, we must always make sure transgressors are punished, Production Code, for the win.
“and even if being a pre-teen murderess doesn
“Just because we have a Victorian era assumption that white middle-class children of European descent are delicate flowers doesn’t mean that we have to force all representations of children into the PTSD mold. Where was the commentary on the melted brains of the children of Slumdog Millionaire and City of God?”
Comedy gold. Pure comedy gold.
Elaboration?
Gold is a precious yellow metallic element, highly malleable and ductile, and not subject to oxidation or corrosion.
Can’t wait til tomorrow to see Kick-Ass? Catch the sneak peek showing at 10pm!!
Jeffmcm,
Sure. I will indulge you with an elaboration. A simple one really. Just that movielockes reaction to the film’s treatment of Hitgirl seems every bit as extreme as the criticisms (mostly by Ebert) I have read.
As for myself…this film was soooooo off my radar and whenever I heard notice of it I just passed.
Then last night I watched the trailer and read some articles on it (it is getting much press up here because it was shot in Toronto and Hamilton) and now it has shot to the top of my must see list.
I honestly have no idea how I will react (some odd duck films are like that with me) but I loved the trailer when I finally watched it last night for the first time. I am a huge Nic Cage fan and I love the superhero genre. I do not like Kill Bill however.
Harry Knowles reactive article against Ebert was noble but rather misguided in the examples used.
I will give this film a chance. Probably see it Tuesday.
Well, Movielocke… I was with you until the bizarre white middle-class children thing.
In both Slumdog Millionaire and City of God, there is plenty of damage to be witnessed.
SPOILERS (just in case)
The brother in Slumdog commits a form of suicide to save the brother who didn’t take the dark path. This is not a subtle suggestion of how damaged he is. Nor are the repeated and clearly damaging abuses of Latika, first by the brother and then by the kingpin.
And in City of God, you have to be kidding. Entertaining as the movie is, the cycle of ugliness in that situation is a constant issue in the film, touching every character.
END SPOILERS
Hit Girl is not a delicate middle-class child of European descent. She is a serial killer.
Your issue with people’s need for her to have remorse of some kind is completely worth discussing.
But “punishing Hit Girl with remorse would kill the character and destroy the unique entertainment value of the franchise” is a little simplistic. You can argue that you are fine with the harsh material in something like Grand Theft Auto or you can be offended by it… but to claim that those who disagree are either hypocritical puritans or spiritually dead kind of stops the argument dead in its tracks. Grays.
“I made the observation that ComicCon might be a part of this film being sold before anyone else had, so I don’t think I owe them a reach around.”
Before anyone else? Everybody there at Comic-Con was saying it was pretty much a guaranteed sell, given what they showed. You may have been the first prominent blogger to put it on a blog…can’t recall whether I used those exact words when covering the panel for Nikki or not…but you did so after literally YEARS of saying that Comic-Con means nothing to a movie.
“But in the end, it wasn’t ComicCon that sold the movie. Vaughn showed the film to every exhibitor in LA the week after and most seemed to really like the film, though many of them had real questions about the size of the commercial opportunity vs the price (in P&A commitment) that Marv was looking for.”
I won’t be like other posters here and claim to know more than I do…but considering the movie had to be made independently because no studio thought the concept was viable enough to fund, I’d have to imagine that the timing of showing it to exhibitors after Comic-Con — and every Con blogger writing about it — was surely no coincidence when it comes to the sale.
Did Vaughn show it to anyone prior to Comic-Con, as far as you know? What was the reaction then, if so?
^ For such discussion purposes, obviously showing it to Harry Knowles doesn’t count.
Well, Luke, Comic-Con still means nothing to the release of a movie.
Sundance means nothing to the release of a movie either.
However, if you take a film with no distribution to Comic-Con, like taking a film to Sundance, you are setting up the possibility of selling it. What happened with Kick-Ass is really not something normal for Comic-Con. It is, really, the first Comic-Con sale. But it’s also the first real effort to spin Comic-Con as a movie market.
The film was shown in LA the week after the Comic-Con event. Yes, it was meant to create leverage. Did the movie sell because of Comic-Con and the Geek reaction? No. But it certainly didn’t hurt.
What Comic-Con proved is that there was an audience for the material.
I feel like I am splitting hairs, so… kinda a silly argument on my side. I think you are overstating the significance. But the history of this film absolutely includes ComicCon in a way that is quite different than something like Iron Man.
Kick Ass seems like the kind of movie studios might shy away from making while eagerly keeping an eye on it. It’s got a pretty big name in it to go along with elements that will instantly appeal to the coveted younger male demo. I imagine it would have sold with or without Comic-Con.
“I think you are overstating the significance.”
Maybe. But the fact that even asking you to credit it results in your using derisive terms like “reach-around” makes it feel like a really grudging admission on your part.
All I want here is less condescension to Comic-Con. Interesting to me that you say “But it’s also the first real effort to spin Comic-Con as a movie market.”
Because isn’t that counter to the way you’ve spun the event for years now? As an unsuccessful, unworthy-of-investment platform to launch movies?
All along, I’ve said that Comic-Con is playing to the base, like a Republican candidate going to Bob Jones University. Not an election winner, but a way to ensure that those whut brung you are with you.
Yes, it’s different from IRON MAN,and WATCHMEN, in that it was independently financed. But it coasted on that goodwill something fierce in a way those could not…yes, because it’s a cheaper concept…but it also made folks realize what the market could embrace. It would have been viable even with just that niche.
Kick ass is both deconstructing the superhero myth while becoming a great example of it. It is a cartoonish satire that at no point demands to be taken very seriously. I just don’t understand people who do; which brings me to Hit-girl, here’s the pitch: a cool, sophisticated and fierce 12-year-old girl violently kills dozens of men. The idea alone is far-fetched and it works as a cartoonish satire for the reason that it is so extreme.
The film is not just very self-conscious but from the early narration it makes accomplices of the viewers and requires the audience to be conscious of the fact that, yes, they are watching a film. Hit girl works because the film and the audience know that it is extreme and ridiculous and JUST a satire. Being shocked and even disturbed by her actions and storyline are part of it.
The character itself exists not just for the “cool” factor but because in a satire of superhero films what deconstructs more the the “cool” factor of superheroes than watching their actions, words and even motives, only this time performed by a sweet little girl.
And Chloe Moretz gives a terrific performance.
Jose, your comment indicates part of the problem with the movie: it focuses entirely on Hit-Girl, even though she’s just a supporting character. From the two trailers that presented two sets of characters who seem to exist in only tangentially-related universes, to press material that seems to focus almost entirely on Hit-Girl (with an almost back-handed brief mention of that lame-ass boy in the diving suit), you really have to wonder just who the star of the movie is and what is the movie really about.
Not having seen it, I’m leery about even thinking about seeing it because everything I’ve read indicates it really is schizophrenic in that it can’t decide on which of two great characters to focus on. It apparently began with a boy who wants to make a difference and ends with a girl who wants to kill a lot of people and…um, there has to be something else in there, right?
Perhaps the movie would have been more unitary and sensible if the first half focused on Kick-Ass becoming a hero, cleaning up the streets, taking on Mr. Big…and getting killed by him. Hit-Girl would be the younger sister who rallies his frightened “superheroing was just a kick” buddies, turns them into a team, leads them into battle, and THEN she unleashes the hounds of Hell.
Or maybe not.
My problem with the film was that it wasn’t out there enough. From the buzz I had heard I was expecting to watch and laugh and grimace and think “That is wrong on so many levels” but really the violence wasn’t excessive, the swearing fit the overall tone and the frame work was pretty stand faire. (Not meant in a bad way).
I don’t know if the film was too long or if it just lagged in spots. I don’t think you would’ve just solved the problem by trimming things, I think there could’ve been a dialog punch. Do we have many punchlines that weren’t swear words? The laughs were too few and far between. One thing at least, they weren’t trying to be funny and failing. Just not enough attempts.
