MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Review-ish: Kick-Ass 2

MF_thrreee

I don’t have a lot to say about this film.

In some ways, it is better than the first film. It’s more consistent in logic, it’s got a bit more size to it, and it really goes for it on pretty much every gag.

In some ways, it is not as good as the first film. The lighting isn’t good, the narrative is oddly complicated, and it really goes for it on pretty much every gag.

I think that people who love Kick-Ass will love this film even more. I think people who just kinda nodded and felt ambivalence about Kick-Ass could fall on either side on this one. I think anyone who was the slightest bit irritated with Kick-Ass will think that Hollywood has gone to hell in a handbasket and this is the signal for the end times.

I was, generally, okay with it. Hit a wave of hate as I walked out of the theater. But I was okay with the uber-violence. I was okay with the underage girl doing very not-underage things. I like the Mean Girls mini-movie stuck in the middle of this one and think the boy band segment will be visually quoted for decades to come. I thought Jim Carrey was as good here as he has ever been as any character… and I completely understand why he doesn’t want to be associated with the violence now that the film is complete.

Someone pointed out, rather succinctly, that there is a comedy sequence where 10 policemen are murdered. I can’t tell someone to be okay with that. But I take the whole thing as a giant cartoon and my only shock in that sequence was that they made a point in one shot of getting cops out of a car before it exploded. (They would die later.)

Could I have lived without the shot of chocolate pudding—subbing for diarrhea—actually shooting out from under a girl’s skirt? Yeah. Wasn’t funny enough of done well enough to warrant its inclusion. (And Mr. Creosote is still one of my favorite movie moments ever.) But I thought the Mean riff from Claudia Lee, Ella Purnell, and Tanya fear was pretty good until that shitty moment. (And for the record… Yancy Butler did an amazing job disappearing into a really ugly character.)

But you know, it’s the kind of movies were balls get ripped out and arms pulled off, and bad puns are made using the word “cunt.”

That said, except for the language, I saw worse on “True Blood” this week.

So… there you go. Go if you feel really compelled. Hedge if you don’t. And if you are looking for something profoundly evolved from the first film, skip it as though your life depended on it… because it doesn’t… but you might think it does.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Review-ish: Kick-Ass 2”

  1. Breedlove says:

    Intensely disliked the first one and have pretty much zero interest in this. DP wish we had a review of Elysium instead! Interesting thoughts as always though.

  2. Nick says:

    So Jim Carrey was fine with a character that has his dog bite people’s balls off until a crazy person killed kids in Connecticut. That makes sense. And then he went to a “autism isn’t real” rally in Washington. Maybe Jim should also donate his profits from past films that glorify violence to an autism charity.

  3. Popcorn Slayer says:

    Loathed the first, will be steering well clear of this one. The weird thing is, on paper it’s the kind of movie I usually like, but there’s something rancid about Millar’s world-view, and I gag on it. I hated WANTED too. He seems like an intelligent and funny chap in interviews, though.

  4. Amblinman says:

    The Jim Carrey stuff is such Hollywood bullshit. Sandy Hook was the first time he noticed people being murdered? Really, Jim? Was Columbine a comic book? The movie is getting terrible reviews so maybe it’s more he knew from the jump he was involved with a shitshow and didn’t want to support it. And actors like Carrey need to be careful with this stuff. Either you believe a movie is responsible for people’s actions or you don’t. If th former, then Jim needs a career change. I’d hate for him to be responsible for some awful event in the near future.

    As far as the movie goes, I loved the first one and I’m disappointed it seems that this one sucks. I’ll probably still see it regardless. Hopefully of doesn’t turn me into a mass murderer!

  5. Ken Waco says:

    Thank God for the return of the amazing shining star Yancy!

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon