Cool News
Why my friend, Roger Ebert is dead wrong about KICK ASS by Harry Knowles
This is not a review of KICK ASS, I can't do that right now as I still haven't seen the final version of the film - just the print that played Butt-Numb-A-Thon 11 with the greatest temp track I've seen on a film since Brian Helgeland's PAYBACK director's cut- back in the day. No - Instead I'm going to address the review that just went up over at the Chicago Sun-Times complements of a man I once shared an aisle with, a few times. I'm talking, of course, about Roger Ebert. He summarily dismisses the film for moral reasons. Fearing the possible damage that kids will suffer if they are allowed to see the film. The first retort that will come to mind is that the film isn't meant for children. This is a very hard R-rated film, but that's a hollow argument, as we all know that the supervision level that goes on in this country is a joke. Parents can keep them out of the theaters, but can they guard their computers? They probably can, but will they? No, not really. Going to theaters, it seems that films rated R tend to have LARGER families rather than smaller ones - and what will these kids think? There is an inherent difference between Hit Girl and say... Bobby Driscoll's Jim Hawkins - which Roger Ebert could have seen as early as the age of 8 in Disney's TREASURE ISLAND. The scene where young Jim Hawkins levels a musket at that pirate that is out to kill him, it was dramatically chilling. It had a weight to it. Jim even gets stabbed. That film is filled with peril and crazy chances that young Jim makes, but it isn't the same as Hit Girl. And kids today are not like Roger Ebert was way back in 1950. Children back then were huge fans of Westerns. Roy Rogers, Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy were the kings. No - back when Roger Ebert was a kid - every boy in this country played with cap-guns at the very least. My father has stories about the kids strapping on guns of all type. Like the cowboy hat that when you lifted it up, a derringer popped out and fired a blast straight ahead. There were up your sleeve, mechanical guns that would pop out. Never in history were guns more played with than in Roger's youth. And oddly - their guns in films simply knocked the enemy over with a single bullet dead. No matter where you hit the enemy. It was grand times to be sure. At the same time, kids had free access to actual explosives in the form of fireworks. They would go have Roman Candle battles at the train tracks - Sometimes jumping onto moving trains and jumping back off. (again - that's what my Dad says) They had the most violent comic books complements of EC, although they were better written generally than most of what we have today... And there was a shitload of self-righteous pricks in CONGRESS that felt those Comic Books would Ruin their youth. It is true - Roger's generation became a generation of Free Thinkers, possibly partly due to first realizing the government could be so wrong as to outlaw all sorts of Comics at the time. Probably more so once the draft kicked in for VIETNAM... But enough of Roger's time as a kid. The fact that they were able to watch early matinees of the classic Errol Flynn films, Gangster movies and the Disney films... well, it kinda shows the classier times - but morally... these films espoused sexist and some not so subtle forms of racism. Roger Ebert says he's not so much worried about the teens seeing KICK ASS - as much as the kids under 10. Well, Rog... Kids today don't play with cap-guns - the morality police have pretty much wiped them out of the toy stores. Too many incidents of police shooting a kid playing with something they thought was a real weapon. No, beginning when I was a kid - the cap-pistol became the Han Solo blaster. Ray guns came in. Then very cartoonish Nerf guns and water blasters. Kids have always been shooting at each other. Whether it was with a Star Wars ray gun or a pair of pearl handled 6 shooters that you loaded bullets in, and it fired out the soft plastic shells while shooting a real rubber bullet at a kid. Back in his day. Sure, kids today still have the rapid fire nerve guns and insanely powerful water guns. But no - where the kids today really have it is in their video games. Kids have been going to pizza places and handed quarters... and playing with the family... incredibly violent and FUN video games. Most kids have some form of violent video game that involves them chopping up, beating or shooting some enemy... and their onscreen avatar is usually some manner of badass... even if they're a cute little Lego version of them. The sort of kids that will see KICK ASS this weekend are well prepared for it. Talk to a teacher at our public schools and you'll hear fouler language than even Hit Girl dishes in the classrooms. Not of a private school, but I have dear friends that teach - their kids know the language and how to use it. They’ll see it as just a really cool movie that really let kids KICK ASS. And hopefully it’ll make a few kids want to get into acting so they could do stuff like that. Hopefully. More likely will be sales of Purple wigs and plastic samurai swords this Halloween… as little girls across the country with the cool parents will have a real badass little girl to call their own. Not dressing as Barbie or some Princess. But a girl that is shown to train really really hard. A smart parent would sign their girl up in a Kung Fu class or a Gymnastics class. And that would be a good thing to help keep future kids from being fatasses like the two of us. All that aside, KICK ASS is an uncompromised comic book classic. Roger says it is a satire, but that he's unsure what exactly it is satirizing. KICK ASS is, essentially a satire of the world of comics. KICK ASS specifically is playing in the same sort of universe as Stan Lee's MARVEL... just modernized and made as a point about how unrealistic the very notion of Superheroes are. But make no bones about it - it is made for Adults. Adults raised on an entire lifetime of comics that's specific dream was of bringing Superheroes into a realistic world. That was the pretense of the Marvel Universe... that you could be a superhero. Then they started selling the costumes and "hero supplies". You walk into a Target or a Wal-Mart and you'll find aisle after aisle of superhero role-play gear. Is it really much to imagine a slightly heightened dream of kids as superheroes in a violent modern world? No - it really isn't. It is perfectly realized in KICK-ASS. KICK ASS is a violent dark film meant to be seen with a full audience to cheer it on. Read some interviews with Matthew Vaughn and he pretty much says that that was his implicit purpose in creating the movie. To Entertain. Roger states at the beginning of his review that he feels he's going to hopeless square for his feelings about the morality of KICK ASS. At a base level it is a film about taking a stand, to protect the innocent and uphold justice... in a pretty fascist as kicking manner. I am not upset at Roger for his point of view... I understand, it is a lot to take. But I remind you that there was a time, when Martin Scorsese was under fire for having a 13 year old Jodie Foster play a whore in TAXI DRIVER - which is more or less about a man that in the end is a hero for taking violent action to protect that girl. At that time there were critics that wanted to hang Marty. You were not one of them. I remember that time because as a 6 year old I can remember watching you and Gene defend Scorsese and you were my heroes. I have to say it is a little sad to see you go the route you did in your KICK ASS review. And don't worry, while I suppose you'll never really just get KICK-ASS... You're no square in my book. But you may be in danger of being a 'grown up'.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
His taste differs.
-
KICK-ASS really was amazing and awesome. Seeing it from the front row at BNAT was one of the coolest cinematic experiences of my life. I cannot wait to see it again (even if I can't clap along to "November Rain" this time... *weep*)!
-
That Roger didn't like or love this movie. Having not seen it yet... I can't comment. However, if I do Love this movie, which I surely hope too, then Roger can be forgiven. Remember, he didn't like Blade Runner. Then, later, put Blade Runner into his Great Movies category. :)
-
iPod nano... November Rain need never cease.
-
Damn, Roger!
-
But I do agree with Harry on the morality debate. The film itself is rather overrated, though. Nice to see the Brits get a film first for once, though.
-
Harry, this was not your finest hour. If you're going to write essays such as this, you really should learn how to present and support a simple argument. You're rambling all over the place, and you never come close to making a cogent point. I really, really, really agree with you that Ebert's review is off-base. Unfortunately I can't agree with your reasons why -- since I have no idea what they are. Ebert: "This film is immoral." Harry: "Kids today are not like they were in the '50's." How is that even on-point? (By the way it's false.) Love ya Harry.
-
Harry, Ebert took a judgement on this. He went ahead and allowed himself to write a 'subjective' review, objectivity be damned.<p> You of all people should respect this... as perhaps the single most 'subjective' professional reviewer out there today.<p> Also, it's pretty damn clear to your readership that AICN has some vested financial incentive to promote KICK ASS. You've gone WAY above and beyond on this movie.<p> I basically agree with the points you make but I still don't think it's appropriate of you to make them.
-
on what replacements were made on the soundtrack? "November Rain" fit SO well... I just wonder if they just had to throw in some original track whether than license an equally badass song in GnR's place... and so on and so on for the rest of the film.
-
ever read his fight club review?? the movie soared right over his head!
-
vested interest? It does not matter one iota to me whether KICK ASS makes a dime. Matthew Vaughn's investment was secured and he began profiting after he sold the film, and he's currently well on his way financing his next independent vision. <BR><BR>So I take it you would then need to be inferring that we're invested in LIONS GATE. Well, given I know not a single person over at Lions Gate right now, I'd have to call you a liar. <BR><BR>Our advertising is handled via a 3rd Party. FYI - and they can tell us nothing.
-
over Harry's any day of the week. Ebert is a serious film critic. Harry is a fanboy.
-
His review comes off more as a girl/boy thing which he tries to cover with a age thing. He says he like to think he would have written the same review if it was "Hit Boy", but you know, I really don't believe it. <p> Maybe he should have watched some Buffy as a primer...
-
I did not know that.
-
that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. So you never enjoy movies on a fanboy level? Kick-Ass is great, it opened last week in New Zealand, both me and my wife loved it, my parents just when and saw it and they loved it too. Don't be too quick to follow Ebert blindly off a cliff, he has very much missed the mark with his summary of the film.
-
Anyone is free to disagree with Ebert's review, but it is his opinion. As such, it is not "wrong" and is every bit as valid as your own opinion. People will read into it what they will and can agree or disagree based on their life experience, beliefs, and whatever rings true. If it helps someone determine whether or not KICK-ASS is appropriate for them or suits their taste then Ebert's review did its job. It is simply one man's reaction to what he saw.<p> Harry is always entitled to his opinion, so I find it incredibly arrogant for him to say Ebert is dead wrong for stating what he felt and believed after seeing the movie. That is his TRUE and accurate reaction. At least he actually watched the fucking thing and wasn;t bagging on something without being informed.<p> I disagree with 90% of Harry's reviews. I think he has horrible taste in films, but I respect his right to say what he thinks even though I find much of it ridiculous and hyberbolic. But hey, that's the fun: reading people's different reactions! The world would be pretty God-damned boring and bland if we all agreed on everything.<p> Harry, God bless ya man. But you are not the Culture Police. Let his review be what it is and leave it at that. Leave your opinion for your own review and let Ebert have his. And to defend KICK-ASS as being for adults only and not meant for kids when you constantly mention taking your young nephew to see R-rated movies all the time seems a bit hypocritical. But hey, fuck it. That's just like, my opinion man.<p> Looking forward to checking this out and forming my own opinion this weekend.
-
It was an asshole move by Ebert to basically give away a huge spoiler in his review. Might have been unintentional but he should know better.
-
Harry, might want to make sure to test headlines like that with different resolutions... the first line read "Why my friend, Roger Ebert is dead" on my monitor... kind of a shock to come to AICN and see that.
-
to Kick-Ass is a real letdown, it uses far too much music from other films, sounds like they just kept the temp track. It's not Tarantino style obscure tracks either, it's overused stuff, modern stuff like 28 Days Later, really pulled me out of the movie, they use long cuts from them. Really makes the otherwise awesome films seem unfinished and without a theme of it's own. Stops it from being any sort of classic.
-
... there's a good point in there. My girlfriend is a public school teacher and I have heard things from her that I don't want to believe. Things I can't even fathom as being true in terms of complete stupidity and disgusting parenting. Kids will see this film. There is no doubt about that. The difference between us (30-somethings) is that we knew the films we grew up with were fake. I don't think the generation that is 12 does. I think that's what Mr. Ebert is reacting to-- the times.
-
...having the words "Roger Ebert is dead" in the headline is pretty poor judgment.
-
He's really lost the ability to connect with younger audiences. It's a shame and to be honest comepletely understandable. As he says himself she just doesn't understand and isn't interested in this sort of modern Graphic Novel type of story. He's not a comic fan and will never get the subtlties or the blatant OTT moments and realise what the message is.<p> Still at least he's kinder in this regard than he is in his continual asshole attitude to anything even vaguely related to videogames. At least with comics he's probably read one and enjoyed it in his youth.<p> It's sad, we all get old, it'll happen to us all eventually, no matter what we do. Fuck me I'm depressed now.
-
...we don't have Ebert as a movie critic. Who we do have is Jonathan Ross (god help us)who's wife Jane Goldman wrote the script for...KICK ASS. Now, try and get an unbiast review out of that!!!
-
April 15, 2010, 3:48 a.m. CST
Harry, I say this as a long, long-time reader and pal....
by Kirbymanly
Using this: "Read some interviews with Matthew Vaughn and he pretty much says that that was his implicit purpose in creating the movie. To Entertain."... is not an argument. The film needs to speak for itself. The final product does not come with an interview.
-
Um, the government never outlawed or cracked down on comic books. They held investigative hearings but it was the comic book industry itself that imposed the Comics Code Authority and basically emasculated the art form for over fifteen years. The early '50s horror and crime comics were violent. The EC titles, being of the highest quality, were often less gory, grizzly and gratuitously bloody than some of their cheap sensationalistic competitors. to say the '50s crime and horror comics were the most violent comics ever reveals an unfamiliarity with the underground comix of the late '60s/early '70s and the non-code approved Warren magazines, the direct market horror comics of the '80s and the imported manga of the '90s. I'm out of touch with what's currently being published but I feel sure a really well stocked comics shop has material that would make the Crypt Keeper and the Old Witch and Uncle Creepy blanch. <br /> <br /> This would be going back a decade or more, but one of the early issues of Gaiman's Sandman had detailed instructions on the correct way to slash your wrists. That beats the heck out of Dr. Wertham finding some crime comic with a diagram on how to jimmy a window. <br /> <br /> I'm a fan of the myth that the EC Comics were the best comics ever produced. It was certainly true in 1952 that they were the best books produced up to that point and the best work currently available. But that was nearly 60 years ago now. '60s Marvel, Neal Adams at DC, the Underground Comix of Crumb, Shelton, Griffith, Corben, etc. Heavy Metal. The B&W boom and the smut glut of the '80s. Miller, Moore, Gaiman. Tank Girl and Judge Dredd. Eisner's Spirit (technically a comic STRIP but reprinted repeatedly in comics form). Eisner's graphic novels. Manga. <br /> <br /> Even if 95% of all of that was crap, the 5% that rose to the top? Sorry, the myth that EC produced the greatest comics of all time is just that, a myth. And that coming from a 57 year old devoted Wally Wood fanatic. <br /> - - - - - - - - -<br /> Born 1953, and growing up my arsenal included the Fanner 50 (revolver with spring loaded metal cartridges that fired plastic slugs), Davy Crockett's musket, the Rifleman rifle, the U.N.C.L.E. gun, a Luger, a snub-nosed .38 police special, a couple smaller than life-sized "kids" cowboy six-shooters, a mortar and a couple of hand grenades. Probably some rubber knives and suction-cup arrows, too, but actually my best pal and I used to use the missile launchers from the Cape Canaveral play-set to launch 5" long hard rubber Nike missiles (with soft rubber tips) into each others faces. <br /> I also had a BB rifle and a Bowie knife, but those weren't toys. I have no idea what my dad was thinking giving me that stuff.
-
H, take it easy big fella i'm not suggesting you're a shareholder.<p> What i'm suggesting is that this is a 'Paid Promotion'. A bit like the kind you see in magazines... it's in the same typeface as the rest of the articles but it's actually a disguised advert and in the corner of the page you see the covert disclaimer.<p> HOSTEL 2, STAR TREK, GHOST WRITER, and KICK ASS. What do those four films have in common? Nothing. Except they were all covered in extroadinary detail by aicn with article after article after article. Paid to promote.<p> I'm not slamming it, we're all capitalists and most would likely do the same...
-
VikkiMarsdale, talkbackers and their childhood arsenals could make for a nice topic...<p> Man, I grew up in a house with two brothers and we were tooled up like Arnie in COMMANDO.
-
Fuck me, people like Ebert and Christopher Tookey (douche) seem to think this film represents a danger to children. Sure it does, if a crazy little bastard sees it, but then Toy Story could also freak out a deranged maniac. This movie is harmless FUN!!!
-
Travis isn't a hero, regardless of whether he took out the pimp or not. He was a sociopath who was going to take out a congressman (?) as a means to direct his rage, but after geting busted instead funnels it in Sports direction. I know he's hailed as a hero, but if you meant he actually was...well, I don't really know what to say.
-
Haven't enjoyed a film so much since Kill Bill.
-
I've no idea if they are different things.
-
Ghost Rider and Kick Ass have...nic cage. I've always thought he was the man behind the curtain. Finally it all becomes clear. Harry Knowles is really Nic Cage in a fat suit for 11 years. You can come out now Nic...we know the truth
-
Kick-Ass IS immensely entertaining. Even if I enjoyed How to Train Your Dragon more.
-
...so Harry has some kind of obligation towardsthe producers of Kick Ass?
-
And yet Jonathan Ross hasn't reviewed kick-ass because... wait for it... He isn't a fucking film reviewer anymore. When film 2010 returns it'll be Claudia Winkleman "shudder". Not that it's matter much because kick-ass is an amazing film - most entertaining film of the year. But you don't have to take my word for it, not happy with Jonathan Ross, well how about Mark Kermode generally regarded as the best critic in the country and the modern day british Roger Ebert. Guess what he loved it, thought it was a fantastic film and addressed head on all the moral objections that this film would received, and pretty much called them out as bullshit.
-
Didn't see that coming...
-
she can be at least as funny as Wossy.<br /><br />I for one will give her a chance at reviewing the movies.
-
Guess what, not everyone is going to like everything, or agree with you. This is something that shouldn't have been posted to begin with. So Ebert has a problem with Kick Ass. Well big deal. Who are you to stand on a soap box for this or any other film? Cobra--Kai is right, you're on the take and you'll defend anything that pays the bills. But I'm pretty sure it's so you'll have a quote from you on the cover of the DvD package. I bet when you wrote this you thought it was genius, but it's very clear you have issues. There's things we think that we should keep to ourselves, and this is definitively one of those things. You either have a mental problem or you're a shill. Because nothing can justify this.
-
ndally, that was funny! But I did say GHOST WRITER not RIDER!<p> I guess GHOST WRITER and KICK ASS might have something in common but let's not go there...
-
...pretty much proof that he has lost his marbles. A retarded shit fest like Knowing, a movie that a 10 year old would find stupid and he delivers his brain fart of a 1 star review to Kick Ass. WOW.
-
and have absolutely no idea about her abilities as a film critic. I of course will give her a chance just like I gave Ross a chance, and I happen to think Ross was a damn good film critic. Fact is though that the film 2010 job should have gone to Kermode.
-
What a douche. Commiting a school boy error by giving the ending away, sheeeeet.
-
I thought this was an obit for Roger Ebert at first, might want to "Roger Ebert is dead" from the title
-
...but always respected his opinions, however, that review was absolutely dreadfully written. Talk about stream of consciousness stuff...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7nSr4iZaO8 And btw, Mark Kermode will tell you to your face if he thinks your film is shit.
-
I'm a projectionist at our local theatre. We just received our print of Kick-Ass this afternoon. I built the movie and previewed it. I loved it! It was funny and action packed and violent as hell. I thought watching an 11 year old girl dispatch a gazillion gangsters was pretty awesome. Am I worried about this movie's impact on children? Mmm, no. I couldn't care less. I was watching the movie to be entertained and it's psychological impact on underage viewers couldn't be further from my mind. I read Roger Ebert's review. I like to read his opinions. I think he's a great critic but if he happens to differ in opinion or perspective, then so what? I don't feel any more justified about liking a movie whether he agrees or disagrees with my views. Everyone has opinions and boy don't we love to express them? I don't think Roger is WRONG for his opinion any more than I think you or anyone else is RIGHT for his/her opinion.
-
http://tinyurl.com/y2eylzm <p><p><br />I mean, for fuck's sake, since it's the subject of Harry's article, why not give us a look at it?
-
and not just becauase of this review, but because he's a shrill windbag who's been wrong about so many movies in the past (he summarily dismissed Raising Arizona, Raising Arizona, Blue velvet etc.). This is the guy who wrote Beyond/Beneath the Valley of the Dolls for Russ Meyer, for Christ's sake! Why he's America's darling, I have no idea.<p> If you're going to rip into Kick Ass, there are a few things there to criticise, like how the dialogue isn't all that hot. But if you want to launch a moral crusade, this isn't the movie to do it against. It's fun. End of story. Can't wait to read Ebert's review of Serbian Film, though.
-
He's saying it as a GOOD thing, but you have to watch out for the "bored critic effect" where film critics see piles of shit every year and are happy with a film that jolts them out of their boredom just by being "odd" as he describes it. But "oddness" might simply mean that the film JUST DOESN'T WORK. I've seen the trailers, and it just doesn't seem to be working.
-
will be pretty damn similar to the temp one which showed at BNAT. That Godspeed You Black Emperor bit should probably have been replaced, though, considering it's used on every trailer ever made already.<p> And Mark Kermode's definitely better than Ebert, but even he is often a haircut disguised as a critic. What film criticism needs is its own Lester Bangs!
-
It's really important for films to be allowed to be morally and ethically wrong. They have to be allowed that. Movies are a reflection of society, and if they reflects a thought or an idea that's morally or ethically wrong, they establish where that line is drawn.<br> As opposed to doing that in real life.<p> There's nothing wrong with KICK-ASS. It's my favorite film I saw 2009. Absolutely, without a doubt. <br> But there is ONE genre when it comes to fiction and drama, and that's FANTASY. Judging a film based on morals is insane. If we do that, we might as well dismiss all horror and thriller movies right off the bat.
-
that when my first impression when i read the title.
-
they want their fucking stupid hairstyle back pronto.
-
Did not know about Claudia Winkleman- she has a much business reviewing movies as she has hosting the Oscars.....my questions on that are "Who will be watching the movies for her, and who will be writing her reviews?" Pray to god it IS someone like Mark Kermode, or we can expect more saccharine bullshit with no fucking informtion a la "Strictly- it takes two..." (I am forced to sit through this by the way....No, really I am.......). By the way, I have seen the movie and it fucking rocks!!!!!! It is amazing the kind of flack you can cause by giving a pre-pubescent girl firearms and weapons and having her swear like a navvy...... to me that nis just an average evening in Newcastle upon Tyne.
-
And it's going to be difficult to find a movie this year that is as insanely entertaining as Kick-Ass is. And don't worry about about any 'moral' consderations because anything that offends the so called 'moral majority' is to applauded. Great film.
-
You didn't make your argument, and it comes off as self-serving. Everyone knows Ebert is in no ones pocket, and speaks his mind. Who cares what you think about his opinion regardless of what it is.
-
April 15, 2010, 5:57 a.m. CST
Article BackFire - You Convinced Ebert Is Right After All
by Old Darth
Harry you wrote why you think Ebert is missing the boat about KickAss. He could not have done a better job of defending his review than what you wrote. Ebert's review questions the boat one has to be to be in to enjoy KickAss. Based on what you wrote, Ebert was right about the boat.
-
Just a quick question- if you have not read any of Eberts reviews then how can you respect his views???? Or did you just mean on this one point?
-
so clearly she knows what she's talking about. <p>Apparently the format of the show will be changing with her bringing in other critics to discuss films, for example she knows nothing about horror. The idea of the show being more of a discussion program i could go with, but why not just have Kermode host it - fuck all this mainstream sensibility bollocks the shows on a 1130 at night.<p>
-
Did you not hear? He watched the exorcist 150,000,000 times and became permanently frightened....saying that he is a quality movie critic though....
-
Funnily enough though, despite all this 'hard R'(whatever the fuck that is) talk, in the UK it's only a 15.<p><p>Don't remember too much about the soundtrack - pretty sure there's no November Rain on there though, as I don't recall throwing up in my mouth.
-
haven't read Eberts review so he may have mentioned it.<p> The movie where those teenagers skateboarded on their backs down roads?<br> Some kids duplicated that, got hurt or killed<p> Then there was teenwolf and the van surfing<br> That's been duplicated with injuries and I believe deaths<p> Then there's the countless jackass copycats and their injuries and deaths<p> I have no problem believing dome dumbass will make themselves a supersuit and go challenge someone with disastrous results
-
I live in New Zealand and saw the film 2 weeks ago. We usually don't get films until a few weeks after they've been released in the states (although the gap is always closing). This is a film that's bound to cause controversy but as with any movie, IT"S JUST A FRIGGIN MOVIE!!! and an awesome movie at that!!!
-
... publicly stated that he wasn't interested in the Film 2010 job before any presenter announcements were made. Seems to have got past a lot of people, that one.
-
So...... it's a discussion show... with Claudias usual brand of hyperbole...... and she's not reviewing any movies herself.... oh for the love of christ....where are my Diazapam????? You can just imagine her bringing in a movie critic like Angie Eriggo and talking about fucking shoes!!!!!
-
makes my pants get a little tight. I mean, I'm not talking full on bone, because that would obviously be wrong, but I'm just saying the potential is there.
-
I for one would pay to see that...Oh wait! I DID!!!!! As they are talking about a sequel, how about splicing some "Reality TV" heroes getting the bastard kicked out of them on a Friday night when the pubs kick out???? (Or just watch an episode of "Street crime UK".......)
-
Was it a fun, entertaining ride ? Sure it was. Was it so important you had to come and write a piece about another critic's review being wrong ? NO FUCKING WAY.
-
most of it passed the spellchecker, it's just there were wrong words in there :p<p> And my eyes are still fuzzy...
-
Porco, you ae wrong there my friend.... she presents "Strictly come dancing- it take's two...." and it doesn't get more fucking horrific than that.
-
if only for the fact that his glowing blurb on the Thorn Emi Dawn of the Dead videocassette made my mom think it ok for aten year old to rent it. He is entitled to his opinion. It seems that alot of his reviews lately point out political or social points that dont seem needed in a film review. I have also noticed that he seemes to give away salient plot points pretty often.
-
She'll review some movies herself, but movies that she doesn't know much about such as horror she'll get in other reviewers who know more about that genre. Seems pretty idiotic to me, why the fuck hire a presenter who has significant gaps in their knowledge of film.
-
Harry is trying to draw attention away from the fact he got multi-fucked across the boards for receiving a free I Pad by putting up a thread where he will get multi-fucked for reviewing another review..... poor fat bastard can't win at all......
-
I will no doubt look forward to her own reviews of such fare as "Valentines day 2" and "Mamma Mia 2" or anything with Jennifer fucking Aniston in it....
-
But I always take his opinion with a pinch of salt as he is on the record as saying that The Exorcist is the greatest movie ever made. Which it is not. The greatest over-rated movie of all time? It would win that hands down. While it was banned in UK, me and some mates got hold of a working Betamax player and a copy of the film from before the ban. It came out the year I was born. We were prepared to be terrified by a film that we'd been told by all was the filmic boogy man. What we did was PISS ourselves laughing at it. The head 360 scene? I honestly thought I'd die laughing at that point. People were supposed to have died of fright/heart attacks watching this movie? Good!!! We could do with less crappy DNA in the gene pool.
-
Harry, you should check out www.bbc.co.uk/markkermode for his blog...you think Ebert's good? Dr K is the man!
-
then you're in for a pleasant surprise if you see her in anything else.<br /><br />She's fucking funny, and crude as fuck when she wants to be. You should find the clip on youtube where she talks about how Jon Snow reading the news is like porn to her, and she fantasises about dressing up like a hobo and doing him outside next to the bins.<br /><br />It's fucking hilarious and completely ad-libbed.
-
and preferred genres. The thing is if you listen to enough of their reviews you get to know what those biases are and can filter their opinion accordingly. I have a pretty good idea about marks likes and dislikes and so I know when to listen to him and when not. <p>I tend not to pay to much attention to his negative reviews of big blockbuster type stuff, though I'll always listen to his opinions. I find he is most useful when he talks about the movies that he likes especially the more obscure, foreign titles as well as his opinion on horror films.<p> <p>I actually found jonathan ross to be the most useful critic to listen to for me personally because my tastes and his tended to correspond almost exactly. Of course I knew to pretty much ignore anything he said about Kevin Smith, but other than that we were pretty much in sync.<p>
-
You know, seriously, if some kids or young adults don't get thats its JUST a movie and go out and try the stuff in this movie-GOOD- its called natural selection or thinning the heard- instead of blaming the media,maybe we should be looking at the parents GOOD parenting try it... Personal Responsibility Live it....
-
I know what you mean, because I went through the same experience with Texas Chain Saw Massacre. A movie I found to be as boring as shit, and as frightening as a bowl of custard.<br /><br />But horror is deeply subjective. Mental horror like the Exorcist, is very different to shock-horror like Saw, and will appeal to two very different audiences.<br /><br />Since I was raised a strict roman catholic and still believed all that malarky, when I saw the Exorcist on my 18th birthday, it scared the crap out of me.<br /><br />Similarly, I managed to convince my sister that the Blair Witch was real before we went to see the premiere. When the lights came up at the end, she was in tears with the fright and I had to tell her immediately that it was a fake. Because I knew the movie was a fake, it looked like shit to me. But it was clearly damn effective if you believed it was real.<br /><br />I don't know Kermode's background, but if he says he thinks the Exorcist is the greatest movie ever, for him it is.
-
but that doesn't mean she knows fuck all about movies. That's what I want from the host of a MOVIE REVIEW show is someone who knows a lot about a wide range of movie genres, and can express that opinion intelligently. If she can make me laugh that's great, if she looks hot hey that's a plus, but all I give a shit about is whether she knows her movies beyond a pretty surperficial level and can actually discuss exactly why a film is worth seeing or not. Christ I'd rather they got someone like Edith Bowman, I actually know her film credentials. Of course I could be entirely wrong and She may surprise me, I hope she does.
-
when she hosted the Sky coverage of the Oscars this year. She even knew all about the movies in the foreign film category, which I certainly didn't. Jonathan Ross was no Barry Norman, either. Far too sycophantic for that.<p> Again, film criticism needs its own Lester Bangs! Get on it, young AICN readers.
-
Ebert lost it a few years back. I don't know if it was his illness, maybe some bitterness, or if he's just burned out. His reviews have become sounding boards for political rants for a good 7 - 8 years now, and they are not better for it. Somehow, I think a young Ebert would have laughed his ass ff at this movie and urged us all to do the same. <br> <br> NOW......Harry....two points. I have often said to anyone that'll listen while lamenting the complete disappearance of anything resembling a real gun at a toy store; give a boy a cap gun and let him play in the back yard for a few hours and you open up a world of imagination that no tv show or video game could ever touch. That said, (see Harry, I slipped in a "That said!!!" brother, you missed the point of Taxi Driver entirely. Perhaps it's because you watched it as a six year old and loved it so much that you applauded Siskel & Ebert fighting on its behalf on television before it was even released. Unless, that is, they talked about it after its release, which they rarely did. In that case, your 6 year old self would have surely already seen it and then you could applaud at Siskel & Ebert's political stance involving the adult content of this movie, which, of course, your 6 year-old brain would have processed and understood completely. <br> <br> No wonder you think Scorcese intended that Travis was a hero!
-
The badguy dies? Seriously, that's a spoiler? <BR><BR> I laugh that the PR group is out in full on all this. How many endless TBs have been wasted on Kick Ass? I think Ebert's sentiment might be a little dismissive, ( I confess I haven't seen the film yet ) but his comments seem to generally line up with the dissenting opinion of most everyone here when Kick Ass trailers started coming out... <BR><BR> Too young.<BR> No emotion on the kid <BR> The hero "kick ass" himself seems much more interesting than hit girl<BR>etc etc.. <BR><BR> The only thing he didn't mention was Pedo bear creeping around the corner. <BR><BR>Harry, I'm sorry someone didn't like your pet movie. <BR> I dare say, though, that if it wasn't Ebert, you wouldn't have bothered writing this article.
-
Is this not out in th u.s yet? it came out in the u.k about 3 weeks ago! loved this movie. My fave movie of the yr so far..brilliant all round !
-
And he's right about people inhabiting a certain world who have read the comic book and are geeked out about this film...and not wanting to inhabit that world. The old "it's just a movie" argument that gets thrown around a lot in Kick Ass talkbacks and it doesn't fly...movies should have a moral compass. If a movie showed people raping women for fun with no consequence and making it look cool....should we laugh and cheer? There are lines to be drawn...and geeks seem not to know where those lines exist. <p> I learned that last year when watching Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl...a pretty morally reprehensible film...but geeks cheered at some very questionable material. There's a geek culture where...there seems to be this desire to be cool...and liking certain films and things seems to give them that feeling that they are part of something cool...so they geek out with one another and mock those who don't take part. I think it stems from that high school desire to fit in with the cool kids that was never quite quenched.
-
But I can't find it again on YouTube. I'm looking forward to seeing her on Film 2010. I seem to remember her being a film reviewer early in her career. Am I wrong? I'm not dissing Kermode by the way for thinking that The Exorcist is the bomb. He did do what I consider a great documentry about Blade Runner in the same series of retrospectives he did about classic films, The Exorcist being one of the other ones. He knows his film history too. Like I said, a good reviewer.
-
April 15, 2010, 6:50 a.m. CST
" The hero "kick ass" himself seems much more ---"
by seppukudkurosawa
--interesting than hit girl."<p> Wrong! I've not read anyone say that once. The exact opposite is true- the movie would probably be even more entertaining if more time was spent with Hitgirl and her Pops. Moretz and Cage definitely put in the film's best performances.
-
would look too scary on a big widescreen tv, especially if film 20xx went high def. Imagine those enourmous meaty protuberances flapping about in 1080p, enough to give you nightmares. Now wonder he fears 3D his TV career would be over.
-
is all I saw, I thought this was going to be a RIP.
-
Taxi Driver was a film rooted in reality, and 13 year old prostitutes exist. Robert De Niro didn't fly around doing flips while wearing a cape, and kung fu kicks, with Jodie Foster doing the same.
-
Ebert isn't merely stating that the movie is morally dubious and therefore potentially reprehensible on, i dunno, some kind of utilitarian grounds - it's also a valid criticism of the movie itself to talk about how ridiculous it is that Hit Girl kills without remorse, or being affected at all. <P> On one hand, we're supposed to take this world very seriously, to believe that's it's very 'real' - and in the beginning it manages that and it's awesome. But then it utterly undermines that reality by doing what Watchmen did before it - turn idiosyncratic weirdos donning costumes into actual super-heroes. But Kick-Ass goes one further and makes it nearly impossible to a) believe in the reality of an 11 year old who could dish out such violence and be unaffected, and b) CHEER for such a thing. I mean Big Daddy's treatment of his daughter would be one of the most reprehensible instances of child abuse EVER, were it real.. <P> so which is it, is this the real world with 'kick-ass' HEROES, or is it a fantasy world with superheroes who might just as easily be victims and villains? <P> That's a criticism of story-telling and character and tone, not a complain about the possible harm that could arise from a movie of this nature
-
for three miliseconds until I read the next word. Very distasteful, Harry! Go die in a fire."<p> Lol, the schadenfreude in these talkbacks is ridiculous. Harry got there first- deal with it!
-
harrys credibility ZING! <p>oh wait that died years ago with his armageddon review, the final nail being his superman returns review.<p> <p>nah i'm just kidding fatty you're alright. Don't trust your reviews as far as I could throw ya but I don't think you're actually a corporate stooge.<p>
-
I can't help but feel a bit cynical about some of the Hit Girl-focused criticisms. <p>There would not be the same outcry if the role was a buxom 21 year old, meaning people have a problem with who is doing it, not what is done. <p>Or maybe the who makes the what seem less acceptable. <p>Compare the anime section in Kill Bill. That's "OK" beacuse it's a cartoon of a little girl. <p>There does seem to be a lot of "Think of the children!" hysteria and second guessing of what kiddyfiddlers would find arousing <p>Frankly, they're probably too busy whacking themselves off to Hannah Montana or whatever sassy tweenie toss the Disney Channel is showing today.
-
My kids have some automatic Nerf guns that fire 35 shots in a few seconds, but Nerve Guns? Where do we get some? Can I pick those up in District 9 or do I have to go all the way to the weapons testing lab? <p> Just wondering. And it should not be a good thing that parents have no idea or care about the adult stuff their kids are exposed to.
-
How does that qualify her to review movies? Sure, she is a good "genial" conversationalist and most blokes who see her agree that they would like to fuck her five ways from Sunday, but unless she is fucked by a guy the size of John Holmes live on TV whilst presenting the show, the above is really a moot point. Most people who watch programmes about reviewing movies expect to see movies reviewed competently, despite obvious biases of the reviewers. She was fucking awful presenting te oscars; her knowledge of what she was talking about was fifth rate- David Badiel knew more than she did and he is as useful as a pile of used condoms. I have nothing personal against her, but she is fucking everywhere these days, unqualified to review movies competently and will soon wear out her welcome just like others before her. Bring back Barry Norman.....
-
at an all-time low, and getting lower, don't forget that it takes a village to raise a child. No matter how protective a mother and/or father are, a child is still exposed to the world. And the world is daily becoming a more violent place, and more accepting of that violence - leading to movies like this and Serbian Film. <P> Let's be adults and recognize that the products we demand have an effect on the environment. Just as there is an environmental cost to buying plastic bottles there is a social cost to consuming fare like this. <P> And make no mistake - this movie in no way is marketed solely to mature adults. The ads, the PG-cut trailers and commercials, all are targeting children. I didn't even know about the severe Moretz beating scene until Ebert's article. <P> As a villager, we must all ask ourselves, are we willing to make small sacrifices for the greater good? Are we willing to forego (and condemn) 90 minutes of cheap, extreme violence to save this and future generations of children? Or is our personal satisfaction more important? <P> I for one know my answer.
-
Ebert pronounced Fight Club as “fascist”, and believed the film was dangerous because the American public isn’t smart enough to understand the films intention… Now, I’m not saying that most of the American public doesn’t need to be spoon-fed, I just found it interesting that an old hippy like Roger Ebert would speak out against a film for such reasons, or at least with such a level of disdain… <p> I also remember him hating War of the Worlds because the alien ships were on tripod legs, and for Roger, that simply wasn’t believable. Four legs and the film would have gotten a thumbs-up, but three legs destroyed his suspension of disbelief. It was that simple. <p> It’s never surprised me that Harry was Ebert’s biggest fan, because no two movie critics have ever reviewed movies on a more person level than these guys. I’m not saying that’s an altogether bad thing, but as a result, their opinions need to be taken not with a grain of salt, but a heaping spoonful.
-
Sorry to interrupt, but I figure there's gotta be some fans here.
-
"Mom! Dad! Bart's dead!" <p>"GASP!" <p>"Dead serious about going to Itchy and Scratchy Land!"
-
the movie looks creepy, and unnerving....and it looks like it completely ignores the morality question of having a 13 year old suffer childabuse....which is in itself kind of funny if you can have a sense of humour that dark. Its black humour, ....that feeds into most geeks who are in a fight to preserve the innocence of their childhood. I guess its also a riff on batman and robin
-
You could walk into a nunnery and somehow inspire the whole convent to start a riot with your rabble-rousing ways.<p> I hope some of the people on these talkbacks get so drunk on their own rhetoric that they slip into a coma and never wake up. Perspective, gain some.
-
and so I actually cared for a brief second. Then I realised it was just some nobody rock star and I could get on with my day.
-
I don't live in a village.
-
KICK-ASS is "morally reprehensible" but you praised SEVEN POUNDS despite the fact that it is a two hour glorification of one mentally disturbed man's suicide?<br /><br />Normally, I like Ebert's stuff, but I think he may be off base here...
-
Ditto regarding the Peter O Toole faux death.. although my shitty eyesight has pretty much everything to do with masturbating over BringSexyBack's moralistic post.
-
A new movie for Roger and Harry to collaborate their top notch reviewing skills on... it is called "Seven Pounds of Kick Ass in a Serbian Film turning everyone Red White and Blue..." BRING ON THE REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
April 15, 2010, 7:29 a.m. CST
YES (a lot of) CRITICS are self absorbed ASSHOLES who really thi
by piltorp75
The same fuckin thing happened in Sweden last week where some of these "professional critics" who only praises (more or less) movies like "the Piano", "Gone with the Wind" and "the Remains of the day" (movies I do like as well), but then for some unexplainable fuckin reason they feel that they have to review a movie like Kick-Ass as well, even if they work with 3-6 colleagues who would be much more suited for the task. I mean sure go and see the movie but do you have to write a review ( that goes nation wide) thrashing the movie when you fuckin knew your opinion about the genre before you went???
-
He can't be "wrong," Harry, it's his opinion. We'll see how you feel if you ever have kids. Parents have to try to shield their kids from an inordinate amount of invasive media these days, and the assault they face is heavy and sustained. Thanks for making a the idea of a "grown-up" an asshole to everyone yet again. It so un-aintitcool to think and consider how things affect people and their lives. Though I was into seeing this movie before, I can definitely live without it. Doesn't seem that "classic" to me anyway.
-
At least in its promos. That's probably not Vaughn's fault, sure, but I think Ebert's heart is in the right place here. <p>Now we've all read Ebert at one time or another. I'm sure many of us follow his terrific blog. He's a generally liberal, progressive guy. Sure, he can be a bit of a curmudgeon, but he goes into every movie with an open heart and open mind. <p>I just got done reading his review of KICK-ASS, and I have to say it sounds like he has a very valid issue with the movie. Even though it is clearly trying to be satire, it's ultimately getting its kicks by putting a little girl in insanely violent situations. This may work for a lot of us (I still have yet to see the movie, but I plan to), but can we at least understand that such things won't appeal to all people? And it's not like he's calling for censorship or anything! <p>And the TAXI DRIVER comparison is way, way, way off, Harry. TAXI DRIVER wasn't pitched with humorous MTV-cut commercials. TAXI DRIVER didn't glorify the violence done against or on behalf of the little girl in question in that movie. KICK-ASS seems to be doing that (still, I'll see it for myself), and I don't think there's any problem with a person with as informed an opinion as Ebert's taking exception with it.
-
April 15, 2010, 7:33 a.m. CST
Ebert is not WRONG he just has a different opinion
by greigy just wanted to say
Only an arrogant deluded child would rant that he was wrong... OH SEE WHAT I DID THERE... I ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTION BEFORE I'D EVEN ASKED IT. HK.. take a step back, take a deep breath and fucking grow up.
-
Whoever said Ebert would have liked this movie when he was younger - I think you´re wrong. He has always discussed the relationship between violence and morals in his reviews. For instance: Read his review for "A Clockwork Orange". He explains in detail why he didn´t liked it. When I was 20 years young, I thought of "Clockwork Orange" as a masterpiece of coolness. Now I´m 18 years older, and I can understand Ebert´s review better than in 1991. I believe when your reach a certain age, you usually leave the concept of coolness vs. uncoolness behind, and you look for human stories in movies. But that´s just my opinion. I, for myself, by now find "A clockwork orange" a bit hollow and pretentious. As for "Kick-Ass": I will see it on opening weekend here in germany and form my own opinion. Maybe I will like it, maybe not. I´ll see.
-
April 15, 2010, 7:37 a.m. CST
ROGER EBERT IS DEAD
by ISleptWithKathyBatesAndAllThatIGotWasThisStupidTalkbackName
<p><p>WRONG
-
..... just give them a roll of barbed wire to play with and they're set for hours!!!! Violent Movies told me to say that!!! Honest!!!
-
has been very wrong on some movies. I think he was wrong about FIGHT CLUB, but then again, look at how many other folks took its characters' ideas at face value and spouted the Tyler Durden B.S. and started fight clubs.
-
liked Clash of the Titans (I did too) :)
-
At some point people find themselves getting to old, physically, mentally, morally to understand/identify with the same themes they once did. Nice parallel between Taxi Driver and Kick-Ass.
-
Ba Dum Bum DSSSHHHH !
-
April 15, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST
"the supervision level that goes on in this country is a joke"
by p0llk4t
This from a guy that used to show Troma films to his 3 year old nephew?<br><br>Are you fucking kidding me?<br><br>Why the fuck are you reviewing other reviewers reviews? That's just stupid. Save it for your twatting.
-
Dude, I agree with you and have done since the early KickAss 'pedobacks' at Christmas time. I just find it so fucking depressing the way everyone is gushing over this horrible piece of shit film. I mean Christ, the way Harry accuses Roger Ebert of being a 'grown up' as if having some sort of moral view on the exploitation of children makes you some kind of fucking square.
-
Is that this film gives uber-wiener critic "Hollywood vs America" Michael Medved a thousand brain tumours. I hope after seeing this film, he goes home and hammers nails into his skull.
-
There's something hollow and empty about this film and its refelexive, predictable envelope-pushing. A little kid says the c-word? Yawn. Whatever. No, it's neither ground-breaking nor cool.
-
Roger makes a very valid point about a key flaw in the movie, about how the movie is about people trying to be superheroes, when in fact they DO become them (the girl jumping around the hallway, etc.)
-
No, not everyone is interested in laughing at a little girl killing people and getting the shit kicked out of her, even if it's meant to be funny. I can respect that. <p>It just seems that there's a strong and loud contingent among geeks that seem willing to defend this movie at any hint of criticism or controversy, to the point where they're sounding like preachers themselves. Guys, look, I know we should root for good geek movies to do well, but there's a point when you have to realize that having a little girl say "cunt" just before slaughtering people, and doing it for laughs, just ain't for everybody.
-
You're speaking a lot of sense. The Taxi Driver comparison is a pretty desperate arguement for all the reasons you give. <p> This is my main problem with KickAss, it's the glamourisation and 'isn't this cool' approach to the violence that is the problem, not the violence itself. A film like City of God shows kids shooting guns but it's not trying to imply that there is anything 'hip' or 'cool' about it.
-
"...Roger Ebert is DEAD wrong..." Think about your post heading next time!!
-
April 15, 2010, 7:50 a.m. CST
"we all know that the supervision level that goes on in this cou
by akiraclass
Harry-I love ya too, but, aren't you exhibit A? It seems like every time I turn around I'm reading a review from you saying how much gore/horror/sex a film has and how awesome it is and then you say how your 'nephew watched the film through his fingers'. WTF?
-
explains a lot actually...
-
You said it first, and better...
-
...the christer, board-up-their-@$$ busybodies are getting out their pitchforks and lighting their torches... (sigh)... again over a frikken movie. All that remains is for one of their mouthpieces (probably certifiable schizophrenic Glenn Beck, since he's the one with all the cache right now) to start railing (complete with incomprehensible chalkboard scribblings) and they'll be on the march at a theatre near you. (But notice that this crowd thinks it's perfectly okay to waterboard Arab pre-teens, bash gays, shoot Mexicans, lynch African Americans and "boil liberals".)
-
...becomes a superhero, it will all be worthwhile.
-
Unlike most of the rabble here, you're asking an important question rather than just spouting off. And that question probably makes people here more uncomfortable than any statement.<p>Because it undoes the typical shouting match of, "is this film right or wrong?" Once we accept that everything has a price--everything does have an effect on us and our culture and conscience--then we can't just wave off *anything*. It *all* exacts a price on us.<p>There's no sin in being "grown up" enough to recognize that and make value judgments accordingly.
-
CITY OF GOD is a very stylized picture, but the violence feels real and scary in it. <p>Heck, even the cartoon violence involving O-Ren Ishii in KILL BILL VOL. 1, while obviously stylized with the fountains of blood and whatnot, has a feeling of seriousness about it.
-
When I read the 1st half of the sentence I thought you were saying Roger Ebert was dead! Anyways - glad he isn't. Kick Ass is AWESOME by the way
-
Ebert was right about that much. It pretends to be a satire, but it isn't. It's just about mindless violence and crassness. Idiot comic book fans will whoop it up in the theatre because their lives are empty and they have nothing better to do.
-
who doesn't really believe anything he says unless he's making anti-semitic comments.<p> Kick Ass was a 15 in the UK. It doesn't push any boundaries. You people know not of what you speak.
-
when, say, A.O. Scott or Kenneth Turan or some other prominent critic takes exception with KICK-ASS' treatment of Hit Girl? <p>Or did you write this because you're trading on your friendship with Ebert to generate controversy? I'm serious. I'm not snarking. This is a legitimate question.
-
...a lot of the people who have presented valid and reasoned criticism of this film so far in this talkback (and counting Ebert) have been liberals. Political background isn't the issue here. Also, if you look at the people for and against this film...just in this talkback...there seems to be a difference in terms of expression as well...with those against seeming to be more measured...and those for the film saying things like "C*nty c*nty c*nt", "asshole", and hoping that people drive nails into their heads, etc. Right there...you can see a difference in terms of audience.
-
Hit Girl is the only reason anyone is paying attention to it. It's not successful as a satire. It's not very funny. There is only one well staged action sequence. The story isn't exactly compelling. Cage is the best thing about it. Everything about Hit Girl came across as desperate to shock, which only made it seem pathetic. And if you can't question the morality of showing an 11 year old child stabbing, shooting and slashing limbs off people then you should probably take a long hard look at yourself.
-
....is love....sweet love.
-
Ebert was your hero when you were 6 for defending Taxi Driver? Even if you did see it when you were 6 there is no way you understood it. Plus didn't Sneak Previews debut 2 years AFTER Taxi Driver was released? If I'm not mistaken there is no way you watched Gene and Roger discuss Taxi Driver when you were 6. A few continuity issues in this article...
-
... only the sweary preview. But having read both Ebert's and Harry's reviews, I must say Ebert's seems deeply felt, personal, thoughtful and sincere. Harry's just seems fatuous, thoughtless and glib -- ie. "if it's profane & violent, it's got to be good."
-
... author of the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," right? Just checking. As for Kick-Ass, it SHOULD be a movie that I'd be in line to see, but I'm just not feeling it for some reason.