There was something about it that sorta reminded me of Last Action Hero. It had sort of a self-referential nod to comic book superheroes but it’s coming at a time when people aren’t burned out by comic book superheroes. Much like people weren’t burned out or didn’t recognize the frame work of action films by the early 90’s. Satire’s been bandied about but I think the filmmakers could’ve really gotten more out of that vein had they chosen. Even w/out changing the overall nature of the film.
I thought they did more than sufficient job explaining why Hit Girl was the way she was. Maybe it was just the world they created but I could certainly buy Kick-Ass’ love interest being in hs and having some tumultuous affair w/an older thuggish drug dealer just as easily as I could buy Jennifer jason Leigh’s character losing her virginity to some older guy who pops into the mall pizza joint in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. He never shows up again. No mention to her emotional state afterwards, etc. It actually seems a bit more believable to me that this girl would be dating someone outside of hs.
While I expected more, I didn’t think it was bad by any means. I thought more could’ve been done w/just some of the things they already had in play but I’m glad it didn’t venture off into something else either. My fears were that they were going to bite off more than they could chew but not the case. I’d definitely pay to see a sequel. I’d prolly also buy the dvd, though it won’t be like Batman Begins that I could pop it in at any time. If I were to be honest w/myself, prolly see once or twice and then collect a lot of dust.
so, have you seen the film or not RudyV? I’m confused… also, I didn’t want to give the impression that the film is only focused on Hit Girl, I was just talking about it because she seems to be the main reason of the debate.
Yes maybe hit girl makes the biggest impression but the film did not feel unbalanced to me. Aaron that guy was actually very good. I thought it was a strong film overall.
Nope, I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve seen all the promotion and I’m mystified that 90% of the focus is on a “supporting character.” You’d think Hit-Girl was the star of the movie based on the publicity photos and all the column inches devoted to her (even a NYT profile of Chloe Meretz?!?), while the character the movie is actually named after is barely mentioned at all.
I can’t help feeling that I and a lot of other potential ticket-buyers will go in wanting to see Hit-Girl and grow rather frustrated when we have to sit through everything else.
It all just seems rather Hitchcockian, in that the creators appeared to have said “Wouldn’t it be cool to make a movie where a little girl swears like a sailor while killing a bunch of bad guys?” And yeah, that is great, just like a chase scene across Mt Rushmore, but after realizing this would give them about ten minutes of footage, tops, they realized they had to come up lots of padding to stretch this idea out to feature length.
i think it’s kinda sad that nicholas cage’s carrer has been reduced to making a movie like that, but other than that, the film wasn’t too bad
Hit Girl seems like the most interesting character, so they’re going to base the marketing on her. Like The Dark Knight promotional stuff was all about return of The Joker.
Rudy, why are you offering advice on how to fix a movie you haven’t seen?
Because the filmmakers seem confused. Who is the movie really about–the boy in the scuba suit who everyone seems to think is rather boring, or the girl who appears to be the focus of attention in the trailer but is really just a minor character? Folks who stroll into the theater thinking the girl is the star based entirely on the promotional materials will leave sorely disappointed.
It just sounds like this one movie is conveying two different stories because neither is interesting enough to carry an entire movie.
Triple – There was something about it that sorta reminded me of Last Action Hero. It had sort of a self-referential nod to comic book superheroes but it’s coming at a time when people aren’t burned out by comic book superheroes. Much like people weren’t burned out or didn’t recognize the frame work of action films by the early 90’s. Satire’s been bandied about but I think the filmmakers could’ve really gotten more out of that vein had they chosen. Even w/out changing the overall nature of the film.
Exactly. Very well put. The only thing I could add is that the more self-aware a superhero movie is, the worse it plays. Iron Man plays that fine line, but Stark never pulls himself out of his reality.
This is my biggest fear of Whedon now involved with Cap and The Avengers. IMO, he’s hyper overrated because all he knows is self-aware blather and how to pass it off as irreverence.
Rudy, after you actually see the movie why not come on here and tell us if you still think that way. You don’t really know if the movie is confused or not, since you haven’t seen it.