-
1 star!!!! <P> Check it out <P> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
-
I can tell you that it explicitly addresses the morality of Hit Girl, and Big Daddy's parenting. It's made clear that Big Daddy has brainwashed and mistreated his daughter, and, spoiler alert, the movie ends on the positive note of Hit Girl/Mindy with a more responsible and appropriate parental figure, all issues that Ebert, along with most reviewers, seems to have missed, or willingly ignored in favour of conservative moralising on the apparently sorry state of the modern world.
-
I have to admit I saw a red band trailer of this movie, and though I'm (relatively) young and am not any kind of prude, I cringed a bit while watching the little girl say "cunt" and bash the hell outta people. Am I lame or out of touch or something when my brain says I don't like seeing that.<p>But in any case, we don't have to insult Ebert for this. I'm aggravated by people's negative, angry reaction to anyone who says they have a moral objection to something. Morals aren't a bad thing, ya know? Ebert is supposed to give his opinion. He didn't just advocate creating a law to prevent a movie like this being made. I very often disagree with Ebert, but from what I can see, he just writes his reaction to the film he's seen. If it's overly-emotional, he still posts it. If he sees a movie he knows he should think is "bad", but is still entertained, he says so. Out of touch? I don't know.<p>And Harry. Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver? Really? Maybe if that film suggested that her being a child prostitute was fun. Let me add my name to the list of people who are surprised by your apparent lack of understanding of Taxi Driver.
-
You're right, too. I forgot all the parts in Roy Rogers western movies where Bullet humps Gabby and screams "SUCK MY CUNT!" over and over again. Those movies are JUST like KICK ASS. Reviewing other peoples reviews, Harry? Come on.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:18 a.m. CST
I Have No Moral Qualms, It Just Looks MONUMENTALLY STUPID
by LaserPants
Actually, I do have a moral qualm with that -- I'm offended by stupidity.
-
It was fantastic fun, and I actually thought Hit Girl was more of a posetive thing than negative, specifically her relationship with Big Daddy, it was very touching. <P> Did this come out in the UK before US?
-
Harry's "reviews" are mostly like that to be true "hey tits and killins!"
-
God I hate having to reread the same sentence five times just to try and understand what you're trying to say, Harry.
-
"It does not matter one iota to me whether KICK ASS makes a dime." - this is patently false. You have a vested interest in ALL films making money. You depend on the industry to make your living.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:23 a.m. CST
Roger Ebert is the type of guy who'll fight for a movie
by ColonelFatheart
to be seen even if he hates it. He's not some shrill moralist popping up on Fox News calling for the movie to be banned. Save your indignation for the censors, folks.
-
you are SOOOOOOOO right. Proof is how people forget the origin of the word geek, how it originally referenced going to a circus type show and watching a guy do stuff like bite the heads off chickens and dance under the blood of a goat with the throat cut, hence "geek show." This is the same thing, a geek show.
-
Anyhow, film critics will always have diffrent opinions. Thats what makes them pointless. Its a matter of personal taste i guess. A child could also see Alice in Wonderland and become a drug addict because of it. U never know how a person reacts. I think when talking about kids, and what they see, very few parents actually do their job as parents. The G in PG is often left by the wayside.
-
That would be a fair point if the movie didn't make it a priority to sensationalise the image of a little girl murdering grown men in glorified slow mo action scenes set to the beat of pop music. Very little time is spent looking at the morality. Those scenes do not "explicitly address the morality", but are merely slotted in towards the end as a shallow attempt to justify the bloodshed.
-
...how he felt. Here's a man who has waded through every kind of film. This one...it bothered him. He could have buried his feelings and dismissed the film for other reasons. But he didn't. And that, I believe, takes a certain amount of guts, particularly in a world dominated--and driven by--a youth culture. One thing: unless I missed it, AICN should have a direct link to Ebert's Sun Times article.
-
mr everything is a 4 star classic is finally breaking out of that lame mold.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:32 a.m. CST
Yeah Harry, can you tell us what the point of this article is?
by D.Vader
At all? Can you articulate that? Can you tell us what your intention was when you wrote this, and what is the reaction and consequence you hope comes out of it? <p> Can you? Because I agree with everyone else that this article is pointless and dare I say it offensive. I wonder what would happen were Devin at CHUD to post something about why you are dead wrong regarding your *opinion* of a film...
-
Love the guy, but even if you think US is over-rated, EBERT has it listed on its all time MOST HATED, alongside stuff like Deuce Bigaow and The Hot Chick
-
Does anyone really want the opinion of a guy collecting social security on a movie like Kick Ass? To be fair its really a no win situation for him. Either he says he liked it and comes off as a guy trying too hard to be "in touch", or take a moral stance and face the wrath of anonymous fanboys. In the end the film just isn't meant for him and the right thing to do would have been to not review it. Your time has passed Ebert, stick to reviewing period pieces that remind you of a "simpler time".
-
But there's stuff that sucks way worse, I agree.
-
I am 40 myself and Im constantly stunned at teh waves of profanity and filth that come out of the mouths of kids. Course I dont know their exact ages, but they are kids. I tend to have a pretty foul mouth myself and they make me blush. Kids these days
-
April 15, 2010, 8:36 a.m. CST
Harry Is Obviously Getting HUGE Kick Backs from KICK ASS
by LaserPants
Otherwise, why would he be so upset?
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if/to what degree I agree with Ebert, but he wrote an honest opinion and I don't think it's a totally unreasonable one. As an aside, I think it's kinda funny there are people here calling Ebert *conservative* because of this review. Shows how little they know about him.
-
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106296119406621&ref=ts Lets Kick Oscars Ass!
-
Because he's being honest and he makes many very important points. I also don't see it as moralizing; he's not calling for it to be banned, he just called it as he saw it -- he found it profoundly ungood, more than a little stupid, and sad given the reality of a world where kids actually DO kill people. More and more I have absolutely no interest in seeing this piece of sh*t.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:45 a.m. CST
I find it VERY ODD that HARRY would say something so odd....
by D.Vader
Its very conflicting for Harry to basically dismiss Ebert's review as coming from a "grownup" (which is used as a pejorative), but then also argue that this movie is not for kids. <p> Sooooooo... what's your point again, Harry? That this movie isn't for kids, but you've got to have a kid mentality to enjoy this? You do realize that actually strengthens Ebert's stance, right? You can't have it both ways, Harry.
-
...who seem to have such a raging hard on for Hit Girl. I can see getting a childish, anarchic kick out of it, but there's something underlying Harry's and other people's fetishizing of her that goes beyond that and it bothers me. Ebert didn't have an issue with Taxi Driver because unless you are a sociopath it is very clear Travis Bickle is not a mentally stable individual, and the tone of the film is not celebratory. Kick Ass seems like it IS a celebration of violence, packaged in a slick "cool" veneer, and that I believe is what got under Ebert's skin.
-
And "Roger Ebert is Dead-"pause"-Wrong!" is comedy gold this morning. ;-) Don't have an opinion on Kick Ass, since I haven't seen it.
-
Why suddenly draw the line at Kick Ass, a movie which I reiterate you haven't even seen? It has problems, but those are more to do with its execution- like Stardust I think it's lacking a little something- but you guys are railing against some movie that's playing out in your head rather than the finished product.
-
As someone pointed out earlier, how can you accuse Roger Ebert of being 'wrong' for having an opinion? <p> I find myself disagreeing with your reviews more and more frequently nowadays but I'd never say you were 'wrong'. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, surely?
-
Nobody was after Scorsese's head when he made TAXI DRIVER. What are you talking about? It was 1976, a very different time. I was 13 and that bloody climax just about took me out...but I don't remember any fuss about Jodie Foster, not really. It was provocative, shocking stuff, but nobody made that big a deal of it that I remember. People were used to dark, downbeat, even "depraved" material in those days - Hell, MIDNIGHT COWBOY won Best Picture seven years before this. The ending was controversial because it seemed so ridiculous that he "got away with it" (irony was not big then either), but there was much more controversy over Linda Blair having to say and do the things she did in THE EXORCIST than Jodie Foster's role, for which she was nominated for an Oscar. I think you're getting it mixed up with what happened later when the guy shot Reagan and said he did it for Foster. Unless you have some articles proving otherwise, I'm goin' with my own memory. The real point though is that TAXI DRIVER would not get made today because of JF's character or she'd be 18. I think the pendulum has swung too far into politically correct paranoia. Hit Girl was turned down by every studio in town - only when they saw audience reaction did they want the movie.
-
to say Ebert's emotional reaction is dead wrong by implying there is a 'right' way to look at the film. It made him sad. That's a valid reaction, and he makes a good case for why. I think it's petty and pointless to attack his character instead of engaging with his argument - essentially, you've said "He just doesn't get it because he's from a different generation."<p>I haven't seen KICK-ASS but there's nothing in any of the previews that makes me want to. It seems like cynical fanboy pandering dressed up to seem like subversion. But I don't think it's wrong for people to love the film as "awesome!", just as I don't think it's wrong for someone to hate the film as intellectually and emotionally bankrupt. I just don't see the point in this article. KICK-ASS exists, and should be it's own defense against detractors. Having to dismantle another review to 'prove' it's a good film kind of has the opposite effect.
-
I agree with you about Hit Girl. The way that Harry and other people on this site can't stop gushing over her is creepy, but I think that's to do with the deliberate sexualising of the character on the part of the filmakers by putting her in short skirts, purple hooker wigs and using the word 'cunt', implying that she has the sexual awareness of an adult, even though she is ELEVEN.
-
Because it features an 11 year old girl gleefully killing people without consequence, and then she gets nearly beaten to death by an adult male? Maybe that's it?<br><br>This isn't Lilya-4-Ever, which was friggin' brilliant and depressing. And it's not Clockwork Orange, which had a strong socio-political satire to back it up. It's just dumb ass Mark Millar getting jollies from watching a sexually fetishized 11 year old girl brutalizing and being brutalized with no consequence and no real satire. It's exploitation of the lowest kind. I don't think it should be banned, but I have NO interest in seeing it.
-
I would NOT take my kids to see this movie, and Harry trying to imply thats its okay to do so is morally irresponsible. And in the end, thats the problem I have with Kick-Ass. It seems like its marketed towards kids, and I'm sure most parents weren't even aware that it's rated R. "R" people! i.e. not for kids. My parents let me watch R movies when I was a kid, and I can tell you, I didn't become a better person for it. Scarface shouldn't be someone that kids look up to. IMHO.
-
Makes you wonder why Harry is so desperate to defend this film.
-
Harry either didnt understand what Ebert wrote in his review or he is being paid for damage control since the movie premieres now.Because Ebert has not written or implied the things that Harry talks about in his review.<br /><br /><p>Harry says about Ebert's review:<br />"He summarily dismisses the film for moral reasons. Fearing the possible damage that kids will suffer if they are allowed to see the film."<br /><br /><p>WRONG.Ebert dismisses the film for the LACK of morality inside the context of the movie.He is not worried that such violent movies will damage the young people and he never said that such films should be banned.He is worried that in a world where kids cuss and kill each other for real,films like K-A which are devoid of a content,a morality thus their purpose is not to make a statement about this serious matter bur solely to entertain using this serious matter,such films are welcomed,cheered and praised by the audience,both adult and the younger one.<br /><p>And for Ebert this thing is wrong,for him does not sit well with himself,he can not see such film purely as entertainment when things in real life are much worse than that,so he separates himself from the rest of the audience who loves the film: the violence of the film has nothing to tell to him as a viewer because it is devoid of morality,and even if it is only to be seen as pure entertainment he can not view it as this because the film exploits a very serious and very real problem of our days.simple as that.<br /><br />
-
How Hit Girl is "sexualized"??? Cuz I don't see it. She is very much a kid, and that's exactly where the black humor comes from. I must not be a very good pedo.
-
"I find it VERY ODD that HARRY would say something so odd...." <p> I meant to say "something so conflicting", but I think as I was typing I thought "conflicting" was too long and would get cut off, so I wrote "odd" instead, completely forgetting I had already used it in th sentence. D'oh.
-
I have to say it's really nice to see that there are other people out there who see the deeply cynical and exploitative nature of this film. In previous talkbacks the opinion swayed the other way and if you dared voice your concern about the sexual exploitation of an 11 year old child (for example) you yourself were instantly attacked and labelled a pedo.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:06 a.m. CST
How the fuck can Harry say Ebert's opinion is wrong?
by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform
First of all, you fat fuck, opinions aren't right or wrong. Second of all, you haven't even seen the final version, in your own words! Third, Ebert, most of the time, isn't a highly subjective, biased, and paid off reviewer like yourself.
-
He'll defend himself on the talkbacks with a few posts then tuck tail and run because he either has ran out of whatever sad excuse for a proper defense he had or even he realizes that he is in the wrong.
-
I am explaining Ebert's reaction from his own words. Yes, I have not seen the movie...But it's pretty obvious from the clips I have seen what the tone of the film is. I wouldn't agree that every action film "celebrates" violence, unless you think just showing it is a celebration. It's the way it's filmed, and the context is is in, that takes something from a visceral thrill to celebratory reveling for its own sake...It's the difference between passionate kissing...and full on pornography...and would hope that you would find moral objection to pornography involving 11 year olds.
-
And thus Harry comes off badly yet again here. Kick-Ass is a hugely entertaining film. I've seen it twice, it's a laugh and it has a rating that allows that only appropriately-aged persons should be seeing it. That parents may ignore this is bad parenting, but interestingly very much leads into the whole violent video games thing Harry uses in his defence. Part of what seems to be behind Ebert's review to me is not "have kids never seent he likes of this before" but "should they have". Harry defends the film saying kids have always played with guns but in Kick-Ass they aren't toy guns, they are real guns and Big Daddy clearly states to the cop he trained Hit Girl treating it all as a game! I have no moral objection to this, because frankly, i don't really give a damn but it is a shakey message. But then it's not meant to be seen by little kids so in my opinion that doesn't matter. Still Ebert has a point. Mainly though Ebert has a right to his opinion, because that is what it is: opinion. He doesn't call for the director to be murdered (as the ever enlightened UK paper The Daily Mail did!) he just states his case and he does so in a well thought out, coherent way. There are wrong actions and misinformed opinions, but no properly informed opinion can be wrong because it is opinion, personal opinion. It can however be poorly argued. This tends to be tied to being misinformed or is a symptom of selective arguing. Using points that clearly have very obvious contradictory factors which the writer ignores completely. Hello, Harry Knowles! This is one of the most poorly thought out rebuttals i have ever seen. With almost every point you manage to reinforce the Ebert issue. You say "Talk to a teacher at our public schools and you'll hear fouler language than even Hit Girl dishes in the classrooms." This is true. Undeniable. But this is hardly a justification surely. We should be encouraging young children not to use that language. Having a young actress played a cool character they'll all want to be only encourages it. That cannot be a good thing. Again, this is easily dismissed with the "little kids shouldn't be seeing the film" argument, but then you say "More likely will be sales of Purple wigs and plastic samurai swords this Halloween… as little girls across the country with the cool parents will have a real badass little girl to call their own." So then you're actively encouraging parents to tell their 10-year-olds to dress up as the character, to emulate her. These are the "cool parents" who want their kids to scream obscenities and see no problem with playing with knives and shooting people. Because that's cool. So presumably the "cool parents" in your opinion would show their kids the movie too Harry? Your arguments make absolutely no sense. I agree with where you're coming from on this but Ebert is the one who comes out of this unscathed. Well done Harry, you've failed again.
-
I haven't seen Kick-Ass yet, but I know that Ebert (who I love) has always had a problem with children using weapons in movies. Siskel & Ebert's review of Robocop 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opX9RZPKpI4
-
Kick-Ass is actually far more like a highschool movie- think Superbad, Mean Girls a al- than this X-rated chimera conjured up from your id that you guys are seeing in your heads. And Hit Girl's relationship with her dad is actually kind of sweet, even if the movie clearly emphasises that he's a little cracked in the head.
-
All of a sudden has this moral problem, when, like so many sheep-like critics, he's been kissing Tarantino's ass for making the most vacuously violent, amoral, empty, gratuitous, pointless, VENAL films for the last decade - holding him up as the height of coolness. He's such a fucking hypocrite. Where was his outrage when a cop was tied down to a chair and having his ear cut off by a guy dancing to a great song from the 70's?? Back then he was wetting himself to call this sick fuck the future of film. I like my share of black humor, I just don't subscribe to Tarantino's reality. Kick Ass could go either way with me, I may love it or I may hate it, I don't know. But I can't wait to see it.
-
That being said, it's sometimes seems to have hypocritical views on films. He champions some violent films that have no message behind them, and he villifies others. I haven't really cared for much of his new film reviews since around the time he championed the fake Crash (the real one was done by Cronenberg!), but I still like reading his new great movie reviews that he puts out, and some of his non-film review film articles (like his recent one about his involvement in the aborted Sex Pistols film back in the 70's) are top notch.
-
A very intelligent and hilarious arguement. I love the last sentence. I think the problem is that Harry just isn't very bright.
-
satire,just a well-dressed guilty pleasure for the perverts out there.
-
...doesn't understand the concept of getting excited about a movie. if i had a movie website i'd be promoting the shit outta this thing as well. whats the point if you don't promote what you like??
-
The only purpose of this "non-review" is for Harry to generate traffic and promote the movie of his "friend." He claims he has no interest in this movie making money and that's probably true but Harry's true motivation the last few years has been to promote and defend the work of his friends. And as usual, Harry lives in a fantasy world where he feels he doesn't have to worry about morality because that has no place in art. He can go on promoting the work of pederasts and not lose any sleep because it's just movies. The thing is, Ebert is right. I haven't seen the movie yet but I hope to this weekend and I hope to enjoy it. But my enjoyment doesn't mean the movie has succeeded. I am part of the very small and narrow target audience for this movie. I've read the comic and I am familiar with the world the comic is deconstructing (it's not pardoy folks) but a movie can't deconstruct a comic book world and find a large audience and it's too soon for superhero movies to be deconstructed themselves. The vast majority of people who will enjoy this movie will enjoy it for the over the top violence and the swearing little girl. They won't get the references or the absurdity of the plot. There's a big difference between Hit Girl and Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. Jodie Fosters character was based in reality. Hit Girl is based in absurdity. People were uncomfortable with Taxi Driver but 13 year old prostitutes did and do continue to exist. There are no ninja trained cursing 12 year old crimefighting girls as far as I know.
-
Then they won't continue to make the remake of Let The Right One In with Hitgirl and the retard from The Road!
-
His made up "A" rating or an NC-17.
-
Millions are being spent to persuade you that Kick-Ass is harmless, comic-book entertainment suitable for 15-year-olds. <P> Don't let them fool you. Kick-Ass has been so hyped that it is certain to be a hit. It is also bound be among the most influential movies of 2010. And that should disturb us all. 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. <P> Although it runs nearly two hours, there's even less character development than there is social comment. Our hero learns nothing, except that extreme violence against criminals is cool, which is something he thought in the first place. The reason the movie is sick, as well as thick, is that it breaks one of the last cinematic taboos by making the most violent, foul-mouthed and sexually aggressive character, Hit-Girl, an 11-year-old. Played with enormous confidence by Chloe Moretz, she's the most charismatic character in the movie. She may not realise it, but she has been systematically abused by her father, brainwashed and turned into a pint-sized She believes that her vigilante dad (played, simplistically, for laughs by Nicolas Cage) is a hero just as much at the end as she did at the beginning. Her attitude towards him doesn't mature, which makes her pathetic, rather than cool. The fact that many people who see the film are going to think she is cool is one of its most depressing aspects. The movie's writers want us to see Hit-Girl not only as cool, but also sexy, like an even younger version of the baby- faced Oriental assassin in Tarantino's Kill Bill 1. Paedophiles are going to adore her. <P> One of the film's creepiest aspects is that she's made to look as seductive as possible - much more so than in the Mark Millar and John Romita Jr comic book on which this is based. She's fetishised in precisely the same way as Angelina Jolie in the Lara Croft movies, and Halle Berry in Catwoman. <P> As if that isn't exploitative enough, she's also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun. <P> And she makes comments unprintable in a family newspaper, that reveal a sexual knowledge hugely inappropriate to her years. <P> Oh, and one of the male teenage characters acknowledges that he's attracted to her. <P> Now, children committing violent and sexual acts should be a matter for concern. Children carrying knives are not cool, but a real and present danger. <P> Underage sex isn't a laugh. Recent government figures revealed that in this country more than 8,000 children under the age of 16 conceive every year. <P> Worldwide child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry. In Africa and South America, brutalised youngsters who kill and rape are rightly feared as members of feral gangs or child soldiers. <P> Movies such as City Of God, Innocent Voices and Johnny Mad Dog have treated the issue with sensitivity. <P> But in Kick-Ass, childish violence of the most extreme kind - hacking off limbs, shootings in the mouth, impalings and fatal stabbings - is presented with calculated flippancy, as funny, admirable and (most perversely of all) sexually arousing. <P> The film-makers are sure to argue that there's nothing wrong with breaking down taboos of taste - but there are often good reasons for taboos. <P> Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs? <P> The people behind this grotesque glorification of prematurely sexualised, callously violent children know full well that they are going to make a lot of money, and they'll get an easy ride from the vast majority of reviewers, who either don't care about the social effects of movies or are frightened to appear ' moralistic' or 'judgmental'. <P> The truth is, of course, that all critics moralise and make judgments, whether they realise they are doing so or not. So please don't be misled. Kick-Ass is not the harmless fun it pretends to be. <P> Yes, it's lightweight and silly, but it's also cynical, premeditated and mindbogglingly irresponsible. <P> And in Hit-Girl, the film-makers have created one of the most disturbing icons and damaging role-models in the history of cinema.
-
That sounds even worse!!! Sorry, I would rather if you're going to dwell into these issues of children committing brutal acts of violence to do so with a serious tone. Turning it into a consequence free cartoon makes it even more offensive.
-
I didn't see that Hit Girl was sexualized in the movie. She's 11. It's like thinking that the Gremlin in Gremlins 2 that dresses up like a hooker is sexualized. In other words, it never occured to me. Now that people pointed it out, I guess I can understand it to a degree. But to me I was just uncomfortable with the depiction of an 11 year old girl murdering people without thought or recompense for the sake of crass entertainment.
-
british roger ebert.
-
Harry, I spent a great portion of my morning in terrible fear upon discovering that children today are packing rapid firing nerve guns. I am calmer now that I have wrapped my body in an aluminum foil coat of armor to prevent any brats from sapping my neural data. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Guess it just went over your head. Or you were too busy licking the bottom of your KFC bucket to pay attention.
-
Harry will throw out a few defenses at first, but as the day goes on and more and more people make better points, he will disappear. And I don't think Harry has ever in the history of his site admitted he was wrong about anything.
-
Harry will throw out a few defenses at first, but as the day goes on and more and more people make better points, he will disappear. And I don't think Harry has ever in the history of his site admitted he was wrong about anything.
-
You are very wrong. Ebert didn´t like "Reservoir dogs" that much. From his review: "Having created the characters and fashioned the outline, Tarantino doesn't do much with his characters except to let them talk too much, especially when they should be unconscious from shock and loss of blood." Next time read before you post.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:21 a.m. CST
did anyone see hitgirl on leno last night?
by BEYONDTHUNDERDOME2GIRLS1CUPBILLCOSBY
i'd be more worried about the child predators than the kids with guns.
-
Mark Kermode, philip french and derek malcolm.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:22 a.m. CST
Little Girl In Tight Leather Fetish Outfit = Sexualized / Pedo F
by LaserPants
Rebeck 2, I don't know if you're a pedo or not, but her look in this movie reads as pedophile fantasy. Sorry!
-
He was a fucking sociopath, Harry. He was going to murder a senator before his plan failed. He got lucky. And it was implied at the end that he would snap again, and would NOT be hailed as a hero next time.
-
Thanks for recommending I take her to see this though, Harry, you fucking creep pedophile with a fetish for little girls in leather.
-
For the benefit of the doubt. I was worried about you, but I'll just chalk it up to the current paranoia I was talking about earlier. I see nothing sexual about a girl in a Halloween costume killing people.
-
Which is what makes the coda of the film so powerful, the irony of all the newspapers hailing him as a hero would only be lost on only the most dense of film viewers. Much like the ending of Straw Dogs, the ending of Taxi Driver is actually a condemnation of violence, not a celebration of it.
-
And ALMOST gave it 4....he is not to be trusted.
-
It's not paranoia, it's revulsion.
-
DON'T FUCKING WATCH LENO DIPSHIT!
-
Okay, then you tell me. Did he go on to wet himself over "Pulp Fiction", "Kill Bill", "Inglourious Basterds", etc? Because that's how I remember it? But if I'm wrong, I may be attributing to him what has been almost unanimous among critics to my complete exasperation. QT's best film BY FAR is "Jackie Brown", because it has actual human characters created by Elmore Leonard and takes place in a world that is at least NEXT DOOR to the real world.
-
so tired of cage<br> just, so tired
-
Ohhh kids aren't THAT bad these days...ummm I guess you don't remember being a kid. Kids do fucked up shit ALL the fucking time. I blame all the fast food.
-
A normal UNSEXUALIZED girl walking down the street? Not a junior Catwoman in a purple wig??
-
CAGE NEEDS TO PAY FOR HIS FUCKING CRAZY ASS PURCHASES! You should thank the man for helping out the economy! I mean what fucking outlandish thing has Fillion every bought? Fucking thrifty penny pintching douche he is.
-
I think the same about "Jackie Brown". It´s his best movie. But even "Kill Bill 1 & 2" did deal with the consequences of violence. It´s not as if these were films made for the sake of coolness and nothing else. I haven´t seen "Kick-Ass" yet, that´s why I can´t argue now about this movie. But I will tonight and form my own opinion.
-
I agree. And as someone who has no attachment to the comic property and, therefore, doesn't give a flying fuck whether the film is any good, I can comfortably say that you would have to be a damn fool to not realize how "off the mark" the marketing (red-band trailers aside) has been for this movie.<P>I'm all for a good cinematic romp but come on. Let's not get too delusional here for the sake of entertainment.
-
One more elaborate than the last. Also, btw, she's also dressed as a schoolgirl when she kills a roomful of guys without consequence, so, there you go. It please all pedo proclivities.
-
Since you guys seem like you are already on a list. Here rent the movie Water Lilles and fuck off, jesus.
-
What are you doing here?!?! This isn't a Peter Jackson thread...
-
She wore a low-cut dress and acted like she was 30 yrs old. She said it was her first talk show appearance but had stories memorized like a pro. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the movie, but it was interesting/sad to watch.
-
Its a schoolgirl skirt and skintight black leather, the same outfits fetsishists wear and look for. The black leather is reminiscent of Catwoman or a dominatrix. You can't be surprised that pple would see that intending to be sexual, and you definitely can't say there's something wrong with pple who recognize that it CAN be sexual for others.
-
Don't be such a hypocrite man. Ebert's opinion is just that. He's a dick for giving away important parts of the movie but just because he objects to the content doesn't make him wrong. His opinion isn't going to derail the films chances of being seen, it'll probably have the opposite effect. Maybe Ebert should read your "review" of Serbian Movie and put your shit on blast. I know it pisses you off when we do it so I can't imagine how bad it'd hurt your feelings if he called you a pedo in a major newspaper.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:41 a.m. CST
dressed as a schoolgirl when she kills a roomful of guys???
by Series7
So its a rip off of Marky Mark's star making scene from Basketball Diaries?
-
What the fuck Roger! FUCK YOU!
-
WHATDONTYOUFUCKINGUNDERSTAND! Don't fucking watch Leno! That show is tailor made for pedo's!
-
What planet am I on?
-
Actually, I barely remember that movie at all. But isn't Marky Mark an adult male? That would remove it from consideration as pedo fantasy.
-
I love how the guy who knows this "Water Lillies", WHICH I'VE NEVER HEARD OF IN MY LIFE, is telling me I should be on a list. Shut the fuck up, motherfucker.
-
Hey don't hate on my IMDBepedic knowledge of film.
-
has Millar explained about this character, is she there for shock value only. <p> "Ohhh lets have a teenage girl, act tough and swear, that is cool" , "hold on lets go more extreme and make her only 11", "hell we should make her a shemale.... err... ok maybe not"
-
April 15, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST
tracy morgan was on leno so i had too
by BEYONDTHUNDERDOME2GIRLS1CUPBILLCOSBY
-
Where the population idolizes and hero worships the most reprehensible characters doing shitty things, even though they're supposed to be a satirical take on what NOT to do. That's what I think Ebert is getting at.
-
Well he's in a boys school girl outfit or black trench coat? shooting up his classmates in high school. It got a lot of hoopla back in the day.
-
NO EXCUSES! <P> Well Morgan is SLIGHTLY acceptable just to see Leno's face of not knowing what to do and how to handle him.
-
She still has no idea that either Miley Cyrus OR Hannah Montana even exist. But she does know to "kick the bad guys and call the police." Not sure what to make of this movie yet. Not sure teens today can be any more desensitized from sex and violence, and yeah, it's R-rated but I'm sure somehow the family of 8 with daddy-call-me-big-dog on his cell and mommy towing her six kids (one 6 months old, of course)will be nestled snug in their cozy little AMC seats come opening night. Then 13 to 15 years from now their son will try to carjack me or just out and out kill me. Damn my world view is bleak before coffee.
-
There are ads for The Collector/Micheal Jackson/The Square running. <P> A movie where a dude tortures people/a pedo/a movie about cheating on and killing your spouse................
-
April 15, 2010, 9:58 a.m. CST
The Only List People Who Want To See KICK ASS Should Be On
by LaserPants
is a list of people who want to see really stupid movies.<br><br>In other words, I don't think that it makes you a pedophile for wanting to see this movie. BUT, it CLEARLY does have elements of pedophile fetishism which is gross, ugly, dumb, and something I want no part of. This is in addition to the mindless, gleeful violence that it promotes in a culture which has all but forsaken parental responsibility in favor of the tv screen handling the parenting (aka, this movie will encourage kids, who WILL see it, that this kind of violence is okay). <br><br>Then again, I loved Leon: The Professional which also features pedo elements. But The Professional also has the added benefit of being a smart, funny, sad, clever, touching movie that presents clear consequences for engaging in ultraviolence.
-
While I share Harry's opinions of what we saw as kids growing up, both on tv, in books, comics, etc. were outrageous in violence and such, when we took it outside to play, there was no feeling that we were violent kids- we were pretending to be violent adults. In Kick-Ass (comic and movie) we've made teens and pre-teens in to sociopaths (not that Robin doesn't have his issues). Let's face it, Millar did a great job in portraying Hi-Girl into a brainwashed victim of her father's insanity. Is this how it would be in the real world? Probably? So, since a lot of parents are morons and let their kids watch anything at all in theatres and at home, they're going to see this. So who are they going to pattern themselves off of? Sociopaths. They will act like, talk like, pretend like, and do stupid things that are violent to each other. Did we need to empower the dream? Not really. The comic was enough- it was for parents anyways. But the movie will be the issue. Kids who watch the latest Star Wars movies all want to be the clones, the murderous copies of Fett. Or they want to be Anakin. They don't aspire to be Luke as in my time- they want to be the bad-ass. So what are we teaching them?
-
Actually they do, they arejust bright red instead of black or grey.
-
Pause as Harry slowly slides his fat paws down his food stained sweat pants.
-
He was wrong that he didn't like the movie and his feelings towards it? Interesting. While I frequently disagree with Ebert, it's nice to read something that offers a counter to the fanboy circle-jerk this movie has been getting.
-
So a movie where an 11 year old butchers people is basically like a family movie for him.
-
Roger Ebert and Drew McWeeny are the best movie critics alive right now. IMHO.
-
April 15, 2010, 10:36 a.m. CST
There may be a Conservitive/Liberal split on this film.
by The Reluctant Austinite
I loved it. I laughed my ass off at the funny bits, and actually cared about the characters throughout. This film was the biggest shot of cinema adrenaline I had all year. However, our good friend SCOREKEEPER, who falls more on the Conservative side of the fence, felt this film "crossed the line" and he didn't like it nearly as much as I did. I think Conservatives in general may loath this film.
-
April 15, 2010, 10:38 a.m. CST
Kick Ass just plain sucks, no need for moral censure
by SmokieMonster
The universal love for this movie is baffling to me.
-
I've only seen the Red Band trailer, but in that trailer I was treated to an 11 year old kid talking about a Bat-signal shaped like a "giant cock". From this talkback she likes to say "cunt" a lot. And it's quite clear from all anecdotes that she engages in shockingly Adult-level violence, violence we tend to associated with more adult films. What's the point of placing an 11 year old in proximity to adult situations, and puttin adult sexual language in her mouth? Why, it's to excite people with the idea that maybe 11 year olds actually ARE adults. It's playing with the idea of Paedo proclivities being ... not so bad. If the little girl is a foul mouthed little bloodletter, what's a little paedo sex? <p><p><br />Even if the film doesn't play out this way, the film looks quite stupid and ugly... it has the "Superbad" vibe all over it (the main vibe of that film was a quest for sex by horny teenagers anyway ... a vibe you really don't want to see 11 year old girls associated with in any way).<p><p><br />Is Ebert a fuddy duddy for not wanting to see this? Well, he's a grown up. I wish more of the idiots in this talkback were grownups.
-
ok, i get it now.
-
So you're a conservative if you don't want to watch an 11 year-old girl murder people and get savagley beaten? I guess that says more about liberals.
-
...that this is the stupidest fucking thing we'll see today and move along.<p>Put a chalk outline and police tape around this article and go about your business.
-
Isn't Massa a self-professed Conservative?<p>More to the point, isn't trying to create a political schism in how the film plays to viewers who vote differently kind of desperate? Like, essentially, you are moralizing the film as something only Liberals can appreciate, thereby creating another parameter to dismiss negative opinions of the film, and make liking it a statement of political identity?<p>Are you being paid?
-
"There may be a Conservitive/Liberal split on this film." Yeah, because Ebert is clearly a conservative. errrr......
-
April 15, 2010, 10:50 a.m. CST
I don't get the anxiety about this. I have a daughter...
by FlickaPoo
...and I worry about a lot of things, but Hit Girl chopping up stylized comic book bad guys isn't one of them.
-
Boy its been awhile! How goes it?!
-
We should vote with our clicks.
-
That he is. He is also saying it is wrong to have a different opinion from his regarding a movie he hasn't seen a final cut of.
-
I really think you might be little off about having to sacrifice to save the future generation of children. Do you honestly believe that Kick-Ass does more damage to future generations of children than things like poverty, lack of education, parents who are never home because they work 2 jobs to pay the bills. Movies and video games don't make kids violent, children who are inherently drawn to violence and violent tendencies are drawn to violent movies and images. We don't help these kids buy limiting violence in movies and games, who help them by addressing the real issues. <P> I do think it takes a village, but the problem is that when the village tries to help or give parents advice, parents become "don't tell me how to raise my child". Parents always bitch to teachers and the government when they think the interests of their children are not being taken care of, but as soon as anyone tries to tell them they are not doing a good job they go on the defense.<P> One more thing, saying the world is becoming more violent is completely ignorant. There are so many factors that come into play when calculating violence. And from what I read violence in America has been decreasing since the 70's. Some people think this is in direct correlation to Roe v. Wade.
-
I'm sure we could say pretty much all conservatives would be against this movie, but there are a lot of liberals against it too. No need to make it political.
-
I wasn't trying to, I was commenting on what The Reluctant Austinite said, which I should have pointed out but I'm dumb so I didn't.
-
"This is not a review of KICK ASS, I can't do that right now as I still haven't seen the final version of the film - just the print that played Butt-Numb-A-Thon 11" ... "KICK ASS is a violent dark film meant to be seen with a full audience to cheer it on." So, basically Harry says he can't really review it because he ONLY saw it at BNAT, but that the film was meant to be seen at BNAT, surrounded by delirious, sleep deprived Geeky Adults. Anyone else see the struggle in Harry to be honest about it, while also stretching to be kind to it?
-
April 15, 2010, 10:58 a.m. CST
Some people think this is in direct correlation to Roe v. Wade.
by Come_ON
Lol, leave it to talkbackers to turn discussing a comic-book movie into arguing that abortions lead to less violence. Fantastic.
-
And I think this movie looks profoundly stupid and promotes dangerous behavior. Where I would differ from, say, a Right Wing guy is that I don't want it banned, I just think it *should* be shunned for being really, REALLY dumb.
-
I think I misread one of your earlier posts.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:03 a.m. CST
When stupidity rears it's ugly head, I come out of the woodwork
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
And now I must return to my dungeon and stick my need in the noose again.
-
IS THAT EBERT WILL WRITE ABOUT KICK ASS ONLY ONCE
-
Me too mate, me too. <p> This talkback is like a breath of fresh air. Finally some people talking sense.
-
This is way too ideological. You sound like Goebbels.
-
If your daughter was 13, would you let her dress like this??? http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/chloe-moretz/1218881/
-
Ebert hates videogames, of course he hates this.
-
Didn't like hearing a pre-teen say "cunt" and engage in some "ultra-violence" (in a MOVIE, no less, a COMIC BOOK movie), then its BBAAADD. Ebert also famously hated Blue Velvet, because he felt it debased Isabella Rossellini. Not just her character, but Ms. Rossellini as a human being. He also hated Videodrome, saying it was the most uncomfortable time he had in a cinema in a long time. I think the general consensus is that he is wildly off base on those films as well. I never read his review of The Exorcist, but I wonder if that "bothered" him to the point of negatively reviewing the film.
-
Why on earth would you dress your kid like that unless you wanted her to been as an adult instead of the kid she is? <p> And even then, what's the point? Really, it does give pedos more ammunition when we dress our kids up like hot teenagers. <p> WHAT THE HELL.
-
She doesn't have any cleavage, so why have that hole open like that? The whole point of a gap like that in a dress is to remind the male of the breasts, but when the person wearing the dress is an 11 year old girl without breasts.... again, what's the point?
-
Wait.
-
He used to say the same stuff about 80's horror movies, btw. Although he's a good reviewer, he's seriously oooolld and out of touch.
-
Still not an excuse.
-
kids and teens living in north innercity dublin would cut you up. whatdebleedingfuckulookingat? keeplookingatmeatandillkickingfuckingyoufuckingheadin. hit girl wouldnt last a day in north innercity dublin.
-
I am saying that I have read violence in America has decreased since the 70's and I am giving you one of the THEORIES as to why it has gone down. What I am actually doing is supporting my opinion with facts and ideas. That is all, no more, no less. So don't put any words into my mouth or talkback.
-
Actually his writing is better than ever now, just read his blog posts. Him having a differing opinion from yours doesn't mean he can't right.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:21 a.m. CST
Whether or not Kick Ass is a great movie, Chloe Moretz's
by PoseidonsRage
appearance on Leno was alarming. 13 years old?? I'm a die hard liberal, but wow!! I would never raise my daughter that way. If Chloe's not snorting coke and sucking cock already, she'll be doing it within a year. She's like a mini Lindsay Lohan waiting to happen. Enjoy your time in the limelight, your career will be over by the time your 20, if you continue to be this way.
-
But of course the theory you put forth is the most controversial and button-pushing one.
-
Most people are adults so most entertainment should be geared toward adults. You want a world where all movies are sterilized crap like Hanna Montana. Fuck that! Give me R-rated movies that have imagination like Robocop and Predator. It's the best of both worlds.
-
Who wants a world like that? No one has said that.
-
who let's his 6 or 7 or so year-old nephew watch splatter/horror films... I think Harry may not be an objective voice in this.
-
really odd choice of words. he's old and sick. the jabs in poor form. it would make him sad.
-
fucking movie will end,what it will remain is this:<br />i dont know if there will be kids who will start shooting people after they watched the movie,but one this is sure:<br />judging by what i saw in the above video,with a 10yo wearing that revealing skirt in Jay Leno,i am very sure that her fate will be either to commit suicide or die by overdose at the age of 25+.Thats not a satire,thats real tragedy.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:28 a.m. CST
Leno HAS to be uncomfortable sitting there next to the girl
by D.Vader
Tracey Morgan, on the other hand, I bet is enjoying himself a lot.
-
But it's part of growing up. You slowly realize the dangers and ugliness of the world. But dissing a movie that is meant for adults for being too dark is retarded. It's intended for adults many of whom enjoy the movie. Boo fucking hoo.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:32 a.m. CST
So Harry is name dropping in the headlines now??
by EddieMurphysLaugh
-
Do me a fucking favor and stop imagining terrible things happening to a 13 year-old girl. Could you do that for me? The shit you're saying is much sicker than the movie.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:33 a.m. CST
AS a liberal I can sit and enjoy a movie where a child shoots pe
by Nerd Rage
why? Because I can seperate fantasy and reality. You see the girl shooting people isn't really killing people. It's all pretend. Get it?
-
April 15, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST
I love how you say he's dead wrong, but you havent seen the film
by EddieMurphysLaugh
-
April 15, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST
Actually, the REAL difference between Ebert and Harry
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
One is jawless, one has a lap-band.<p>Weight loss results? Advantage jawless.
-
I wonder how much DNA Devin over at CHUD has spilled watching that Leno interview.
-
NO FUCKING WAY. Leno probably LOVED sitting next to the girl. Because he's probably a pedo and she had fucking scripted notes and stories as what to say so he just had to feed her the questions. Leno fucking LOVES easy shit like that. <P> Probably hated Morgan because he realized how fucking useless he is. How he can't handle Tracey's style.
-
I think you're missing the point of why people think this stupid, ugly movie is so stupid and ugly. It's not the violence in and of itself that's so distressing, it's how it's presented and who is presenting it. Also, the fact that it presents itself as a satire when really it's just a stroke flick for violent pedophiles. Robocop is hard-R, meant for adults, starring adults, with some awesome subversive satire. Clockwork Orange the same. Kick Ass *pretends* to be a satire, but it's really not; it's just braindead exploitation. And, hey, sure, there's a place for that too, but this is CLEARLY being targeted at kids and stars kids. Again, I'm not offended, I don't think it should be banned, I just think it looks profoundly stupid and, for some kids, potentially dangerous.
-
I want to see all the "kid safe world" critics shit a brick when they see cyborg little girls lay waste to criminals with uzis and sniper rifles. If you can seperate fantasy from reality you can be entertained by this when put in the proper context.
-
on Leno. Way too skimpy dress and blown out, Jersey-style hair that nearly engulfed her face. Not the best wardrobe choice. Sometimes it's not a bad thing to look your age.
-
I like how if you don't want to watch a movie with a little girl being violently beatn you're a 'kid safe world critic', whatever that is.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST
I mean really...why would Harry write this article
by EddieMurphysLaugh
over a film HE HASNT EVEN SEEN. Harry can deny a vested interest and studio kick backs all he wants but why else would he go into "damage control" if he didnt. I wonder if He would have written this article if say..the film critic from like Omaha's newspaper wrote this...Harry this just stinks..serioulsy man. Did you write that response on your Ipad btw?
-
It is in today's society were self-centered adults force kids to become adults well before they are able to handle it. Hooray society.
-
That was insanely easy for Leno. And Tracey is on a completely different wavelength.
-
Seriously, he called it the best superhero movie ever made. He was right, until Dark Knight came out. Oh and Iron Man. Fuck Kick-Ass. McLovin's involvement is going to get asses in seats on that principle alone, but what is this "he doesn't get how life works because he doesn't fawn over this movie" shit lots of you are preaching on this thread. What the fuck? I'm not saying the movie can't be good, and I've never been big on siskel and ebert (or Roeper for that matter), but get it together.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:45 a.m. CST
Its funny..right on this page is a Flash ad for Kick Ass...lol..
by EddieMurphysLaugh
-
April 15, 2010, 11:45 a.m. CST
Of course Harry can't see it cause he has an Ipad now
by EddieMurphysLaugh
-
April 15, 2010, 11:52 a.m. CST
Kick-Ass will do sub-200 mil, domestically
by KateObviouslyDidntGoBlack
It'll be a minor box-office hit, barely lucrative enough to facilitate a sequel becoming reality.
-
It will do sub 100 mil I'm guessing.
-
I may be mistaken but didn't Ebert dismiss/poorly review the Kubrick classic for similar reasons?
-
http://tinyurl.com/y5kjtkp
-
This article is an example of how this site sometimes gets lost in its own coolness. Ebert is being honest - he saw something he didn't like and he called it out. Has Harry become so lost in own hype-mongering to the point that he takes a flameout over someone not sharing his opinion? This site is great for the joy of reveling in cool, but if it's going to become a temple of geek doctrine casting out those who dare have an opinion of their own, then count me out. I respect ya Harry, but I respect Ebert more - and this type of article is an example of why.
-
Both groups behave exactly the same. The only difference is what they deem "acceptable." <p> As a liberal, it has always disappointed me that the left is at least as represssive as the right. I think the left is actually MORE repressive, but they don't hate me cause i'm homo. <p> SOOOO excited to see this movie, btw. Someone posted it's the best since Kill Bill Vol. 1, and that is exactly what I was hoping for.
-
I'm sure Kick Ass kicks ass. And a lot of passion in your article, Harry. Sadly, if Ebert reads it he won't understand a word because it wasn't written in English. I'm not quite sure what that was, but english it wasn't. Jesus.
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's going to have to walk a REALLY fine line to pull off being anything but exploitation for exploitation's sake. The fact that it's based on a comic from Mark Millar does not give me any hope that there is any depth or meaning to the ultra-violence. And Harry's incoherent rambling about the 50's doesn't do this movie any favors. Ebert might not always be right, but I don't think anyone can dispute that his opinion (rightfully, and ironically) carries a lot more weight than Harry's.
-
I forgot that when someone doesn't like a movie, they have a tendency to SPOIL EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS INCLUDING THE ENDING, probably out of spite. I'm usually a fan, Ebert, but that's a shitty thing to do.
-
Even in the 70's we kids took cap guns to school and played, never a problem. The world has moved on, and there are things today that kids and teens do that take me aback sometimes, at 44 no less, and certainly no prude. I am sure that sometime soon some film will come out that will make me want to scream and rant as well. Getting older can suck...
-
April 15, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST
Kick Ass is garbage....it's just crack for morons
by SlimButNotreally
It's nothing more than a bunch of stupid one liners and dumb poses. It's a complete oxymoron to begin with. It's supposed to be a "what if real people wanted to be super heroes" yet none of the action is remotely realistic. The stupid token girl with purple hair with her stupid one liners and foul mouth is just stupid. A 12 year old could have written this shlock. Of course this is aicn, though, and nerds love any movie with a cape in it.
-
And when Ebert is right, he's very right. But in this case, he's very wrong. Kick-Ass kick ass. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
-
WTF was everyone on about?? Every 13 year old WANTS to be older than she is, so yeah, she's wearing a dress and her hair's all poofed out, but she's still very much a normal kid. I thought she came off absolutely fine. And grounded, stable, no Lindsay Lohan. If nothing else, her four older brothers will keep her in line. I swear to god, people are overreacting...
-
Suck on that, Roger. You're getting old.
-
You guys are all acting as if this movie is about her. Kick Ass isn't a description of the contents therein, it's the name of the main character, and the movie's mostly focused on him. Hit Girl maybe appears for 5 or 6 scenes, but the movie isn't about her. And considering how awesome Cage and Moretz were in their roles (especially Cage), that's a shame. There's a primo bit of Cage "hyper-acting" in this when he's tied to a chair being set on fire. It's almost up to "Not the bees!" standards.<p> I think the fact that Harry's last several reviews were all for fucked up, nasty exploitation films has given some of you a bit of a skewed perspective. Or maybe America is just more mixed up about its feelings towards seeing young girls onscreen than I figured? This is an action movie the same way The Expendables is an action movie. It's just a little slice of escapism. No one is being exploited- again, Hit Girl and her dad are only side-characters who exist to give the world a more colourful, comic book feel.<p> I don't even know why I'm defending this so vehemently as I thought it was a good, but not great movie. You guys ARE all arguing getting your nipples all tweaked over some imaginary movie that doesn't exist, though.
-
And fuck you for making me watch even a snippet of Leno.
-
I saw this movie last night, and at no time do they ever sexualize hit girl. She is not dressed in a skimpy outfit, she is dressed like a comic book superhero. Whoever wrote that review could not stop putting sex into the movie. Worst review ever! The movie lives up to it's name and Kicks Ass. And EddyMurphysLaugh, Harry has seen the movie. He saw it at Buttnumbathon in December. It just had the temporary soundtrack, so he hasn't seen the completed version. So get over it all ready.
-
April 15, 2010, 12:25 p.m. CST
Roger Ebert is entitled to his opinion I guess.......
by laguna_loire
I saw it 3 weeks ago in the UK, and everyone I know pretty much loves it here!!
-
Harry - Roger main point wasn't the effect that the movie would HAVE on childen, but the film's PORTRAYAL of childen. That's why he called it "morally reprehensible".
-
when society revered its older citizens for the experience and knowledge they've acquired over the years? Yeah, I've kinda forgotten those days myself. Just because Ebert's "old" it doesn't mean he's less knowledgable about the way the world works, or how films should present their ideas and themes. And since when did being a mature adult become a four-letter word; a condition to be lamented?
-
He was it at his Butt Numb A Thon 11 film festival. He says so in his review. Reading Comprehension.
-
Any chance of getting the temp songlist for Vaughn or anyone else?
-
Ebert wins every fucking time.
-
Why do you care if Ebert likes this or not. It's his opinion.