And just like Kick-Ass, Snakes on a Plane and Grindhouse, you’ll see another film explode out of the ComicCon, get talked up to high-heaven by a rabid fanbase, then die on opening day because the fans are totally out of phase with the public, who are still desperately needed to make any movie earn back its production costs, let alone become profitable.
I don’t think I ever sat through an entire episode of Buffy because I found the style so irritating. (And did Buffy & Co. actually call themselves “The Scooby Gang”? TV Guide always mentioned how The Scooby Gang was doing this stupid something or other in every episode and I figured it must be some third-rate Buffy wannabees who had to be constantly pulled out of the fire by Buffy and her core group because, really, Scooby Doo was so frickin’ dumb that no one of any intelligence would see any value in it, let alone name their gang after it.) Never watched Firefly, but bought Serenity because it was cheap and looked somewhat interesting, yet it took 4 ties over 3 years before I finally made it to the end.
So, um, not a good thing, in my opinion. Get a real director, folks.
That should be “4 tries”, though sometimes it felt like the only way I could sit through another 15 minutes of Serenity was to be handcuffed to a chair.
And, Big Perm, maybe I’ll buy a ticket for “Hot Tub Time Machine” then slip into “Kick-Ass” to give it a look. (Mark Millar irritates the heck out of me, since he always seemed to take over every comic book I loved then run them into the ground.)
“It just sounds like this one movie is conveying two different stories because neither is interesting enough to carry an entire movie.”
They’re both pretty interesting to me. And I don’t see the problem with them co-existing in the same movie since a movie entirely about either Kick-Ass or Hit Girl would be the lesser for it. Nevermind that the movie itself is also about the Red Mist kid as much as these two, and his scenes are pretty damn good on their own.
Rudy, why not just pay for the movie you’re going to see? Mark Millar didn’t kill your father or anything, did he? You don’t have a vendetta against him or anything I assume. So pay for the movie and maybe support something different.
Whoever dropped LAST ACTION HERO suddenly perked up my interest in KICK-ASS.
LAH the most underrated movie of the 90s with a most unfortunate lead actor.
LAH is the DR STRANGELOVE of action films.
Ugh, Last Action Hero was terrible. It’s too bad too, the making of an interesting movie were there, but they fucked up every single opportunity. At the end when the bad guy was talking about jumping in and out of movies, bringing out serial killers and UFOs and shit, I was thinking why couldn’t we have seen THAT movie instead of the one that thinks “Leo the Fart” is a funny gag?
Big Perm, I WILL be supporting something different: “Hot Tub Time Machine”.
🙂
But then I did do the same thing with the last two Prequels; after “Phantom Menace”, there was no way Lucas was getting any more of my movie dollars. So I bought a ticket to “Spider Man” to get into “Clones”, and “Batman Begins” to get into “Sith”.
Aww, the kids do it all the time. How do you think “Snow Day” became such a hit? Because of the quality storytelling? Uh, no–it allowed the tweenie girls to sneak into “The Beach”!
Rudy, is it the filmmakers who are confused or people marketing the film? I didn’t know the whole story of the film, (I purposefully tried to avoid hearing too much), and wasn’t too sure of the whole concept. I did remember, once inside watching, that Kick-Ass was a dude and not the tween girl or just a cool name for a title. Most of the pics I had seen were of Hit Girl. I was somehow expecting more than one tween doing this, like a club. That’s really neither here nor there.
Yes, I would’ve liked to have seen more of Hit Girl, but I thought Kick-Ass’ storyline was A material, (at least potentially. They could’ve mined more out of it). I didn’t think he was boring or that they picked the wrong character to make the lead, they just could’ve made him more shameless or been less apologetic in their approach.
You seem to be kinda made at the comic-con hype machine but there’s one clear way to avoid it…I talked to quite a few people under the age of 30 last year who were in the entertainment industry and yet had no knowledge of the event.
I wouldn’t have complained about WB focusing too much of the marketing effort on the Joker when he didn’t have that much total screen time but his role is significant and critical to the quality of the film. While what contribution did Ledger’s death played into overall bo success will be debated for some time, what argument that was quickly diminished was if WB was mrkting the Joker too much because of Heath’s death. How could that argument stay in place once people saw the movie? He had an Oscar calibre performance. How do you not try to push that?