-
April 15, 2010, 12:39 p.m. CST
WINDU - IN CHINA THE ELDERLY ARE RESPECTED FOR THEIR WISDOM
by BringingSexyBack
I totally agree with ya. <P> Here, you have Ebert having to defend himself for his age, over an important opinion piece that should be read by every parent who is even thinking of letting their children watch this dangerous dreck. Cool is as cool does, and Ebert in this instance exemplies cool. <P>
-
and his books (The Great Movies books) are great to read. But if he lets his emotion (not liking the way a film makes him FEEL) get in the way of his critical eye (strength of direction, writing, acting, cinematography, etc.), then his review is as valid as a critic that lets their political viewpoint affect their review, because it's viewpoint differs from theirs (Michael Medved perhaps?).
-
Meaning you're thrown under the bus, or worse, if you disagree with his own assessment on things. That's what I get from this thread. Oh, that and people overanalyzing a little girl being in a superheromovie.
-
Ebert should worry about the adults in this world not the children, I call BS too. You are right Harry!
-
April 15, 2010, 12:47 p.m. CST
Seriously Harry, There's no need to put Ebert's name out there.
by Stalkeye
as honest as you were regarding your digress for his review, at the end of the day it's just his opinion. "Dead wrong" is a poor choice of words considering what he's going through.<p>I'm curious about seeing this film because it looks satirical.(almost like some of the uber nerdy TBers who would try to fulfill their dreams by attempting to fight crime like thier comic idols, only difference, they have no real abilities henceforth may get their asses handed to them.)This concept is a bit refreshing for a comic IP.
-
It's Tax Day. Don't you have a tea party to attend? seriously though, Roger Ebert gave even some of the most shit movies 2 movies 2 stars (The Last Song), but this is a 1? i want a review of the "movie", not soap boxing.
-
April 15, 2010, 12:49 p.m. CST
It should be obvious what this "article" is about
by seppukudkurosawa
It's Harry's way of writing a second review closer to release date, delivered in the form of a criticism of Ebert's review.<p> And for the record, critics have always written treatises on other critics' critiques. That whole French New Wave thing was coined in a review by a French critic in which he was slamming a fellow journalist.
-
Is a different critic since his health has gone south, I don't blame him one bit for having been yanked out of the cozy confines of the dark theaters into the darker realities of mortality and not coming back the same critic, or much of a critic at all--seems he's pretty easy to get a thumbs up from anymore, as if he's just glad to be here watching anything, and when he dislikes something such as Kick Ass he can't help but make it a very personal review. Ebert's show and Home Video guides got me interested in movies outside of Star Wars as a kid, will always love and respect him for that, but his reviews mean little if anything anymore.
-
..Roman Pedoski.So what if Roger is taking some "high Ground", god bless him, that's his stance. Just agree to diasgree more repectfully..who am I kidding? For a moment I had forgotten that this is AICN, I nwhich most geeks go at it.
-
If Ebert's review denied any quality within the film at all- then perhaps you'd be correct... But Ebert's not saying the action sucks, the acting sucks (in fact he says Chloe is good), etc.- he's letting you know exactly what he doesn't like about it- you should be able to make your mind up from there. I find this whole thing incredibly amusing- because this is honestly the WORST movie reviewer calling into question the opinion and feelings of the BEST movie reviewer. Anyone who tries to shit on Ebert is a fucking hideous troll- end of story. The guy's been doling out thoughtful reviews since before Christ was a pup- there's a reason he's so respected. Harry- on the other hand- spends half of his "reviews" talking about the toys he had as a kid and the other half talking about how he's cumming in his pants- and with the poorest of grammar. Revolting- not to mention that Harry fawns over 95% of the movies he sees anyway- all he needs to do is get a free viewing, free swag, a high five from teh director, or for the movie to have perv elements for his pimplish dick to get excited over and voila Harry's all over that shit. This site is a fucking joke. Any of you cats slamming Ebert and defending this pathetic excuse of a movie reviewer- the mentally challenged Harry Knowles- are jokes. Why the fuck am I here then? Just gawking at the train-wreck kids- just gawking at the train-wreck.
-
April 15, 2010, 12:55 p.m. CST
So, It's ok to watch a fetishized girl, because it's a fantasy?
by Dirk_The_Amoeba
Just whose fantasy is it to want to see a little girl dressed the way she is spouting the words 'cunt' and whatever else she says? <p> Do you really think little girls dream about doing that? <p> Or is it perhaps little or big 'boy's' who dream about little girls who behave that way?
-
that talking about if kids can get their hands on guns is irrelevant- last I checked Hit-Girl alo dispatches foes with a sword- it's not like kids can't get their hands on knives and sherp objects- just saying. You sound like the grand fool that you are Harry...
-
of this inaccurate idea that Ebert "gives everything four stars." It's a complete bullshit argument, pulled out of thin air to give dubious credence to detractors who just want to discredit his opinion when they disagree with him. Ebert has given out PLENTY of bad reviews for recent movies (several of them movies I actually liked). So, find a better argument, assholes, because this shit ain't flyin'.
-
Harry trying to start a dialogue with Ebert just to drive in more traffic- Harry knows as we all do that occasionally Ebert responds to those calling him out- hopefully Ebert doesn't bother with Harry's prepubescent bullshit
-
April 15, 2010, 1:02 p.m. CST
In Briatin they had to ban padded bras for little girls
by Dirk_The_Amoeba
Why would anyone make a padded bra for a child in the first place that required a ban? let alone some parent buying it? <p> And people here are defending the fetishsizing of little girls by saying it is not a movie for kids or by saying 'well they see and do much worse'? <p> That is self justifying BS of the highest order.<p> Parents have every right to be abhorred by this type of movie, not that it will bring the Armageddon - chipmunk 3 will do that, but because there are certain things we should keep our kids from being exposed to, regardless who says otherwise.
-
110% accuracy to the talkbackers who mentioned that Harry will run away when he's getting slammed and will never admit when he's wrong. Even when his DVD column is five weeks late he'll come back on with the lamest of excuses- but you sad Knowles fans have such numb mouths from sucking on his nub for so long that you don't know when he's pissing down your throats. You's probably like the taste of it. Saddest of clowns- all of you. OOOOH maybe Harry will pick me for Butt-Fuck-a-Thon 28! Maybe he will- and maybe you'll get to sit next to him and smell the greasy sweat oozing out of his third chin
-
April 15, 2010, 1:05 p.m. CST
Overt images don't distort kids. Covert ones do
by YoyodynePropulsionSystems
Overt examples of violence and craziness are easy teaching moments for kids. Its the insidious, covert messages that we have in media, language, etc that cause the real damage. Only putting brown people in villain roles, putting women as the victim or as the 'downfall of man', etc. And for the record, it TV does hurt kids, reality TV is exponentially more damaging than sci fi violence. Look at the deaths surrounding bullying recently, the misguided rage around gay couples bringing partners to prom, reality is worse than fiction right now.
-
The fact that things have changed a lot since the 50s doesn't mean that is perfectly fine that nowadays kids are more violent or less sensitive towards violence. Your comparison of KICK ASS --a movie that is thoroughly appealing to kids-- to TAXY DRIVER is absurd at best. The problem, as you fail to see, is not the violence itself, it's that kids perceive that you can kill a human being as easy as you kill a fly, and that is fucking wrong.
-
Kinda, but not really. For instance, only one side plots the assassination of law enforcement officials because of made up stuff they read on the internets (The Hutaree; look them up). The worst the left does, at least in the US, is protest injustice and vote accordingly. Both sides may preach, both sides may complain, but sides may protest, but only one side crosses the line into terrorist violence (both threatened and actual).
-
There are films out there like Rob Zombie's Halloween. Which is the most disturbing movie i've seen and then there is Kick ASS. Kick Ass is so much fun and is meant to be. When Fanboys see Hitgirl they are going to wonder what the fuss is about. Hitgirl is the best sidekick committed to film in the comics genre.
-
strolled through the video store and noticed all the boxes with AintItCool blurbs on 'em? They're usually the only blurbs on the box- "Greatest Shit Since Sliced Toast" - Harry Knowles... it's because Harry's the current go to moe when every other reviewer shits on a film. 5% on the tomatoe reader? Let's just send fat Harry Knowles a signed poster, an action figure, some dvd boxed sets and a blow up sex doll of a 11 year old girl and he'll rave it up all year long- or let's throw him in a second long scene in our third tier tentpole flick- maybe a quick scene of the sad Harry looking out of his window like the ginger haired pedo that he is
-
April 15, 2010, 1:18 p.m. CST
In The Absence Of Sound Parenting, These Images DO Harm Kids
by LaserPants
A kid growing up in a sane household where the parents take time to discuss these images and the difference between right and wrong, these movies won't do any damage. In totally insane and unstable homes where the "parents" don't do a goddamn thing (we're talking about roughly 90-95% of American households), think their kids are peers, and see the tv as a nanny, these images DO cause damage to kids. I'm not saying it's going to turn them all into gun toting maniacs, but it certainly presents them with a potentially dangerous and distorted worldview that makes acting out in sociopathic and violent ways more likely.
-
This article is the equivalent of some douchebagger whining & reacting to a critic's review on Rotten Tomatoes.
-
Don't tell us what we'll be wondering- you speak for no one. Zombie's Halloween the most disturbing flick you've seen? Good luck finding even one fanboy here to agree with that opinion
-
my local newspaper gave this 4 starts, they always hate these sorta movies so i was pretty darn shocked to see that. oh and i just saw the Leno appearance and wow, THATS what people are freakin over? i had this image of cleavage and a skirt so short she shouldnt bend over but yeah..thats nothing and it was actually pretty cute. nothing bad or even sexual about it, just a typical nice dress. i mean she was covered and if you think thats too short well i welcome you to 2010.
-
April 15, 2010, 1:23 p.m. CST
Hit-Girl Responds To The Outrage Against Her Teenage Ultra-Viol
by ominus
<p>well here is her position on this matter:<br /><p>http://tinyurl.com/y27b6jy
-
at first glace it looked like...you know..
-
really?
-
And you're gonna tell me it isn't marketed towards kids? Come on.
-
What a bunch of hypocritical fartknockers. Are you honestly telling me you never saw an R movie as a child? Not Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator or anything like that? Kick Ass is in the same vein as those movies, albeit not as good (although Terminator doesn't hold up as well it used to). And it's not the filmmakers' responsibility if underrage viewers go to see this. What this is, is a bunch of redneck puritans who habituate AICN by osmosis because it's a Texan site, whipping everyone up into a frenzy. They did it with the Ghost Writer talkbacks and now they're doing the same thing here. While "Don't judge it until you see it" might have been a bit rich when applied to Serbian Film, here it makes a whole lot of sense. Massawyrm and Ebert's reviews, and a few shrill talkbackers, have completely escalated just another fun action movie into some evil grindhouse pic. Relax, watch the movie and realise the error of your ways. Ye Gods!
-
Waaaay too short a dress for a 13 year old- you don't have to be a pedo to have your eyes directed to her flesh up high on her legs- the dress itself directs you- "look here"- then you realize you're looking at a 13 year old and you feel disgusted. It's inappropriate- unless you're into studying and fawning over the intimate regions of 13 year old girls. It's all beside the point anyway- However her parents let her dress for Leno has little to do with Kick-Ass itself or with Harry Knowles being a shmuck yet again
-
Kickass is sensationalism. That's it. No satire, nothing deeper than what you see. Take it or leave it. Ebert chose to leave it. So what.
-
When I read: "Why my friend, Roger Ebert is dead..." <P> As for Kick Ass, I have not seen it yet so I can't comment. But I would say Matthew Vaughn is 1 and 0. Win for Layer Cake. Loss of Stardust (although I know many people who liked it. He gets a tie for producing Guy Richie's 2 decent gangster films... Lock Stock and Snatch. <P> To sum up, I will reserve judgment until I see it. Kick Ass may be a great send up of the superhero genera or trash like so many other parodies... Leonard Part 6, Mystery Men, Blankman, My Super Ex-Girlfriend etc etc etc.
-
I hope my mini-critique of Mr. Ebert didn't tilt a favorable light on Harry "chocolate covered pussy juice" Knowles' reviewing skills. Between the two we're not talking apples and oranges, we're talking apples and zebras.<p>But in regards to Ebert's review of Kick Ass, as you mentioned, he does compliment the actors. One sentence each. After eight paragraphs. He starts the review asking "Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool?". Later he states "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." and "Big Daddy and Mindy never have a chat about, you know, stuff like how when you kill people, they are really dead." Its a common critic error of criticizing a movie for missing what the critic thinks or feels should be on the screen, instead of what is actually on the screen.
-
Harry you're editorializing about things you know nothing about.
-
When he saw this article. Oh wait. Also... "I can't review this movie yet" followed by an attack on a negative review? Not like anyone thought Harry was gonna dislike a highly anticpated fanboy movie that's given his site tons of access, but still.. not exactly keeping your review under wraps.
-
April 15, 2010, 1:53 p.m. CST
When you're a kid you love being challenged
by Rene_Belloq_12inch_Figure
My favorite films were the stupid kid films, I could care less about those. I loved It and I loved cloak and dagger when that lady takes the glove of and has a deformed hand scared the shit out of me most violent kids movie ever. But 'till this day, I love it.
-
Well... as you said- eight paragraphs- eight paragraphs of him explaining why he rated the movie the way he did- which- as I said- shows you exactly where he's coming from and leaves you with more than enough to draw up your own opinion. Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying Ebert's never at fault- everyone's at fault here and then- we're human. I questioned Ebert's lauding Irreversible- which was coming from the same guy who slammed Blue Velvet because he thought that a nude scene was degrading to women- but I don't fault Ebert here- and his track record is practically flawless compared to this sub-moronic ginger bozo's.
-
creates an acct with *Hit_Girls_Chocolate_Covered_Pussy_Juice*?
-
Ebert is spot on is his review. KICK ASS and anything that comes from Mark Millar is juvenile shit. He obviously hates superheroes, and most likely like his 'hero' in KICK ASS probably got beat up a lot. I love comics, love comic book movies... There was nothing in KICK ASS that hasn't been seen or heard before. I feel sad for this generation, all they want is to kill their heroes. And Millar would love to lead that charge. Oh yeah, and say FUCK a lot. Because it's a curse word and it's cool!
-
being able to feel pain, so it's not really about "normal" superheroes, per se. I'm guessing the spots they're showing out in the US are just doing a really shitty job of getting this film across.
-
Harry, I've been a reader of yours since the very early days of this site, but this article is appalling.<p></p> Using the word "friend" in the headline doesn't counter the fact that you're saying Ebert is "wrong". How can he be "wrong"? How can a reaction to anything be "wrong"? He saw a film, he reacted. You could argue that the job of a critic is to take notes, think about the film, then write a review, but when someone has such a visceral REACTION they're not going to go home and re-think what they saw, they're going to go with their gut. And it's not "wrong".<p></p> You could say that his opinion isn't relevant to your demographic. You could say that you disagree with him. But "wrong"?</p> The only thing "wrong" here is my choice to keep returning to this site thinking that I might actually get anything useful out of it.
-
...this point may have been made already but i can't be bothered to read everything but Roger Ebert can't object to anything on a MORAL BASIS being that he was Russ Meyer's bitch for 10 years or so!
-
It really looks like a joke how Harry's hypersensitive over any negative reaction to this flick while the site's ludicrously plastered with ads for it. Aren't there supposed to be rotating ads here? All I'm seeing is Kick-ass over and over. Vaughn probably made sure that Harry wound up with Chloe's panties from her hit-girl costumes for his 2 AM sniff and pull sessions- Harry you're repulsive man - you know it, I know it.
-
The PC-Police didn't start taking away our plastic guns until the early 1980's. I had a (close to) 1:1 scale Thompson M1A1 with machine gun sound. We would go out into the woods and play war for HOURS. And unlike the 10 year olds of today, none of us were fat. Battling imaginary Nazis with toy guns and rock grenades burns off more calories than a 4 hour X Box Call Of Duty session. Imagine that. I let my 8 year son play with realistic toy guns if he wants to. Just not in public. Don't want to scare the liberal parents and their "sensitive/fragile" boys.
-
If Ebert responds, I'm pretty sure his logic will eviscerate any of the arguments made here. That is one sharp man. I just don't think the doddering-old-man-from-another-generation argument will cut it.
-
He posted some snippets of his Sex Pistols movie, which "satirized" heroin use. While it can be said that that movie was for ADULTS as a RUSS MEYER movie, who was the audience? Punk kids, most of whom are in early adolescence. I love Ebert, but if he's gonna toss around "Morally reprehensible" to a movie, he should have picked a different week to do it.
-
you were already a film afficianado? I find it hard to believe you were able to one, watch Taxi Driver at six, and two, even understand any of the complexities of that film to be able to even understand what Gene and Robert were even talking about. At six?
-
is one thing. Running up to any clown on the street you think is a criminal and beating him over the head is another. I was watching some youtube footage the other day of these clowns- these "real-life superheroes", and they were running around New York trying to "clean up the streets"- they waltzed into Central Park dressed like bozos and started racially profiling black dudes standing around thinking they were drug dealers- maybe they were- but how the fuck would they know? Where's the proof? This dude almost beat the piss out of this "real-life superhero" and damn it would've made my week- to see this jackass in a costume get his jaw cracked into three pieces.
-
On the basis of it haveing a kid be a stone cold killer. I had a problem with it because it sucked. Frank Miller should never write movies.
-
The TV commercials are selling this like it's Sky High Pt.2.
-
She shows how inept the main character is at being a superhero. She's a far more effective crime fighter and she's a little girl. The protagonist's fantasies of super-heroics are so childish that even a child is more effective when put to the test.
-
and boy, was that a wretched excess. I saw WATCHMEN with children (kids and teens) in the screening room. I remember him telling me in a brief email reply, "my credo is not what it's about, it's HOW it is about." I guess when you get really old, you might become less liberal and more concerned about children's welfare in moral guidance. Mr. Ebert should check out ENTER THE VOID, that have child actors in it for flashback scenes...and some parts are pretty explicit. Europe is much less prudent when it comes to explicit content in movies with a pretty lax rating system, like France.
-
The friends I talk to, who are also parents, have no clue... <p> I was saying the other day how this almost feels like a Project Mayhem assignment, one bent on mind-fucking as many people as possible. I look forward to seeing the numbfucks flee the theaters in horror with their 10-year olds in tow. <p> "Daddy, what's a cunt?"
-
I thought it was supposed to be a satire? Now it's a serious movie with non-satirical life lessons and valid purposes? Regardless- none of what you said has anything to do with the way the hit-girl character was or wasn't handled. I myself will be seeing it this weekend to judge for myself- but the main point in this talkback isn't if hit-girl serves a valid purpose or not- it's what right does a talentless gushing clown have to say that a well-respected reviewer is "wrong" on his opinions and feelings. No one here is looking for the Disneyfication of Hollywood- settle the fuck down.
-
April 15, 2010, 2:31 p.m. CST
Rebeck2, are you crazy? That is NOT how a normal kid dresses
by D.Vader
Sorry, but it just isn't.
-
that 99 percent of the TBers agreeing with Ebert and ragging on this flick haven't even seen it!! Didn't realize that AICN had such a large contingent of braindead fucks who let others tell them what to think. Now THAT'S sad.
-
I like Robocop 2.
-
when he says "don't worry, while I suppose you'll never really just get KICK-ASS... You're no square in my book." - As if Roger Ebert is WORRIED about what a mindless blob of shit like you thinks of him. You may think you're friends with Ebert Harry, and perhaps Ebert is nice enough towards you to have you believe so, but there's no way that someone with Ebert's intelligence would think of you as anything more than a fucking idiot. Yeah- I'm pretty sure he's not worrying.
-
to see what all the fuss was about. um, that dress was disturbingly short. could almost see her goodies and thats not good. as far as Ebert goes. its his opinion, how could it be wrong? im sure he wont be the only person that doesnt like the movie. big deal.
-
An 18 year old knocking up a 43 year old director and two time cancer patient doesn't bode well for his adulthood.
-
Harry "Ain't It Shit" Knowles still finds you "cool". Man, the fucking ego on this dolt. Authority on film by the age of six, never feels the need to apologize or admit he's wrong, Starts off every review with a story about himself and how he watched every episode of this, how he had every toy possibly made for that, how he's "friends" with the directors and how he regularly talks to so and so on the phone- you'd think that's what reviewing a movie was- name dropping and talking about your swag collection and how you didn't pay for any of it. Someone please remind me- WHAT about Harry Knowles isn't nauseating?
-
Sorry, Laser, the left does a lot more than that. They loove to pass laws to protect us from ourselves. The right also agrees that we, the people, are too stupid to make our own decisions. The right wing is definitely more violent, but I still think the left is more represssive. But I bet both sides agree on Hit Girl...they both hate her, although not for exactly the same reasons. <p> BringingSexyBack...you are one of, if not the, most hilarious posters I see on this site. These comments seem very unlike you. Are you being sincere?
-
In the context you used it, that's how you spell it , you Public-educated twit.
-
"a man I once shared an aisle with, a few times"
-
is entertaining because it's ironic. It's like watching a tiny wolverine fight off a pack a wolves. It's far more impressive than watching a bear preform the same feat. The fact that a child is an efficient assassin is both taboo and ironic. This only adds to the entertainment and shock value.
-
and while I see every point you made Harry, the guy came across as a tool. Worse still he came across as some one who was embarrassed that if he actually owned up to enjoying the film he would sound like a child molester.
-
In fact it seems kind of wrongheaded in definition... Am I wrong or aren't fetishes usually objects (non-persons) that are given sexual desire, etc? <p> Specifically speaking to that Daily Mail review that compared Catwoman to Hit Girl; it's bullshit. I dug the hell out of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman but I found Halle Berrie's totally uninteresting despite her wearing "fetish" type clothing. The difference, besides quality of movie, I simply do not dig Halle Berrie; I do dig Michelle, outfit or no outfit. The whatever percent of Pedos of the world will not be swayed by one dumb fucking movie either way, but idiots looking to ban, burn and censor will rally as if doing so will cure AIDS or Cancer, and it never has, nor will it ever. If you want to watch real disturbing child exploitation, watch The Soup when they show clips from those toddler pageant shows! *shudder* Why the hell aren't those banned yet? <p> Personally, I'm only lukewarm about Kick-Ass, but I know various people who are excited to see it. Honestly, after watching the trailers, I was neither appalled nor enthralled, more skeptical. <p> I don't care if this movie gets lambasted or glorified, just do it honestly, and without tangent bullshit oogie boogie scare tactics. <p> That said, do go about your business, as I know you will anyway. ;-P <p>
-
No...... he indulged you mate....
-
Go back and read his review of JC's The Thing as a "barf-bag movie", or his diatribes about misogynistic F13 series. He's got dainty sensibilities, and masks them with concern for "the children" and "society." I love Roger, but he should just admit this isn't his sort of thing and leave the preaching for Sundays.
-
Mainly, the fact that it's completely and utterly derivative of every other piece of superhero deconstruction we've seen over the last 20 years.
-
I know someone who was.
-
I have seen it one hour ago. Where to start? It´s made with incredible intelligence and style. But, and this makes the whole experience even more sad, I found the story flatout boring; in fact, it became depressing after a while because there was nothing left but pseudo-coolness. No believable characters, no real consequences of all the ultra-violence - even the death of an important person left me cold. And the biggest mistake is to establish a world where superheroes don´t exist - and to throw this rule out of the window when the story has written itself into a corner. When everything is possible, nothing matters anymore. I´m sorry, but in my opinion Ebert is right, spot-on, with his view of "Kick-Ass".
-
If it's that good ( and it is ) then there is no need for you to go on the offensive against anyone who happens to disagree with you.You've let yourself down there lad.
-
Could it be because of the lower crime rate across the pond that they recognize cartoon-violence for what it is, and not concerned about warping our precious youngsters little minds. The problem I had with Eberts review is that he felt the film missed out on commenting and editorializing on the violence portrayed onscreen, even comparing it to a videogame. So? Maybe that was the filmmakers intent. To make it flashy and cartoony like a videogame, yes, even with a preteen character dishing out the violence. If I want to watch a film contemplating the consequence of violence I'll watch something like Cronenberg's History Of Violence. Better yet, I'll watch this this weekend and form my own opinion.
-
You're right; I don't think anyone has seen Harry admit that he's wrong. He purports to be like us, the little people, yet he likes to get up on his throne and tower over us and "tell" us why things are this way or that, why Ebert's opinion is wrong. Let's not forget the studios who provide Harry with his lavish lifestyle that only allows him to grow fatter physically and egotistically.
-
...for a movie to attempt a portrayal of "realistic" super-heroes. I'm SO SICK of "super-heroes" that are just people in costumes who can inexplicably do Matrix stunts. I guess Nolan's Batman movies are the closest thing we've yet gotten to realism in superhero movies.
-
April 15, 2010, 4:05 p.m. CST
I haven't seen "K-A", and I revere Ebert...
by Half-Baked-Goggle-Box-Do-Gooder
...But I'm afraid that he may have broken one of his own cardinal rules - That of confusing a "Bad" movie with a "Good" movie that is about bad things.... <P>I'm going to see this, and I'm going to see it in the mindframe of remembering what it was like to first read underground comics, "American Flagg", "The Dark Knight" or "Watchmen" back in the day - To see the formula tweaked, played with and occasionally smashed to fucking smithereens.