The key is people either reserved judgment until after they saw the film or for those that harped on WB for being opportunists before the film’s released were summarily dismissed after the results came out. I think I could get behind you or understand what you’re talking about if your complaint was against Lionsgate mktg for trying to stir the pot or purposefully trying choosing a tween girl killer just as attempt to create a hot button topic or controversy but you don’t seem to be arguing that. Right now, you seem to be faulting a film you haven’t seen over items beyond its (their) control.
Check out RudyV writing a fucking term paper on a movie he hasn’t seen.
Maybe next up you can give us 3,000 words on Woody Allen’s “Manhattan” as a triumph of color cinematography and Broadway show tunes, or school us on how Michael Bay successfully incorporated the tenets of Godard in “Bad Boys.”
I will heartily second Big Perm’s suggestion: See it or SHUT UP ABOUT IT, PLEASE.
It’s kind of amazing how much figurative Internet ink is being splashed around about this movie sight-unseen, as if it’s some rare other-region import DVD that can only be found in some cult store 2,000 miles away. If you’re interested enough to be ranting about it (wrongly and dumbly), go catch a matinee on your lunch break or something.
Lex, I’ll try, but the reasons why I’ve seen only one movie in the last eighteen months involve two jobs and two kids. Yesterday was a kid-watching day, and there was no way in heck I could’ve taken them to a movie like “Kick-Ass”. And I wish I had time during my lunch breaks to do more than eat a sandwich and go potty.
So hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to job #1 I go.
RudyV if you’re not going to pay to see the film you know what, just skip it.
After all it’s not like you haven’t made up your mind about it.
I also want to see Iron Man 2, can you tell me how good is it based on your prophetic marketing-based insight? thanks.
Because if it’s not very good, well, I might pay to see “the back-up plan” and then slip into it.
As THE MIGHTY KURT LODER said, KICK-ASS is like seeing a Tarantino movie for the first time.
Or LEON. Or THE KILLER. Or THE MATRIX.
Just ignore the two or three stupid moments and just bask in Vaughn’s LAYER CAKE direction (un-hinted-at in the trailers), Cage’s moving performance, Hit Girl’s UTTER AWESOMENESS, the likable lead douche, his SMOOOOOOOOOOOKING HOT girlfriend and her AWESOME BACK GETTING LOTIONED then getting BANGED ON A DUMPSTER YEP TO THE YEP, Mark Strong, XANDER BERKELEY, the awesome PRODIGY SONG, the part where Kick-Ass is disturbed by his cuts and bruises while they BLAST THE SUNSHINE SCORE, and the Woo/Besson levels of carnage and HAIL O’ GUNFIRE in the last 30-40 minutes.
Anyone who isn’t BOWING or has ONE SECOND OF QUALMS about any “moral implications” is a pussy.
Five stars.
Glad you asked about “Iron Man 2”. Based on the initial trailer, showing a guy who can fly AND launch ranged attacks versus a guy armed with two whips, all I can say is “Uh…yeah.” Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. So I’ll probably pass on that one, since it looks so totally dippy.
And one additional thought about Whedon & Captain America: Since I can’t recall a short young girl in the Cap pantheon who likes to kick ass, do you think Whedon will create one as a villain? Maybe a ninja hired by Mr. Bad who additionally takes a hit of the super-soldier serum? Just wonderin’. Oh, and she’ll apparently have to be barefoot most of the time, too, considering Whedon’s predilections.
Now off to job #2. Hi ho, hi ho….
I didn’t understand a word of RudyV’s last post but that part about a chick running around barefoot sounds hot.
YEP.
Clarification: Whedon has a major foot fetish (see the DVD extras on “Serenity” to catch him swoon over Summer Glau’s tootsies), as well as a fetish for little girls beating up big guys (i.e., Buffy and River Tam again). Word has it that he lost “Wonder Woman” because he kept turning in scripts starring a Diana in her early teens, which supposedly inspired a Warner exec to vent “You do know the movie’s called ‘Wonder WOMAN’, right?”