-
..."FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH" because the teenagers demonstrated guilt and confusion after engaging in underage sex. Ebert then stated that the teenagers should have experienced the "joys of sex". An underage girl should experience the "Joys of Sex" when she has just been the victim of statutory rape? (BTW-"FAST TIMES" was based on actual events). Ebert was lucky to keep his job after that statement condoning adult males sleeping with minor girls. But now he says a young girl should show emotion and guilt after killing murderers in a fantasy comic book film, when he had once said a young girl should not show emotion after being used abused sexually? Ebert does not make sense.
-
Starts with a D. You figure it out.
-
Defenders of the work always blame the viewer, "Oh, he missed the point." When you'd think the objective point of view would be that of, "Oh, the filmmaker wasn't CLEAR enough."
-
Mike K - in 2010 do you still have exactly the same views on everything as you had in 1982?<p> C'mon buddy. That's almost as ridiculous as 6 year old Harry having the depth of understanding to 'respect Ebert for defending Martin Scorcese over the controversial but delicate handling of child prostituion in TAXI DRIVER.'<p>
-
he's giving Kick Ass the Good Son treatment.
-
so I don't care which dumb ass is correct about their worthless opinions. I didn't even read Harry's rant since it would most likely be pointless.
-
which i felt was torture rape porn and not artistically defensible.
-
"Kick-Ass" isn´t a good movie about bad things. It´s a bad movie about bad things. I´m still puzzled about the fact that James Berardinelli compared it to "The Dark Knight". "Kick-Ass" doesn´t even come close to deconstruct the Superhero-genre in the skilled way Nolan´s masterpiece or "Watchmen" did. No, it bathes in bad superheroism. And I was looking forward to it. Now that I´ve seen it I have to say: Two hours of my life are gone for nothing.
-
smudge, Ebert may have praised IRREVERSIBLE but he didn't name it his 'favourite movie of the decade' like Beaks did.<p> Beaks took so much flak for that little brain fart that I think he's fled from aicn altogether and entered into a witness protection programme somewhere in Bratislava.
-
...A) had a film classification code worth the paper it's written on (see the BBFC) and B) didn't have 200 million dumb fucks living between your coasts.
-
You seem like a snotty little fuck don't you?
-
This is a pitch-black comedy, with the character of Hit Girl actually being a wicked social commentary on the effects of bad parenting. It stands or falls on whether or not it functions on that level, because the first thing any effective black comedy jettisons are moral and sentimental restraints.<p> Pondering on whether Big Daddy would discuss the ramifications of violence with HG are therefore pointless, and completely contrary to the writer's satirical intent. Sad to say, but Ebert has almost completely missed the point of this movie by getting caught up in superficial pontificating.<p> The joke's on him.
-
Are you going to start writing rebuttals to every review that's different than yours? Very boring. Roger hated it, you love it, who cares?
-
A) Comparing Taxi Driver to Kick-Ass makes you a clown beyond all comprehension. B) You did have the comprehension to understand what Siskel and Ebert were talking about when you were 6 fucking years old you psychopath. Perhaps some advanced kids that age could grasp it but I would submit into evidence every article you've ever written proving the only thing advanced about you is the size of your waistband.
-
Can we be friends?
-
...use of A) and B) :-) and although the 200 dumb fucks comment may have been a bit of a generalisation the comment about your film classification is bang on. we have the same ratio of dumb fucks over here but they can't take their kids in to Kick Ass even if they want to.
-
I respect Roger Ebert because he always gives his honest opinion; I’ve never yet seen him shit on a movie just because it’s the popular thing to do. I also respect – for the most part – his ability to support his opinion so that, even if I happen to disagree, I can always understand exactly where he’s coming from. Also, he can be funny as hell; some of his reviews are more entertaining than the movies he’s reviewing. For some reason, I like Harry’s reviews too, but it’s not because they’re always coherent, or because they make a reasonable argument. They’re fanboy! reviews, and that’s their strength. Still, if you put Harry’s article into word processor, you know that shit’s gonna light up like a Christmas tree. My point is this: there are kids reading those articles, and judging from their Talkback comments, they seem to be learning English from Harry. I don’t think Roger Ebert would approve. I haven’t seen “Kick Ass” but if it really is supposed to be a satire, then it’s not unreasonable to expect more from it than indulgence in the things it aims to satirize.
-
In the 50's, there was a pretty slim chance that the kids playing with toy guns might have a real gun. That isn't the case anymore.
-
Yeah, I've hear you guys have a much better system than here. And upon reflection 200 million might be an underestimation.
-
...come in to their own in the last 10 years. they used to be draconian censors but now are a very rational and intelligent classification board. i would recommend that every one here read their decision on Kick-Ass. it is spot on! http://tinyurl.com/ylxqsed
-
It just happens. Would Ebert have said the same thing 10 years ago? 20? 30? Debatable. But I seriously doubt it. I'm sure there are some great comments and arguments in this talkback. But for me, issues like this always come down to the same thing; the parents. Teach your kid(s) the difference between right and wrong, entertainment and real life, fantasy and reality. If you can't do that, it's your failure and your problem if they do some stupid shit after seeing a MOVIE. Not mine, not societies' and it's certainly not the fault of the movie and/or comic book creators (because, ya know, the comic book exists, sitting on shelves right now, for kids to be "influenced" by).
-
...and not the sexual fetishization of an 11-year-old girl.
-
..sexual fetishization of hit girl in this film what so ever.
-
...that thinks Harry needs to stop criticizing other critics and let them have their say. Frankly, I can't make it through 90% of Harry's reviews because it's like trying to talk to a child who's distracted by every thought that pops into their head. Ebert, on the other hand, is incredibly coherent and thoughtful with his reviews, and he does his level best to see the film as the audience member and not the professional critic. Others here have used ageism as an excuse, but I've seen films that I'd NEVER have expected men of Ebert's age to love, but he did. He sees films as a pure lover of film. What you get is his unvarnished opinion as a human being. Would that we all could remain as open-minded as Ebert usually is. That Ebert can give Antichrist 3 1/2 stars and rip into this film for one means something.
-
...on the number of toddlers and young children (ages 3-10) I've seen at my friends houses laughing maniacally as they fight to keep the PS3 or Xbox controller in their hands long enough to shoot somebody in the head.
-
Do you even read Ebert or do you just bandwagon with the other ignorant people here who think old guys can't write reviews for "kids these days?" Ebert remains incredibly relevant because he's innately curious. Stop parroting your peers and actually read his columns (and his social commentary) and you'll see an incredibly active mind. Would he have said the same 30 years ago? It depends upon if he'd thought the moral decay in society was as bad as it's become, wouldn't it?
-
I agree with you. I have nothing against Ebert and my comment was meant to be more broad in it's intent. Over the course of my entertainment press reading life (over 25 years) I've seen more than one writer move towards views that I don't think they would have ever expressed in their younger days. Ebert wrote Beyond The Vally Of The Dolls; would he rather people watch that movie instead of Kick-Ass? Because I find that movie to be a completely twisted mind-fuck. Is it's rampant drug use and nudity "better" for kids than the violence of Kick-Ass? I'm not judging, just asking. And again, I have nothing against Ebert, per se (and I do occasionally read his blog). I was just commenting on how it seems that age seems to put some peoples minds in a different place regarding certain issues. In the case of someone who has been writing about said issues most of (if not all of) their lives, it does occasionally paint them as a hypocrite.
-
Winkelman doing Film 2010? WTF???
-
...as anybody (although I do it without calling him names). But we live in a strange age where the internet and what people say on it actually matters (even if it's only to the small group of people who are reading each writer). I think Harry has as much right to post a rebuttal as Ebert does to make comments on moral decay in society.
-
...the danger that this movie might corrupt little kids and turn them into sociopathic monsters. A movie is the least of their problems. <p> I just want a movie that is more than just senseless reveling in scenes of a little kid committing ultra-violence. I haven't read a review yet that makes me think KA offers anything beyond that.
-
This is what many blogs, sites, and mainstream publications lack - a voice with passion informed by personal history with a strong take on something! It's why I've always been a fan of you (whatever your views) and this site. Keep it up!
-
That's unfortunate, because it does. I also think it's unfortunate that so much sensationalism is being tossed about regarding Hit Girl in the movie as it's probably going to leave a lot of people disappointed.
-
When I first heard of this movie, I thought cool concept. Regular people playing the part of superheroes. Then the story became more about Hit Girl and how morally reprehensible the movie is. That locked me into it more, of course. But now it seems like the original reason I wanted to see this movie was never really there to begin with, given how unrealistic the fight scenes are sounding. I just wish they would stop calling it morally reprehensible so that I can skip it.
-
...and since it looks like I'll be seeing it this weekend, I'll find out for myself. But I've been let down by the reviews on this site because nothing I've read about it has convinced me that it's got any depth. I hope I'm proven wrong, though, just so I don't waste 2 hours for nothing. <p> And honestly, it doesn't help that Millar wrote the comic, IMO he's the comic book industry's poster boy for mindless violence pretending to be satire.
-
April 15, 2010, 5:45 p.m. CST
Didn't Ebert hate Fight Club for many of the same reasons?
by SifoDyasJr.
At least he's consistent in being wrong.
-
Well, if you read the Millar/Romita Jr interview just below this one (not saying you haven't already) you'll see that Jr goes on at great length about the Kick-Ass character and how much of the art he used was based on his real life in NYC. A lot of that is in the movie as well. There's the relationship between Kick-Ass and Red Mist, the relationship between Hit Girl and Big Daddy, amongst others. It's not just about Hit Girl saying cunt and killing people. That's in there, but it's not the entire premise or point of the movie.
-
Yeah, he thought Fight Club was “Fascist” and dangerous to society... But then loved Kill Bill. Ya never know with Ebert.
-
April 15, 2010, 6:01 p.m. CST
I can't believe I'm defending Harry over Ebert (I'm old, btw)
by Homer Sexual
I am so old I clearly, clearly remember watching Siskel and Ebert trash every awesome 80's horror movie. They even did a whole show dedicated to just that. <p> And they went on and on about how degrading to women, dehumanizing and sadistic those movies were. It always bothered me... I mean, most of those movies had female leads, fwiw. <p> I still read Ebert's reviews online sometimes, but he's always been very prissy like that. I doubt he even reviews Saw, et al, because those movies would give him a heart attack (I also hate torture porn). <p> Love Ebert, but he sounds like Helen Lovejoy crying "won't somebody think of the children." what-ever. <p> I normally dislike Harry's writing, but this column was unusually coherent.
-
what!?!?!?! That is the first line under Top Talk backs.. and might heart dropped to the floor. Thanks for the heart attack Harry.
-
one of my all-time faves...
-
Thanks to everyone at AICN for spreading the words. Kick-Ass kicked so many boners into my ass. You kicked them into my heart http://j.mp/9GnhPJ
-
I have nothing but love for J.R. Jr. and his work (Millar, not so much), so the more they used his input/influence on the movie, the happier I'll be. Aside from the art, I wasn't really taken with the comic, so maybe this is just one of those things that isn't for me. And if that's the case, I don't want to be one of these guys that shits with glee over something that isn't my taste, just to troll its fans. But I wish I was as fired up as everyone else by the pre-release hype. I'm just not feeling it so far. Oh well, they'll make more movies.
-
April 15, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST
"...complements of a man I once shared an aisle with, a few time
by Uga
How many errors can we fit into half a sentence?
-
Then I ask your pardon, Jaka. I'm glad you read Ebert, so you DO, in fact, have a leg to stand on. I don't have an issue with those that honestly disagree with Ebert ( I sure as heck don't always agree ) but I don't like those that simply repeat whatever the most trendy response is. I'm also not anti-Harry, but for the life of me I can't read his reviews. They're so scattershot it's almost impossible to figure out what he's trying to say.
-
ebert isn't worried so much about what the film might do to children if they see it. He doesn't like the idea of and eleven an 11 year old kid murdering people and getting the shit beaten out of her for laughs. people are missing his point. harrys response doesn't actually address anything ebert had problems with. I find all this belly aching about ebert not liking this film to be fucking ridiculous. people are really missing the point
-
Ebert just responded on twitter: "OMG. Harry Knowles warns I am in danger of being a grown-up, 'cause I didn't "get" Kick-Ass." http://twitter.com/ebertchicago
-
I have no opinion on the morals of the movie. I've seen plenty of violent films that made me laugh, and plenty of "family" films that disgusted me. I'm only upset when one "reviewer," who is as far from literate as I am from running a successful website criticizes another whom I greatly respect. Leave this site for your opinions of other movies, Harry, not other reviewers.
-
but when the C-word is used it does feel a bit forced. the character who says it gives a great performance but that one line comes across as anything but natural.
-
OMG. Harry Knowles warns I am in danger of being a grown-up, 'cause I didn't "get" Kick-Ass.
-
"WTF Knowles? First Serbian Film, now this? I like watching violence as much as anybody but first baby fucking and now child beating? Fuck's sake. And by the way, my lower face does NOT look like a Donkey's cunt. Love, as always, Roger Ebert." <p> Sent from iPhone.
-
Harry enjoyed the baby-raping movie, too. I'm with Ebert.
-
April 15, 2010, 6:44 p.m. CST
"we all know that the supervision level that goes on in this cou
by classicgamenerd
Didn't you show your very young nephew dawn of the dead??
-
I guess he was relevant like 15+ years ago though.
-
You are too kind, sir. Too kind! Yes, I am sincere about this, not playing around. When it comes to politics and social issues about children I get all Mr. Serious-like ...
-
So Roger Ebert hasn't been relevant for 15+ years. What was the turning point?
-
awesome tweet
-
Not until I read the rating on this site. I too thought the movie was targeted at a younger audience. But then again I think Hitgirl looks like an annoying little brat who needs a clip round the ear and her Justin Bieber album confiscated, so I might be turning into an old fart.
-
At what point does any one person have the right to draw the line and question the morality of any art? I'm 100% certain there are far more offensive films than Kick-Ass released every year. This one, for whatever reason, has garnered a good bit of attention. As such, many people are going to loudly comment about it. Some of them are going to make really good points. Some of them are going to talking nonsense just to get attention. I don't believe any one point of view is right or wrong. Nor do I believe any of the people commenting should be censored in any way. But I do STRONGLY believe that if people who have a public forum and an audience are going to stand up their and preach, they'd better be prepared for people to have their own opinions about what they're saying.
-
...if the comic book wasn't your thing I'm not sure the movie has TOO much hope of winning you over. I loved the comic book - quite a lot actually. And I agree with some other posters who have said that the movie and comic book compliment each other. So there's that. I do hope you enjoy the movie, though. I thought the performances by the actors were great all around.
-
April 15, 2010, 7:06 p.m. CST
Harry's reviews are inpenetrable fortresses of incoherence
by JuanSanchez
-
I really should do a better job of using my @'s. Hey, no worries. I didn't find your first post directed at me insulting at all, just passionate about your point of view. In some cases I would probably agree with you wholeheartedly as an awful lot of parroting does go down in these here talkbacks. But in this case I truly believe Ebert and Harry both have a right to say what's on their mind. In fact, I think it's good that so much discussion is taking place, so long as it stays marginally civil.
-
If I recall correctly, Quint was the first out of the gate with a Serbian Film review and he not only made the right call to advise avoiding it, he found the baby rape so despicable he had the good sense not to say it by name. <P> A lot of people are bashing Knowles here with good reason. As disappointed as I am with him for supporting Serbian Film and Kick-Ass, I at least recognize him for being an overly devout film lover. Kinda like the radical Muslim who is made to think blowing himself up along with several hundred people is good for the cause - Knowles gets all the more excited the more subversive a movie is. <P> And that's a bad thing. Because I wish he would step back and realize that movies have an emotional impact on people, and society at large. One can't say that violent fare - be it movies, music or video games - doesn't effect violent behavior. Just like Star Trek inspired a generation to pursue science, violent media has its adherents who act out on those impulses too. If only Harry could see that and say, as exciting subversive movies can be, the cost is just not worth it. <P> I wish he could do that.
-
If I did a search of "Harry Knowles" and "Roger Ebert" on Twitter right now.... @therealebert: Sorry Harry! Just shitting on you because you trashed Titans!
-
April 15, 2010, 7:16 p.m. CST
I just don't understand why this website and all its editors
by iLikeToDanceSomtimes
are so personally invested in this movie. It kind of makes me want to see this movie fail at the box office big time.
-
..because of the incredibly good film watching experience they had with it at BNAT. They mention it in every single piece that's posted about Kick-Ass.
-
If the USA had a decent ratings system, that might help. This should probably be an NC-17, which would still hit its target audience (seriously, how many of you talkbackers are under 17?)
-
I almost hate to bring it up but if Ebert's going to start getting judgmental on the idea of Hollywood exploiting kids in fiction maybe he shouldn't be so quick to praise a guy who raped a kid in real life.
-
he hated robocop for the exact same reasons he hates kickass<p> much of this has to do with the fact that he has never had kids....kids curse...big fucking deal
-
April 15, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST
I don't agree with Ebert on plenty, but he's a National Treasure
by JuanSanchez
-
And our ratings board is notorious for being pig-headed about these kind of films. If they didn't think it fit the R rating, it wouldn't be rated R. I found this movie far, FAR less disturbing than any Saw movie. And it's not even CLOSE to the levels of ick I felt watching Antichrist (although that one might have been unrated - think it was, actually).
-
April 15, 2010, 7:31 p.m. CST
Sorry - I shouldn't be to caustic. Bad day and this pissed me of
by JuanSanchez
-
how offended Ebert was by being referred to as Knowles' friend in an article attached to such an insensitive title.
-
I think there is a big misunderstanding about the film, when people who don't know the comics, assume that it is only about some kids playacting superheros. That is half the film, but then you have the little Ninja girl who actually slices up the baddies very effectively. This contradiction is jarring, and unexpected, and where the objections to the film come from. Not that I give a shit. I'll be there and loving it.
-
..and they live in a society filled with violence. Violent tv shows, violent music, violent movies and ultra-violent video games. I'll say it again, it's the parenting that matters. Not whether or not a kid sees a violent movie. I mean come on already! How many of us grew up with violent action and/or horror movies?
-
...Ebert's analysis is invalid on its face. Mark Strong always wins.
-
Speak for yourself Harry!!
-
Grammar lesson: Imply vs Infer - one implies when one is saying something, one infers when one is listening to someone else saying something. Now you know, so don't fuck it up again, writer.
-
its just life, ya know, 11 year old girls slicing and dicing. ya we all are eachothers biggest influencers...., so if media was nothing but, monks and shit on tv, doing monk stuff, with zero regard for the camera around them, then maybe all us humans would be less likely to teach our daughters to slize and diZE baddies. COMEON, their are bad people and good people, and in the conflicts between the two, blood will always come to be spelt. Their is no hiding blood from children, or to the snapping of twigs, the cutting of grass, the hurlings of wind, the cracking of earth, and the demise of the body. A healthy child well no be deemed a child who can filter through our media frenzy progressed world.!
-
You conveniently ignored the main aspect of CobraKai's question, so I'll repeat it now: How can you pour scorn on a subjective review when that appears to be your M.O? I plan to see the film, and will undoubtedly be entertained, but have to agree that the story (from reading the comic) is neither 'realistic' or 'satirical'. Going after Ebert on this Harry? Dick move.
-
and not want to go chop off peoples heads
-
April 15, 2010, 8:03 p.m. CST
Why my friend, Gullerimo Del Toro is dead wrong about cheeseburg
by DougMcKenzie
He says to put the cheese under the meat! Can you believe that shit!
-
April 15, 2010, 8:06 p.m. CST
May not always like Ebert but HARRY you are a FUCKING SHIT
by Proman1984
Not just compared to him but just in general.
-
The more I read back over your 'review' the more distasteful I find it. I don't know what upsets me more - the shallow, self-serving 'beef' marketing with "your friend", the unrealistic comparisons betwen Taxi Driver and Kick Ass, the cheap shots of 'being an adult' when that is who you say the film is (really?) marketed at. I've been coming to this site for over 6 years now. After this 'review' I won't be back.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:29 p.m. CST
Harry literally just became the Bill of Reily of movie news site
by EddieMurphysLaugh
Notice whenever 90% of the people who post on here turn on Harry..he just goes away and doesnt answer for his opinions. Again, I'd really like to see if Harry writes about every other critic in this country that gives Kick Ass a bad review...All Harry did here was cherry pick someone with a film opionon, that he KNEW would get his site and name in the news..nother more than that...Do you honestly believe Harry just sat there and said "I Have a moral objection with my friend and I just have to write a 12 paragraph retort ot it..just because.oh my friend just made me so mad!" ..Jesus man, does Harry really have ANY credibility left, other than just some fat silly man behind a keyboard we all sit around to see what in the ever loving hell he is going to type next? From Episode I - HD DVD, to X MEN bootlegging to this. It's a never ending storm of bullshit. All this was, was an attempted hitjob by Knowles..man you have zero fucking class buddy.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:31 p.m. CST
Ebert's mind has been damaged by chemo and impending death.
by Bob Cryptonight
He cannot be trusted. He's a short-timer preparing a place for himself with the Great Coiled Spring.
-
April 15, 2010, 8:44 p.m. CST
...In our School production of Lizzy Borden!"
by MalinAckermansNipples
-
First: How can an "opinion" of a movie be wrong? Why do so many posters here think that for someone to be a "good critic" they need to agree with their tastes? That's not a good critic. A good one states what they think about a film, and then tell you why they think that. Ebert did so. He found that to have the child not affected or the particular relationship between Hit-girl and Big Daddy that caused her to be that way greatly lessens the movie. I happen to believe that about the comic as well. If this is a black comedy about bad parenting and the media obsessed/superhero obsessed society, I think the comics did a better job than the film did, and the comics missed a very very good vein to mine..
-
April 15, 2010, 8:48 p.m. CST
Roger does what no other critic does these days...
by Chuck_Chuckwalla
...he's not afraid to be righteous. True, in our culture there has always been violence in film but it always shifts in terms of imagery and context through time. Today's kids will be in another place, psychologically, to bear witness to it than the kids of fifty years ago. But having said that, Roger has earned enough cred to be listened to seriously. I haven't seen the film but I'm sure that when I do he'll have a valid point of view and I may possibly agree with it. I trust him — unlike other so called 'critics' whom these days are so full of shit trying to out snark each other in their 'scholarly analysis' of cinema. Film criticism can has lost it's soul and now these vacuous non-entities are feasting on it's carcass.
-
When he basically stated that he wouldn't be "in touch" unless he liked the movie. Its violent, and vulgar, and like it or not, its being marketed towards kids! Kudos to Ebert for telling it like it is!
-
I understand why you see Travis as a hero, in the anti-hero vein. It just appears you missed the point of the film entirely because, oh hey, badass mirror scene or something. Foster, in the film, was playing something real. Hit Girl is just meant to be "cool super hero." Seriously, the two films have entirely different meanings and are in different genres and therefore you have made an invalid comparison.
-
this article is bullshit. you need to delete it and then give just type sorry where this article used to be located,,,, and then leave that sorry up there for the rest of this sites life.
-
Kick-ass looks awesome, everyone needs to quit crying about the content... if it's not your thing, don't watch it. If some kids dress up like superheroes and go out and get themselves killed, then good, we don't need someone that stupid in the gene pool anyway. It's just a fucking movie.
-
I was really loving your commentary--and thought it was pretty much brilliant--until I read this: "...as a 6 year old I can remember watching you and Gene defend Scorsese and you were my heroes." They were your heroes at 6 years old? Bullshit. You may have thought it was cool they were on TV, and you may have thought they had a cool job reviewing movies, or maybe you just loved seeing clips of movies you were waiting to see. But I seriously doubt you understood the implications of what was going on in Taxi Driver and their defense of Marty's "art." You are so full of it sometimes. But I've got to hand it to you, I don't think there was a reference to "jizz," orgasms, geekgasms, mangasms, boners, hard-ons, come, cum, man-love, boy-love, etc., in this entire review. Thank you for your restraint.
-
Considering how many pieces of utter cinematic garbage you tell people to see on a monthly basis I will take Ebert's fuddy duddy opinion over your's any day. You proclaimed Kick-Ass to be a cinematic masterpiece from the moment the project was conceived. From the previews I have seen and from what I have read about the film it looks like another cynical attempt by a studio to make money from fanboy culture by selling "edgy" as a brand. An 11 year old girl shooting people in the face at point blank range and swearing like a sailor is not funny, cool or hip. It's pathetic. I am also astounded that you would bring up Taxi Driver in your defense of this pop culture backwash! Do you know anything at all about film sir?
-
"Could it be because of the lower crime rate across the pond that they recognize cartoon-violence for what it is..." ... dunno about that. I believe that statistically the UK is way worse for violent crime (per capita) than the US. Got to be good at something ... although we're disappointingly lagging behind on actual murders.<p><p>The film has been made with a very British sensibility though, and that might not be sitting too well with some US audiences (or rather potential audiences) ...?
-
No, Harry. No.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST
We've just entered a world where movie reviews get-- reviewed?
by CodeName
It's definitely the future. That's for sure.
-
April 15, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST
Mindy/Hit Girl has changed female superheroes forever!
by carneguisada
In creating Hit Girl/Mindy Millar has changed female superheroes forever. He's done what Tarantino couldn't do in Kill Bill. Remember how that scene where the little girl kills everyone is animated? They'd said they'd had to animate it because people couldn't handle a little girl committing so much violence. Well, in this movie it WORKED. She was brilliant. She was sassy, she was smart, she was strong. She was not sexualized in any way. She was never anything but a TOUGH, STRONG, GRRRL!
-
Again, if they didn't want to sexualize her, they need to take her out of outfits and costumes that are sexualized already.
-
...I swear to the Lord Alanis Morrissette herself, I have NEVER seen a movie receive this much advertising in the history of my short life. The KICK-ASS advertisements are EVERYWHERE! You cannot escape them. Every single major website on the internet has that same streaming ad where Kick-Ass is ripping his shirt open like Superman, Hit Girl is twirling that Butterfly knife, Big Daddy is thrusting a shotgun somewhere, and so on. Seriously, the amount of money the studio spent on advertisement must have been $1 BILLION dollars! Not even Avatar could touch the amount of advertisements here. I shall now bow down to the Kick-Ass advertisements, for they are the newest masters of the world.
-
(But the movie IS a hard R and I wouldn't let my 8 year old go see it. At all. It's a movie for grownups who want to enjoy the ultimate comic book movie: Spiderman meets Sin City)
-
What are you talking about? She's totally covered up and wears a wig so no one can see who she is. She's not dressed like some kind of slutty bimbo booby version that MOST comic book guys think a female superhero should be. She's dressed like a little girl who's gonna kick some serious ass and make Trinity from the Matrix look lame. They are advertising like crazy because it's a new franchise and doesn't have the Spiderman fan base. They're scared but willing to back up their investment with advertizing. Anyway. Go check it out before you criticize it. I had high expectations-- thought it would be good. It was the most fun superhero movie I've seen since the very first Spiderman came out. Remember that? That very first opening night? I remember thinking "oh yeah-- I forgot this is what a superhero movie could or should be." This movie does the same thing-- it changes things. And it's that great.
-
Skintight black leather and a schoolgirl short skirt ARE sexualized outfits already. I don't see how you can argue against that when there's such a strong prevalence of those costumes being sexualized in the media already. <p> I'm not knocking the movie or criticizing it, so no need to go into the whys and wherefores for why the movie is good; I'm speaking strictly about her costume.
-
..it's a fucking ridiculous concept to begin with. We've seen idiots like this one news and laughed at it's idiocy and pointlessness - now some tool wants to make a fucking movie about it? Go fuck yourselves Hollywood, your brains are incapable of coming up with good ideas, so you resort to complete stupidity that only a moron could get anything out of.
-
When I heard he liked "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor", my thoughts immediately turned to a quote from Brian Griffin: "Can I buy some pot from you?"
-
While I was reading through all this, a commercial for KICK ASS came on TV. It featured Hit Girl exclusively, said GIRLS KICK ASS, had a positive review from a female reviewer and featured The Banana Splits "Tralalalalalala" music in the background. It looks EXACTLY like a fun Kids movie until the Rated R warning at the end.<br /><br />I think Ebert went with this movie as far as he could, but ultimately had moral objections to its depiction of a young girl. He has a right to that opinion.
-
LOL. Don't tell him. He'd rather lose another body part to cancer then be labeled a right winger.
-
case closed.
-
Also known as one. One aisle with, like, an Iron Man costume and some Spidey Web-shooters. Not to say we don't all dream of glorious vigilantism, but lets not overstate the marketing of said fact.
-
I can't speak for everyone but I want to see this because I've read that Nic Cage delivers a great, quirky performance and the film is a great send up of comic books.
-
yes, because kick ass would still be in it, and kick ass, is well, yeah kick ass.
-
to this article, and thought it said "my friend Rodger Ebert is dead." Don't scare us like that, Harry."
-
If the young super hero was a little 11 year old boy? I only ask because we seem to have no problem with our boys doing things, but we are all still sexists that want to protect the strong-willed independant girl from kicking ass.
-
Minutes of my time, minutes of my precious life, here on earth. To say an insignificant message that probably won't get read by its attended, only probably by fellow dorks of mine scratching their head at this "editorial". I come to this site, not for you, Harry. You are its worst contributor, the people you have in your network are bright ...for the most part, and can at least string together cohesive thoughts. You, on the other hand, write with the tenacity of a self-destructive manic with a helmet strapped on. Ebert is not your friend, and I assure you any courtesy he extended to you was due to the changing cinematic scene. You insinuate he is out of touch, yet this man has REVIEWED DECADES OF MOVIES, SOME BEFORE YOU WERE BORN! He has gone through Godfather, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Cuckoos Nest, Badlands, Earth Girls Are Easy, Soap Dish, Schindlers List, Harold and Maud, Encino Man, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner...etc. He's been on the front lines before you were preparing to cry at Indiana Jones 4. You are a fucking blimp on the massive radar that is Eberts extensive cinema knowledge and expertise. You lambaste this man for his gods honest opinion because it does not coincide with yours. Shame on you. How shallow and insecure must you feel to fucking WRITE A WHOLE GODDAMN ARTICLE on your page because someone, thousands of miles away, suffering from a severely debilitation disease (that doesn't really matter folks, I know...but ain't it just the fucking CHERRY ON TOP!?), has a differing opinion on a movie other then yours. Either your a shill for money, or your just plain fucking ignorant. Get your ass out of that chair, and at the same time, your head out of your ass. Then maybe, just maybe, you might realize how much of a fucking idiotic dick you make yourself out to be, time, after time...after time. I have wasted minutes of my time lambasting someone I don't know, I don't regret it, and I'd do it again. You are the worst part of this site, Harry.
-
You absolutely can not make any valid argument on Kick-Ass when you're advertising Kick-Ass on your site. Get real. And you claim not to know it's advertised on your site? Do you even read you site?
-
Good show BSB ...I read your posts and I couldn't agree with you more. There is a saying that some things are better left to the imagination. I have seen some pretty sick and twisted shit but I really can't find an excuse to justify filmaking like Serbian Film or Red,White ,and Blue..Yeah I guess there is an audience for that kind of tripe but you won't find me there..I may very well enjoy Kick Ass though but from the ads that have been generated it doesn't look like they are looking for an older crowd..The reason these torture porn and rape fetish movies have become so prolific is simple..If there wasn't a demand for shit it wouldn't be served.. People are gulping this poor excuse for filmaking down and asking for seconds...It says a lot about how desensitized we have become to the violence in our world that is being foreced upon the young and not so young.. If people don't believe in the power of cinema and how much it really influences society all one needs to do is open their fucking eyes and wake up..This world is pretty much controled by the media these days and film is just one aspect of media's influene on our everyday lives.. Read my post in the Red. White and Blue talkback regarding the woman who lost her mind at the showing of it..I think it is pretty disturbing that the filmakers don't get it but if you read the talkback the majority of replys come down on the side of the woman. I hope this doesn't sound like a rant against violence in film but any film that implies or shows the unspeakable violence of infant rape is something that there is no defense for..
-
is pure garbage. Like reality shows. Like remakes of dumb old TV shows. It shows the complete lack of imagination our film industry has these days. How can watching someone's fingers get slowly cut off spurting blood be so entertaining for people? If you are making a so-called horror movie, add something that scares us. Something that is disturbing because we can't explain it or understand it. Something right at the edge of our imagination that terrifies us. There is nothing terrifying about seeing the same story of people captured and tortured over and over. I'm all for gore as part of the realism in scary movies, like The Thing in the 1980s, but you can take torture porn and shove it up your ass. While you are at it, take reality shows that bring out the worst traits of humanity and then raise them up like they are great (Survivor anyone?). Last but not least - go read a fucking book and realize you don't need a remake because there so so much fucking fiction now that totally rocks if you would just read a book and stop making sequels and remakes. Rant complete.
-
Who cares what he says, this is your site, just say what you think about the movie....this just shows me you ARE a puppet for the industry....good luck in life, im not coming here anymore, besides you are behind these days. Google news is on top of things now.
-
And she was dressed looking a little older than maybe she should have been. But as soon as she opens her mouth you can tell she's young. But she's not a kid. She's 13. Next year she'll be a freshman in high school, if she isn't already.<br /><br />Some of you are confusing the foul mouthed 11 year old she plays with the gawky 13 year old whose parents want her in bed by 9:30 that she is. I'm way more creeped out by what I've seen of Dakota Fanning in the ads for THE RUNAWAYS than I am by Hit Girl. If I feel differently after seeing KICK-ASS I'll say so.
-
Yes, I would. Because I love the premise of the comic book and the people involved. Even if Hit Girl had been removed from the comic book, still would have been interested. <P>Strangely, nobody seems to be trippin' on the fact that the title character is a High School student. The whole thing is just getting pre-Avatar weird for me. Where it seems like everybody has a holier-than-thou opinion about the thing before most of them have even seen it. Like I said above, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I have a lot of respect for that belief. But at this point I'm going to say I REALLY think more people need to see it before the get all indignant and self-righteous.
-
Everybody keep in mind how much Harry loves Asian cinema. Where ultra-violent extremism has been popular in cinema for quite a while now.
-
April 15, 2010, 11:22 p.m. CST
Let's establish this -It's not easy for a 10 year old to get a g
by Orionsangels
Unless they happen to live in hicksville. Yeah the Midwest. Where parents own guns for hunting and then some. Where kids grow up with guns being the norm around the house. Yeah, the reason why most school shootings take place in these midwest towns. You have children who grew up around guns and feel rejected by society + easy access to guns. That's a time bomb. That's why you get your Columbines. Notice that you rarely ever hear about a black or hispanic kid shooting his entire school up. The blacks and hispanics that live in the city already have access to guns and are selling drugs. No movie is gonna influence them to shoot anyone, especially when shootings are a common thing in your neighborhood. (Before anyone calls me racist. I don't mean all whites, blacks and hispanics do this) So what type of kid is left? The kids that grow up in nice neighborhoods with responsible parents and no access to guns. They'll see Kick-ass and wanna shoot people? Where will they even get a gun, not to mention they never fired gun in their entire life. There's a great episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit about kids, violence and guns. That lets an average kid shoot a real gun and it scares the crap out of him. That's the reality. There's a big difference between seeing a gun shot in a movie and actually holding a gun and shooting it. There's a perfect "Penn Says" for this occasion. Ebert should watch it - http://tinyurl.com/m6d4v8
-
I like Asian cinema too. I don't think that means I'm predisposed to enjoying violence for the sake of violence in cinema. It's all about context. I'm going to have see Kick-Ass for myself in order to judge it but there seems to be enough talented people involved in the production (more Matthew Vaughn than Mark Millar) that I feel like it isn't going to be exploitative. Millar does tend to go for shock value just for sales' sake, but from what I've read in Ambush Bug's review on AICN, Vaughn added a crucial element to the film that was missing in the comic book: hart.
-
I say no to that -ism. But hey, that's just my personal choice.
-
Seriously Harry, I thought he passed away. Shame on you. Also, this movie is for stupid people. That is all.
-
I don't buy soiled panties from a vending machine like I have seen in Japan..There are cultural differences there that are due to a repressed socity..I love Japanese samurai chambra fims like Lone Wolf series and Zatoichi which are very stylized violence but there is a huge difference between fantasy violence and torture porn..I hope if Harry was really serious about wanting to have a kid someday he should re-evaluate his stance on this type of filmaking (I'm not talking about Kick ass here). I speak as a parent of a now grown daughter and I can vouch for the influence that media has on the young and impressionable..Just look at the Mcdonalds happy meal ads and what has happened with childhood obesity. Look at Hanna Montana and the billion dollar industry it created. Still don't believe in the power of the media...Look anywhere it's there..
-
...wearing their sunglasses at night would make it even more difficult to fight crime. A couple things....<P>I'm not a huge lover of Asian cinema, which is really a conversation for another time. But the few examples I've seen that were meant to relate to my above comment often seemed violent simply for the shock value of showing how violent they could be. Kick-Ass is no different in that regard, and it's less violent. I've seen the movie and I mentioned to somebody else up above that if you've read the comic and it didn't do anything for you I'm not sure how much the movie will change that. There's not a lot of difference, and not a lot of heart, either. I think I know what that could refer to, and maybe it just pulls at the heartstrings more than it did in the comic. I don't want to spoil anything though so I'll leave that alone. I should say somewhere along here that I don't hate Millar, either. I think he's an easy target right now. Many other writers have done the same kind of books to far lesser affect, in a far less interesting way. But I'm also a Warren Ellis GEEK! And I love Garth Ennis. So maybe it's just a personal preference kinda thing. Regardless of all that - I still think more people need to see the movie before they decide how it's some disgusting abomination.
-
I respect what you're saying, and I don't have kids (nor will I ever, I wouldn't be good at it). But if I was a parent and I had a problem with childhood obesity and Hannah Montana, I wouldn't take my kid to McDonald's or let them listen/watch that crap. I mentioned a few times in this talkback that I think a lot of the points people are making are the a parents responsibility, not that of a movie maker or any other kind of entertainer. I also find it interesting that nobody commented on my statement about small children holding game controllers while violently shooting people. Something much more real, that they are actually in control of, than watching a movie. But hey, like I said, no kids here. <P>In my defense, I guess, I think I should mention that I haven't read the Serbian Film... Movie.. whatever it was called, column. I actually thought it was a feature about movies from Serbia and wasn't interested in that in the slightest. Now I'm really unsure whether I want to read the column or not as I do, believe it or not, have a threshold myself. Sounds as if that one might cross it.
-
If it doesn't feel right to investigate Serbian Film, then don't. Trust me, it seems like something designed from the ground up to test and satisfy the "hardest of the hardcore." Back to the topic at hand: when I say violence in film is all about "context," I also mean the author's content. I don't mind extreme violence in films as long as I sense that there's a general empathy coming from the filmmaker. It's the difference between David Cronenberg and someone like Marcus Nispel, it's the difference between "Kill Bill" and some of the cheap-o Japanese productions that are all about rape and bloodletting for the sake of rape and bloodletting. Filmmakers can assault me with the most violent imagery imaginable as long as I know that there's intellect and heart behind it. And that's usually not something that's hard to discern right away. That's why the current rash of Japanese shock cinema like Machine Girl and Tokyo Gore Police pales in comparison to the films that Shinya Tsukamoto did twenty years ago. They're braindead in comparison.
-
I lolled at that one
-
someone else beat me to the sicko punch
-
That makes a lot of sense and I agree with it (even though I hate the Kill Bill's with such a passion). Judging by what you're saying I actually think you may really enjoy Kick-Ass.<P>I just went to see if the Serbian Film column was still up, but I never got past the Red, White & Blue piece. I think I'll leave the Serbian Film column alone now. lol
-
Looks cool.
-
While Ebert might not necessarily "get" what Kick Ass is playing at ultimately his concerns are perfectly valid considering the abysmal job many people do with their kids' access to media. This is not a movie for children so a debate about kids seeing this movie is about as insightful as one about them seeing this Serbian film that everyone is apoplectic about at the moment. Trying to rationalize that this film is probably going to be ok for certain kids is dumb. It's made for adults, and probably adults of a particular sensibility in their love of movies and pop culture. Why can't that niche be carved out for the movie absent some completely idiotic defense of the movie as being ok for SOME kids. It just isn't. It's rated R and this isn't some dipshit 80's R movie with snowbunny boobs for a split second. Heaping helpings of ultraviolence don't need to be on a kids menu when it can be avoided and there are more appropriate options. Defend the movie from criticism legitimately but don't prop it up as something that it's not. People contemplating taking their pre-teens or younger kids to this are dumb as rocks. That doesn't mean I don't want to see it yesterday.
-
First, I haven't seen the movie. I'm going to, but I know exactly what I'm getting into. This talkback has become about something else entirely. A. Roger's review-He can get off his damn soapbox. You don't have to agree with a films content to write a non-bias review. He has valid points-but poor execution. B. All this bs about Hit-girl being sexualized. You know what the creepiest part is? The thought didn't enter most people's minds unless you're looking for it. C. Oh the youth of America...whatever will they do when they see this movie? Really? Last time I checked a two-hour movie is not responsible for the way kids react in real life. Parents are responsible. Don't like it? Don't take your kids and/or be involved in their lives. It's not hollywoods job to raise your kids!
-
Comparing Kick Ass to Treasure Island... talking about Ebert's childhood... Christ.
-
April 16, 2010, 12:40 a.m. CST
Harry Please Bitch about my “Expendables” I need the hits
by james4543
http://www.fanboyweb.com/?p=4
-
I think you get where I was going with this and yes ...You should probably stay away from the Serbian Film talkback.. I didn't even post there... Oh the Humanity!!
-
This movie.
-
is "sexual"? Really?
-
...only that "Watchmen" has a much better stoty to tell.
-
Like you two have a beer, chat on aim or facebook? Give each other a ring on regular basis or is it really just a relationship of necessity because of the line of work you are both in and you've had a few encounters and mutual admiration? Or is there bad blood where words of dislike for each other have traded via hear say? Sorry I am just curious but the context of what you write I agree with in that the movie is awesome and it's just a silly reason to dislike a movie because of the moral implications but on the other hand I am wondering what the true relations are between the two of you. Since you did open that can of worms and it's hard to know how you really feel about the guy.
-
I'm surprised Harry would even watch Kick Ass unless Hit Girl gets raped until she dies from it. Doing that would, I don't know, have some deep meaning about Serbia, or Austin, Texas. Who knows, both are the same place.
-
Can parents be charged for taking their children to underage movies, in the same way adults can be charged for providing alcohol to minors ?
-
How will those within it react when the movie bombs? Will they spin the figures to make a case for relative profitability while downplaying the connection that box office has with quality by bringing up helpful examples like Transformers 2?
-
That made me laugh. Anyway, box office totals really have nothing to do with the quality of a movie, only it's level of financial success. There are great movies these days that never even make it to theaters. They have exactly zero box office. Doesn't mean they aren't good movies. If you're judging a movie solely based on it's box office, it is of course possible that Kick-Ass might have a small take... which I guess would actually make you right! Congratulations! No, but seriously. This movie isn't going to bomb, so your question to how those within "the Kick-Ass community" will react doesn't need to be addressed.
-
...so lets all come back here on Monday and discuss. Shall we?
-
...of a young girl need to take a look at yourselves very closely! EVERYTHING has been sexualised by someone somewhere at some point in time. i feel normal superhero costumes have been used enough, and in an infinite number of situations to be considered 'normal'. and if you sick fucks relate that to sexual use then you are the ones CREATING that impression. in YOUR heads. i see a superhero. and so do most normal people. YOUR the problem.
-
Yes, Watchmen was a better film than this and also critics hated it.
-
just saw it at the Arclight here in Hollywood. Great crowd, great film, and I can guess the temp score easily by the new one...
-
need to go to a shrink. need to really, really fucking look at themselves in a mirror. just like many public homophobes are homosexuals, you might be a pedo, you sick, sick individual.
-
if you saw wanted, you've seen this film. same writer, same tone, same over-the-top michael bay-like feel. a shame, i would have liked to see a story like this but ya know, in a world that felt real. what's the point of making a film like this if the city you're "normal joe" lives in feels fake. i disagree with ebert on hit girl critique since she and cage seemed the only ones that knew how to play the material but everyone else is so boring. mark strong plays a mob boss like every other mob boss you've ever seen. mclovin has nothing to do. and so on and so on. there's no controversy with this film because the script can't root the action into anything relatable. i'm sure fanboys will love it but i was pretty bored. just felt really obvious. and the jokes are too HA HA! instead of the type that go in under the radar.
-
And let's be honest. This should be pg13. Yes it is consistently violent, but the comic wink and cartoonesk execution is only half as brutal, half as bloody and half as gory as in the comics. But still manages to make the violent sudden and intense. The audience I saw it with loved the movie. Cheering and roaring with laughter at all the right moments and cringing in all the right places. I think it's a perfect satire.
-
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Damn, I really felt like lying down with a good book, but this TB has actually pissed me off. Hit Girl sexualized? Really?? It's in the eye of the beholder buddy. What she does is steal the show with an outrageously entertaining performance. Does she show skin? Does she flirt? Does she even acknowledge sex besides some four letter words that are never used in a sexual context? Oh my god, she wore a schoolgirl outfit. Guess who else wears schoolgirl outfits? FUCKING SCHOOLGIRLS! Clearly you enjoy porn with schoolgirl outfits, and now associate that with apparently every girl who wears a schoolgirl outfit. God help you if you happen to walk by a Catholic elementary school around 2 pm when the kiddies are getting out. Wait until you see how many of those 5-12 year-olds are dressing like porn stars. It's a serious crisis. Hit Girl does not show skin. She is not flirted with. She is not sexualized. She is a badass. If you like watching badass killing machines, you are going to think she's cool. Which is what the kid who mentions that he's going to save himself for her is expressing. That line is him saying, wow, she is the most badass little girl I've ever seen. I want to see how she turns out. And he is immediately dissed by his friends for it. The bottom line is yes the movie is gleefully violent. But perverse???? You are honestly fucking nuts to think that. Hit Girl will be talked about because she is an instantly iconic character. The only people concerned about her sex appeal are the ones who are finding her sexy, which I'm quite sure is difficult to detect if you are a well-adjusted human being. As for Ebert's review, I can see Harry's frustration because he does not address the quality of the movie. At the very least, it is often funny, well-paced with many innovative action sequences, and features a slew of tricky self-aware performances. This should not warrant a one-star review. oh, and just one more time, it's YOUR problem if you're finding anything sexy in Hit Girl. Re: Marketing. Some decent points have been made in this department, but I'm not sure what could have been done to show how violent the movie was going to be, short of showing onscreen violence, which obviously is not an option. So take that shit up with the MPAA. Remember, there were red-band trailers too. Not to mention the movie is rated R.
-
I repeat, NOTHING! And why would I want my jokes "under the Radar"? Siiiigh... never mind. Time for a book and some sleep.
-
April 16, 2010, 2:49 a.m. CST
OK..blue moon and balancing destroying pills
by Flying Spaghetti Monster
have got the best of me...but isn't it funny how in every Harry post he replies to the first couple of Talk backers then vanishes? I mean i know this is his attempt to "appear connected" but it seems so forced. I'm sure this has been mentioned before bt I'm too fucked up to care. Is harry now a caricature of what he once started out as? Is breakfast the best tasting meal of the day? Fuck you for reading this.
-
You mean you don't want to see your over-the-top Mark Millar comic adaptations made into mumblecore flicks? You suck at watching movies. haha. Too lazy to scroll up to see who complained about no "under the radar" jokes. What a douche.
-
What are you babbling about? Please make your attempted insults coherent so I can respond with as much ease as possible. Thanks buddy. "haha"
-
hope it's not a spoiler for people who've not yet seen the film, but where was november rain used in the workprint?
-
I'm on your side. I was making fun of the guy who wanted the jokes to be "under the radar." There were no attempted insults toward you, which is probably why they were incoherent.
-
My sleep deprived brain is no longer hitting on all cylinders at the moment (see several of my other recent posts here at AICN). I completely missed the internet sarcasm (which I love). Apologies. Makes perfect sense now that I re-read it.
-
...told Ebert the scene where Hit Girl gets her ass kicked was supposed to be played for laughs? Did he lose his sanity along with most of his jaw?
-
I'm not a fan. I saw it about a week ago, and feel that it runs too long, its marketing doesn't sell it accurately enough, and while I don't mind the uber-violence, the balance is a bit off between whether its ironic, Tarantino-esque violence or emotionally affecting violence. But the performances were good, the absolute highlight being Hit-Girl. Should make a superhero movie about her and Big Daddy alone.
-
And Roger Ebert is right.. kick ass? More like lames ass! I'm tired of movies that are trying to be cool for the purpose of just being cool. No substance and horrid dialogue
-
Oh, wait, that isn't humanly possible. Never mind then. Oh well, at least it's blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes in their head whenever AICN has been bought out and the word has come down that a given film must be hyped and praised ad nauseum on the site by all concerned. You know, except for that one 'lukewarm' review, to give the appearance of balance. <p>So, no breaking news anymore, reviews that you can't trust, or which most of the time aren't even well written or interesting, an abundance of news postings that are little more than an excuse for laying out Amazon links en masse, and a staff that largely consists of those who have sold their souls for "internet fame", and those who are so laughably inept that no other semi-professional site would touch them, let alone have them on staff. I swear, if it wasn't for the talkbacks this site would have gone under long ago now. I've been around since the site wasn't even a proper website, but was just harry randomly posting about 'cool news and rumours', but even so about the only entertainment value I get from this place is from the talkbacks, which is pretty sad when you think about what this site used to be. Anyway whiny rant over, carry on.