But hey, there’s nothing wrong with liking a little foot flesh–Hitchcock shot a half-hour of Grace Kelly trying on and walking around in a variety of shoes supposedly for insert shots, but when asked by a crew member what he was doing he replied “Have you ever heard of the foot fetish?”
From Noah Forrest:
“But the biggest mistake Vaughn makes (although I guess the blame should be shared with co-scripter Jane Goldman and the creators of the comic, Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.) is focusing the film on the character of Kick-Ass [who is] without a doubt the least interesting in the entire film. We spend half the movie watching Dave Lizewski (Kick-Ass
IT’S BEST MOVIE OF ALL FUCKING TIME, go and SEE IT OR PIPE DOWN.
Though I think there’s ONE GAFFE in KICK-ASS.
And that’s when Kick-Ass is throwing his USED KLEENEX in the basket… It didn’t look realistic at ALL. To this day my solo returns would make Peter TWO QUARTS NORTH proud, so no why this hormonal kid’s throwing one-ply DRY TISSUES into the bin, and not some soaked WATER-BALLOON-looking disaster that has to be flushed.
UNREALISTIC.
Also from Noah Forrest:
“But I still cannot understand why the geeks are wetting themselves over this one. Maybe I
Rudy, tell us about your mental problems.
But the guy bragging about the amount of jizz he produces gets a clean bill of health?
At least I didn’t ask him if he was secretly moonlighting as an IT guy.
He’s crazy too, don’t worry…but don’t you think it’s a bit goofy for you to have so many concrete opinions on things you haven’t seen, or don’t intend to? Come on Rudy, don’t be like the rest of the internet, you can do better.
I haven’t seen the film, but I assume I’ll like it. I’ll be back after I compile some positive reviews to “prove” my assumption.
I saw it the other day, and I basically agree with Noah. (A) I don’t get exactly why this movie has been perceived as the greatest thing since PulpFictionDarkKnight300Watchmen, and (B) There are serious story/tone issues between the Dave Lizewski half of the movie and the Big Daddy/Hit-Girl half of the movie.
WRONG.
It is as good as Pulp Fiction.
BOW TO IT.
PRODIGY POWER.
Also: And there weren’t story/tone issues in Pulp Fiction around the time Willis is toweling his Bozack and rambling on to that Euro chick about pancakes and Bora Bora for 47 deadly minutes?
And I love Tarantino, and in its own way rather like that stretch (the Willis segment is my favorite third of PF)… But WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT in 1994 that the pacing and mundane conversational beats in THAT SCENE would be the mold for almost all of QT’s future writing, and NOT the punchy Travolta/Jackson stuff.
Wanna know why it’s being given 10/10 on fansites and being talked about like it’s the greatest thing ever? Because co-opting the geek blogger community has NEVER BEEN EASIER. You get them on a set-visit then you give em a taste at Comic-Con. Then, show it to them at AICN’s butt-numb-a-thon and already, you’ve got 30% of the geek blogger community in your pocket.
The rest are swayed by blogger groupthink and the big opening night event at SXSW and there you go….your press and buzz are laid out.
Sad thing is, I kiiiinda like the movie. But anyone not viewing it through the buzz goggles, source material goggles or some kind of personal inability to see that the movie suffers from bad pacing, poor character development and a sluggish first half is just being stubborn. Those issues are tough enough to swallow without getting into the stuff on the screen which is hit and miss.
So, yeah. It’s an o.k. movie and I wanted to like it more but in the end, it’s just not really very good. It’s just o.k. Anyone giving it a maximum stars rating is in the pocket of the filmmakers.
Don, I agree with you, although I don’t know about ‘in the pocket of the filmmakers’ as much as just some kind of wishful thinking/overidentification.
That area of Pulp Fiction might be a pacing problem, but it’s not a story/tone problem.
Yancy, there’s a difference between making a judgement on trailers and marketing materials and making a guess if you’ll like it or not…and then there’s Rudy who’s talking about the specific script issues and character points she doesn’t like. Big difference, yeah?
Or, maybe I can talk now about how I think Iron Man 2 has too many comic moments in it and frankly I don’t buy him defeating the villain, I assume.
If Kick Ass is as good as 300 and Watchmen, I’m confident I’ll dislike it. Does your theory apply to those movies as well Don? I don’t make it to theaters as much as I used to, so I saw 300 and Watchmen at home. While I do believe the theater is the best viewing experience, I don’t think that alone could have saved 300 or Watchmen. By the time I saw them the fansites had elevated them to greatest thing ever, leaving me scratching my head. The torrent of platitudes was so aggressive and certain and loud. I’m sure some of it is the viewer projecting, but that can’t be all of it. Devotion to the source material? Buying the filmmaker’s claims of just being fans and wanting to make the nerds happy? Diehard fans of slow-motion, desperately longing for the glory days of Hard Target?
I haven’t seen this movie yet so I’m not wanting to get into this movie in particular…but Don, one man’s “sluggish” is another’s “mood.” I sure plenty of people would call Orson Welles’ The Trial sluggish and slow, but it’s just fine for me.
I can see the devotion to the source material as many film writers of the geek persuasion grew up hopeing someday t be a superhero or Indiana Jones, the latter idealization was pretty responsible for the anger over “Crustal Skull.” So yeah, I think this thing was sold before it even rolled film.
I dug “Watchmen” about as much as I dug “Kick Ass” which is a solid line down the middle. I’d watch either again, gladly, but I’m not like crazy about them either. They’re deeply flawed film. As for “300,” I’m just not big on those gladiator-esque genre films. It was o.k.
The thing for me on “Kick Ass” is, it’s the first time where I could really see the PR strings being pulled for a movie. Like I said above, it was teed up for these blogger sites to knock it outta the park and they did. The thing is, it didn’t help the film at all. It kind of renders them invalid as “critics” and lacking as buzz generators.
“Kick Ass” was scarcely on the publics radar and as someone said above, every “normal” (ie; non film junkie) person I know who saw the trailer had ZERO interest in seeing it. Align that with message board denizens and the folks who run the message board and you’d think it might very well be the greatest film ever made and the disparity ahs rarely (for my money) been more clear between those in the pocket of studios and people who pay money to see films.
It’s ironic because many of these bloggers (and yes, I’m not naming names because I’m over starting flame wars with individuals) are constantly griping about how out of touch studios are with what film lovers and the public want. But here, clearly, they’ve joined the ranks of the out of touch and that’s symbolic.
I also want to add that I think the box office of “Kick Ass” was hurt by kids and teens paying for another movie and sneaking into “Kick Ass.” I think “Zack and Miri” was hurt by that too cuz I saw TONS of teens in my screening when it played in theaters.
KICK-ASS POWER.
MASTERPIECE.
Lewis is just squeamish because he’s a parent.
Happens to the best of ’em.
To add to the anecdotal evidence, my friends and family had zero awareness of Kick Ass. I learned long ago that my liking something had jack shit to do with its opening weekend and broad appeal. No one should be surprised by the opening when only Web-savvy males 17-35 seemed to know about the movie, and not everyone in that group wants to see it. Did Lionsgate ever believe that they had more than a $20 million opening weekend here?
Don doesn’t sound ‘squeamish’ in his critique of the movie. He sounds lightly disappointed and a little bored (or maybe I’m projecting).
jeff’s assessment is correct. In fact I may dress my 2 year old daughter as Hit-Girl this Halloween. I’m not squeamish about the film, just squeamish about the amount of praise being slathered on by slathering fan-boys. And drunken morons on message boards.
For once the PRAISE IS JUSTIFIED. Like when GOODFELLAS or FIGHT CLUB came out. You can’t UNDERSELL IT.
Especially since I was mocking it sight-unseen the whole time then was BLOWN AWAY BY IT.
BEST PICTURE OF 2010, GUARANTEED.
I thought Valentines Day was your best picture of 2010?
Kick-Ass is this year’s Hurt Locker, and Valentine’s Day is this year’s Up in the Air.
After seeing the movie, let me mention that Rudy is totally wrong.