-
than seeing it for a sexualized little girl. They should monitor anyone who buys a ticket for this movie since there is no real acceptable motivation.
-
is not sexualizing her at all. What were we thinking.
-
for the likes of Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Liz & Dick Cheney, Il Dong Kim, and a host of tyrants too numerous to mention.
-
It was Harry's guest stint on At the Movies that made me check out the website. I wasn't particularly impressed by Harry's reviews on At the Movies...but I was just curious. Ebert extended Harry a great honor by letting him sit in Siskel's coveted seat. And Harry has now repaid him with this horribly insulting and condescending article where he rips on this man for simply having an opinion on a movie that Harry doesn't like. <p> Having opinions about movies is something Ebert has done for years, and I'm sure he's met nutcases throughout the years who have objected to his opinions...so he might be used to it to some degree. But it's pretty disgraceful for a guy whom he gave national attention to and helped advertise his website to piss all over him because he disagrees with one of his reviews.
-
Let me throw in something I found interesting. A while ago, a politician called Saxby Chamblis released an advert featuring his family. At the end of it, his granddaughter sits on his lap, and his hand is in front of her.<br /><br />A political website I read went into nuclear meltdown. Approximately half the readership claimed he was a pedophile, and the girls lack of reaction meant she had been "groomed" for years.<br /><br />The other half (the saner half, imo) said "WTF are you talking about? That's just how you'd hold a kid if they sat on your lap."<br /><br />The insane half promptly accused the sane half of being blind, gullible, or pedo's themselves.<br /><br />What was interesting, was that this sane/insane division didn't split the audience along political lines. It wasn't like Republicans thought one thing, and Democrats thought another. It was just a 50% split. Each group couldn't understand the point of view of the other. Each group was convinced the other group had something seriously wrong with them.<br /><br />The Hit-Girl sexualisation thing reminds me very much of that.<br /><br />Some people think she's sexualised. Some think she's not. Each thinks there's something wrong with the other. It's a waste of time trying to convince the others of your inherent "rightness".<br /><br />From a sociological point of view, I think there's something deeper going on here.
-
<p>...for his review of Kick-Ass but you openly supported the raoe and murder of an infant by promoting A Serbian Film?</p> <p>Fuck you, you hypocritical cunt. Kill yourself.</p>
-
but I think you know what I'm referring to. Hypocrisy, my man.
-
pretty much says it all. Sometimes the guy just COMPLETELY misses the point. Oh yeah, he's also basically a communist, so fuck him...
-
I saw that video you mention on failblog. The kid isn't just sitting on his lap...he grabs her chest in the end. It looks like an honest mistake, however...the fail is moreso with the directors of the video who didn't catch it and do another take. Here's the video: <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqFyFeNDkI0
-
Idiot.
-
Sure it made a salient point, one that crusty ol' Ebert should take to heart, but that was pretty mean.
-
So know Harry isn't writing reviews he taken to blasting reviewers for not agreeing with him... shame Harry! At least Roger at put in the time. He's spent the better part of his life in film reviews so I think he's earned the right to take the moral high ground on this one. Hey Harry! Fuck You!
-
Yeah, he does grab his Granddaughter’s chest at the end, though it has to have been inadvertent…. But the BEST is that he has her announce “Vote for my Big Daddy!” just before he cops the feel. Lovely.
-
April 16, 2010, 8:21 a.m. CST
Notice the emphasis of the word THIS when he grabs her boobs
by BumLove
"I sure do approve of THIS message" WONK WONK!
-
He's chellenging the logic of everyone who feels the same way. It makes sense that Harry uses Ebert's review as a debate point since it has the biggest complaint for the movie. And the debate is relevant because it can effect upcomming movies with the same theme. Harry was right to make a counter-point, even though his argument is lacking.
-
Since Harry has reduced himself to endorsing torture porn, I don't believe he has the credentials to question Robert Ebert. While I disagree with Eberts opinion on the film, I will go into the movie with his review in mind instead of Harrys.
-
www.sonofkermode. blogspot. com my film blog, if you want to take a look at my two cents on kick ass. Just remove the spaces.
-
At the idea of 6 year old Harry, nodding solemnly in agreement with Siskel and Ebert talking Scorsese. And 4 year old Harry, jotting down notes on non-linear story-telling as he sat patiently through The Godfather Part 2. What cinematic gems did you hear while you were in utero, Harry? And I think at today's prices, I'll skip Kick Ass and go watch Leon again with the original and vastly superior Hit Girl, Natalie Portman.
-
Take a look at this article: http://www.manolith.com/2009/08/05/15-movie-and-tv-imitations-that-went-terribly-wrong/
-
It was a action movie satire and suffered from the same thing, which Ebert mentions. Not the violence, but after Arnold and the kid step out in the real world and Arnolds character stumbles on a couple cliches not working in reality, they end the movie with pretty cliched movie action, that wouldn't work in reality.
-
Opening this weekend:<p>Death At A Funeral:3 and a 1/2 stars<p>Kick Ass:1 star<p>Hey everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I think Ebert's lost it.
-
So you think Ebert's lost his opinion....but you consider Harry Knowles a rock of solid movie criticism? Do you think Ebert should start writing articles about other reviewers whom he disagrees with, discussing their childhoods, their history of movie reviewing in some grand egotistical movie review sniping? This seems right to you?
-
He really did not get this at all. And I consider him a giant (no pun intended) in the field of film criticism. This was brutal, wicked fun. A must-see to those who lurk in these talkbacks.
-
LAH failed on every level, where Kick-Ass succeeds. After the buildup (in my mind) of how grotesque the violence was in KA based on reviews around here, the reality was a bit if a let down, in a good way.
-
April 16, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST
And if you see anything sexual about HitGirl, you are looking fo
by vic twenty
She is a child trained to be a killing machine. That's it. Dad treats her like a grownup when it comes to killing/training but very mucha little girl the rest of the time.
-
...the "morality police" are not the ones responsible for all of the toy guns being taken out of stores. You have your libtard friends at the Brady Center and other bastions of political correctness to thank for that.
-
Britain has 200 people between its coasts, and among them they have 13 clean teeth.
-
April 16, 2010, 10:45 a.m. CST
PROOF THAT HARRY CAN UNDERSTAND MOVIES AS A CHILD
by Arcadian Del Sol
He loved Fatso.
-
No, no, no. The difference between the reviewing skills of Mr. Ebert and Mr. Knowles are not just night and day, but night and Pluto. (An earlier post I made reference to Harry "chocolate covered pussy juice" Knowles) And Harry's column defending Kick Ass against Ebert's review is odd at the least.<p>Just saying though, given the choice of the two major releases (KickAss & Death At Funeral) this weekend, I couldn't be more diametrically opposed to Mr. Ebert's opinion if I tried.
-
Here's my breakdown of it all, not that you care - <p>I applaud Ebert for going with his gut and saying how he felt. We're brainwashed these days to just, 'go with it', no matter how fucked up and uncomfortable something makes us feel. It's part of a long-term conditioning, I think, to make you accept basically any idea the media, politicians, and corporations want to put into our heads (and no, I'm not wearing aluminum foil on my head). They all want to sell you on something, shit is generally agreed on by powerful people behind closed doors, and they really do not give a shit who gets hurt in the process. In my opinion, Ebert was reacting to a kind of demoralizing baseness that we're starting to see come to fruition from the tail-end of my generation (born in 77) and then the incoming generation, which I think suffered a great deal at the hands of their overbearing parents and often seem to not have the tools to comprehend the world in a way that makes moral sense (and I'm talking purely - yeah, don't depict baby-fucking because someone might KILL YOU for even showing it). Sure a lot of fucked up barbaric shit has happened well before our time, but this is something else... a kind of obliviousness to any kind of morality. Harry is CLEARLY a perfect example of this... so I guess it's maybe a late 60's up to the present kind of a phenomenon? Just this sniveling, fucking shithead, lack of morality, integrity, work ethic, and any kind of sensitivity to the hurt of others. That Red, White, and Blue screening is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Like, "hey man, you're square for not 'getting' this."
-
I don't think this film will contribute to the coarsening of the culture. C-SPAN will, but this won't.
-
kiefer is one of his guests tonight. after hitting london to talk about the final season of 24. He went into a strip club at 10.30 pm and was asked to leave 4.30 am after getting paraltyically drunk.
-
I love that movie. It's one of the most fun, quotable flicks of the 90's. The Hamlet parody ranks as one of the best comedic bits I've seen since then. Sure, the movie has its flaws (mostly the kid) but it's still highly underrated.
-
Even if the movie is meant for adults...I don't think "anything goes" should be okay for adults, either. Being opposed to films that cross certain boundaries doesn't mean you're a right/left extremist who supports censorship, or a wuss who just can't take it, or someone who "just doesn't get it". Society should have standards. It's not just about what we watch....but what we applaud and cheer, and revel in. To me...having attended previous films which were largely attended by geeks...the greater offense was not JUST the morally questionable material I watched in a certain instance...it was the fact that it was cheered on by the audience. <p> Some people think it's cool in movies to push the boundaries in terms of just how low the bar can be set. Fill a theater full of geeks, show something that is about as low as you can possibly imagine...but add in fast music, and cool quips to let them know it's supposed to be cool...and geeks will whoop it up and cheer, and those in the audience who are disgusted and offended will likely keep it to themselves out of fear of being viewed as "lame" by other geeks....which in itself is ironic.
-
Have you realised what a bunch of nincompoops you were being stressing out over this movie? It's not the most amazingly deep or entertaining movie in the world, but it's hardly an exploitation/Grindhouse flick.
-
"Why my friend, Robert Ebert is dead" and got a little bit freaked out! It just seemed rather tasteless...but not as tasteless and useless as this movie!!!
-
Harry, are you so tired of people dogging your reviews that you will now tell someone else that their opinion is wrong? <p> I took Ebert's review quite differently. Rather than object that children ought not see the pic, that the creators are indifferent to the suffering of children. As people mature and suffer tragedy, they become less tolerant of callous disregard of innocence. <p> For me it's like the end of Blade Runner, when Roy develops a respect for life, any life. He saves Deckerd. When you've suffered, you don't want to see a child suffer, even fictional children harmed their fictional fathers, or by callous disregard of the film-creators. <p> Go back and reread Ebert's review after you have children of your own.
-
...666th post. Now I'll go back and catch up on whats been said.
-
I'd hate to see what would've happened if John Waters released Pink Flamingos during now, instead of 40 years ago. He would have been strung up, drawn and quartered...
-
Harry is pretty much right. Movie critics shouldn't be the moral police, the film is a lot of fun. Much better then the comic too boot.
-
Ebert has a long history of disowning films for vague moral reasons. See his Blue Velvet review for a great example of this. He then generally gets quite defensive/dismissive when someone questions him on it, once again see the Siskel and Ebert Review of Blue Velvet. I enjoy him as a critic but I really hate when he writes super shallow reviews like these.
-
April 16, 2010, 1:11 p.m. CST
i remember being as shocked as anyone by the brutal murder of Ja
by emeraldboy
I know I get kicked around here for my long posts and bad spelling. But just wanted you all to know that when james bulger died, I saw through the hysterical reaction of the right wing middle-englander press, who wanted to ban and burn every copy of the first chucky movie they could get thier hands on. I damn well knew, things were not as simple as the british press were making things out to be. a lot of people were proven that the killers of jamie bulger came from broken homes, that was something the press did not want to investigate at the time, instead the right wing press picked up on the fact that one of the two killers were watching childsplay at the time. The mail lauched its ban this sick flick campaign and child play was banned from both cinemas and tv for a decade as was any over violent film. natural born killers was also banned as was crash. chris tookeys response was hysterical and he called for all for sony products to be banned. idiot. finally re harrys article about roger ebert. this is the same harry knowles who allowed his nephew to watch the original texas chainsaw massacre. one of the most violent films ever made. he shouldnt be lecturing a sick old man about his taste in movies. especially when harry likes movie like robo-giesha.
-
I've used that same argument! People always go, well Pink Flamingos was suppose to be funny and not taken seriously. I totally agree with you though.
-
where she hunts an ex-cia agent and his preteen daughter,because the father trained the girl to be a killer.check the news: <p>http://tinyurl.com/y7xgjem
-
Not only did Ebert go to university and get a degree, he also has long a distinguished career in Chicago sun times. Where he learned to craft what he wrote. ebert doesnt strike as someone comes out with any old rubbish. Any writer worth their salt will tell you draft what you write.
-
is the editorial process.
-
You're comparing "Kick-Ass" to more serious films like "Taxi Driver?" There's a difference between a guilt-free bloodbath and something that more accurately depicts the complexity of the real world. Not a fair comparison to make Harry. I haven't seen "Kick-Ass" but if it's anything like "Wanted" I can most certainly sympathize with Ebert's review. And since when did you start reviewing other reviewers' reviews? I could call you out on a hundred reviews I don't agree with, but what's the point, THEY'RE YOUR OPINIONS. Let Ebert have his.
-
"At the movies, we are gradually being conditioned to accept violence as a sensual pleasure. The directors used to say they were showing us its real face and how ugly it was in order to sensitize us to its horrors. You don't have to be very keen to see that they are now in fact de-sensitizing us. They are saying that everyone is brutal, and the heroes must be as brutal as the villains or they turn into fools. There seems to be an assumption that if you're offended by movie brutality, you are somehow playing into the hands of the people who want censorship. But this would deny those of us who don't believe in censorship the use of the only counterbalance: the freedom of the press to say that there's anything conceivably damaging in these films -- the freedom to analyze their implications. If we don't use this critical freedom, we are implicitly saying that no brutality is too much for us -- that only squares and people who believe in censorship are concerned with brutality. Actually, those who believe in censorship are primarily concerned with sex, and they generally worry about violence only when it's eroticized. This means that practically no one raises the issue of the possible cumulative effects of movie brutality. Yet surely, when night after night atrocities are served up to us as entertainment, it's worth some anxiety. We become clockwork oranges if we accept all this pop culture without asking what's in it. How can people go on talking about the dazzling brilliance of movies and not notice that the directors are sucking up to the thugs in the audience?"
-
Best Supporting Actor - Nick Cage for Kick Ass?
-
WS, actually it's usually far more effective NOT to show the violence. Of course, the ear-cutting scene in RESERVOIR DOGS is a famous example but how about that moment in OUT OF SIGHT when Steve Zahn's character accompanies a bunch of true sickos on a home invasion and the whole sequence plays out just looking at his horrified eyes.<p> Contrast that with the stupid close-up kill shots in films like HOSTEL and SAW, where the audience cheers in grossed out appreciation. It's kinda lame isnt it?<p> It doesnt sound like KICK ASS warrants being categorized amongst the torture porn genre though (admittedly I havent seen it)... but it does seem a little sad to involve an 11 year old child in an ultra violent flick.
-
April 16, 2010, 2:37 p.m. CST
Harry Thesis: You're Too Late Kids Are Already Fucked Up.
by cookylamoo
Which I'll support. But the best part was Harry assertion that Dr. Werheim's anti-comics crusade led directly to the rise of the flower power movement. Right ON! Man.
-
Dark is in these days.
-
If this wasn't aimed at kids, why are virtually all the lead players adolescent? Why do all the ads make it look like Spy Kids? And etc. I can see having kids be the leads in a comic book satire of comic books. Comics these days are almost wholly aimed at emotionally stunted adults, so you can get away with the mix of immature characters and ultra-violence. That's because the audience is limited. Most kids aren't really interested in comics these days (what kid wants to push through the grown geeks at the comics shops to get to what they want anyway?). But movies with colorful characters in costumes have a much wider audience. Kids who would have never even heard (or had interest in) the comic are going to be willing to kill to see the movie. THAT's the problem--two different audences.
-
And there's nothing wrong with being "a grown up." You can be a grown up and still appreciate shallow, immature po culture stuff--the difference is that as a true adult you KNOW it's shallow, immature stuff. Emotionally stunted adults and children just suck in whatever comes as long as it goes technicolor boom.
-
comic books. they are graphic novels. one recent example is a graphic novel about the 1916 rising.
-
teenage kids. rent lance dalys kisses.
-
that he never read comic books as a child he read books and lots of them. he was after all an only child.
-
April 16, 2010, 3:24 p.m. CST
"but it does seem a little sad to involve an 11 year old child i
by axelfoley
Ironically enough, Robocop 2 had a foul mouthed little bastard named "Hobb" and though it was 20 years and much political correctness ago, the majority of Ebert's problem with the second robocop was the movie that kid in the first place! And Roger Ebert could've worn Kimonos and toured with Gwen Stefani for all I care, let's not judge the guy just because he doesn't cream over Kick-Ass. Again, he called Spider-Man 2 the greatest superhero movie ever made. So he doesn't hate comic book movies, he has a taste for the ones done right! Or at least one of them.......
-
I'm not saying Kick-Ass is not good because Ebert wasn't big on it. As much clout as the man has in movie critic-iticity, it all boils down to an opinion. Last I checked we do the same thing here every day.
-
Mr. Ebert would call Harry his friend. How can such an eloquent writer like Ebert be friends with such a hack????
-
jesus! they're attacking Roger Ebert for giving it a negative review, how dare he do the job in the manner he as for the past 30? 40 years?
-
this is not the first time harry attacked ebert. ebert must have done or said something to offend harry when he's co-reviewing on ebert's show. that's the only conclusion i could come to.
-
Cmon man you cant post on a geek site like this and make that kind of blunder! Cage won the Best Actor Oscar for his epic, PROFOUND performance in Leaving Las Vegas. Of course after that his career was never quite the same again (The Rock, Con Air, Cptn Corelli's Mandolin and on and on).
-
I must have forgot about that one.
-
Listen, I totally agree that people are allowed to have their own opinions of movies, but why are people bashing Harry for writing his opinion of Ebert’s review. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to knock Harry for disagreeing with Ebert’s opinion just because it is Ebert’s own “opinion”? If Ebert’s’ allowed to have an opinion about Kick-Ass, then why isn’t Harry allowed to have an opinion on Ebert’s review. Just because it’s a review doesn’t mean it’s above criticism. I for one saw an advanced screening of Kick-Ass earlier this week and really enjoyed it. Is it on of the greatest comic book films ever made no, but is it a really good comic book film, hell yeah it is! I personally had no issue with Hit Girl being so young and so violent, because in the end it is a film made from a fucking comic book. We have to suspend some kind of disbelief. Plus, lets not act like we haven’t seen worse in films before. Ebert couldn’t get past the fact that this young girl was able to commit these violent acts and he’s entitled to feel that way, but I’m also entitled to disagree, and say I had no problem with it. My issues with the film were minor, I felt like some of the characters could have used a little more development, and there were a few stiff line deliveries that bothered me here and there. I could go into more detail but I’m not reviewing the film. In the end I thought Kick-Ass was an awesome and fun film. It’s easily one of the better comic book films to come in a long time, but it did have the potential to be an even better comic book film. p.s. Let’s stop ripping Harry for being a Fanboy, so what if he is. I have screenings with press all the time and most of these old cronies that people respect are mean old bastard that go into the film wanting to hate it. Most of the time I can tell you what their reviews will be before they write them just because their so fucking irritated before they even watch the movie. Harry may be a Fanboy, but at least he loves what he does. He loves to watch movies and doesn’t complain about having to do so, and lets face it he has a job that most of us would kill for, I know I would. You can read Harry’s reviews and take them with a grain of salt if you want, but don’t tell me they’re not fun reads, and if you want to keep bashing him for being a Fanboy then just stop reading his reviews. p.s. Let’s stop ripping Harry for being a Fanboy, so what if he is. I have screenings with press all the time and most of these old cronies that people respect are mean old bastard that go into the film wanting to hate it. Most of the time I can tell you what their reviews will be before they write them just because their so fucking irritated before they even watch the movie. Harry may be a Fanboy, but at least he loves what he does. He loves to watch movies and doesn’t complain about it, and lets face it he has a job that most of us would kill for, I know I would. You can read Harry’s reviews and take them with a grain of salt if you want to, but don’t tell me they’re not fun reads, and if you want to keep bashing him for being a Fanboy then just stop reading the reviews. Listen, I totally agree that people are allowed to have their own opinions of movies, but why are people bashing Harry for writing his opinion of Ebert’s review. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to knock Harry for disagreeing with Ebert’s opinion just because it is Ebert’s own “opinion”? If Ebert’s’ allowed to have an opinion about Kick-Ass, then why isn’t Harry allowed to have an opinion on Ebert’s review. Just because it’s a review doesn’t mean it’s above criticism. I for one saw an advanced screening of Kick-Ass earlier this week and really enjoyed it. Is it on of the greatest comic book films ever made no, but is it a really good comic book film, hell yeah it is! I personally had no issue with Hit Girl being so young and so violent, because in the end it is a film made from a fucking comic book. We have to suspend some kind of disbelief. Plus, lets not act like we haven’t seen worse in films before. Ebert couldn’t get past the fact that this young girl was able to do these violent acts and he’s entitled to feel that way, but I’m also entitled to disagree, and say I had no problem with it. My issues with the film were minor, I felt like some of the characters could have used a little more development, and there were a few stiff line deliveries that bothered me here and there. In the end I thought Kick-Ass was awesome. It’s easily one of the better comic book films to come in a long time, but it did have the potential to be one of the greatest comic book films. Listen, I totally agree that people are allowed to have their own opinions of movies, but why are people bashing Harry for writing his opinion of Ebert’s review. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to knock Harry for disagreeing with Ebert’s opinion just because it is Ebert’s own “opinion”? If Ebert’s’ allowed to have an opinion about Kick-Ass, then why isn’t Harry allowed to have an opinion on Ebert’s review. Just because it’s a review doesn’t mean it’s above criticism. I for one saw an advanced screening of Kick-Ass earlier this week and really enjoyed it. Is it on of the greatest comic book films ever made no, but is it a really good comic book film, hell yeah it is! I personally had no issue with Hit Girl being so young and so violent, because in the end it is a film made from a fucking comic book. We have to suspend some kind of disbelief. Plus, lets not act like we haven’t seen worse in films before. Ebert couldn’t get past the fact that this young girl was able to commit these violent acts and he’s entitled to feel that way, but I’m also entitled to disagree, and say I had no problem with it. My issues with the film were minor, I felt like some of the characters could have used a little more development, and there were a few stiff line deliveries that bothered me here and there. I could go into more detail but I’m not reviewing the film. In the end I thought Kick-Ass was an awesome and fun film. It’s easily one of the better comic book films to come in a long time, but it did have the potential to be an even better comic book film. p.s. Let’s stop ripping Harry for being a Fanboy, so what if he is. I have screenings with press all the time and most of these old cronies that people respect are mean old bastard that go into the film wanting to hate it. Most of the time I can tell you what their reviews will be before they write them just because their so fucking irritated before they even watch the movie. Harry may be a Fanboy, but at least he loves what he does. He loves to watch movies and doesn’t complain about having to do so, and lets face it he has a job that most of us would kill for, I know I would. You can read Harry’s reviews and take them with a grain of salt if you want, but don’t tell me they’re not fun reads, and if you want to keep bashing him for being a Fanboy then just stop reading his reviews.
-
I used to share Harry's views but now that I've seen western civilization completely collapse into a pathetic herd of moronic, narcissistic monkeys totally devoid of any morals or respect for other humans, I gotta side with Ebert.
-
that got pasted a few times lol sorry guys.
-
The first time I have ever agreed with Harry about anything! Well maybe the overall judgement of a movie here or there. I just never thought it would happen. I hope this stream of thought (what else can you call Harry's writing) opens people's eyes to the fact that Roger is becoming increasingly unreliable as a reviewer. He's all over the place. It's like a friend who liked The Dark Knight telling you that The Garbage Pail Kids is also awesome. I used to read Roger, James Berardinelli and Masawyrm. I dropped Roger when nearly every review was in opposition to the other tried and true reviewers. A reviewer is entitled to his opinion, that's the whole damn point, but when their opinion becomes schizophrenic, it's time to say goodbye.
-
and I thought, "Wow, it's been a while since I've seen one those." I loved those things when I was little. I used to have one that looked like a pistol grip shotgun and I sawed a few inches off the barrel (having seen it done so may movies). I guess I'm lucky to be alive.
-
Listen, I totally agree that people are allowed to have their own opinions of movies, but why are people bashing Harry for writing his opinion of Ebert’s review. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to knock Harry for disagreeing with Ebert’s opinion just because it is Ebert’s own “opinion”? If Ebert’s’ allowed to have an opinion about Kick-Ass, then why isn’t Harry allowed to have an opinion on Ebert’s review. Just because it’s a review doesn’t mean it’s above criticism. I for one saw an advanced screening of Kick-Ass earlier this week and really enjoyed it. Is it on of the greatest comic book films ever made no, but is it a really good comic book film, hell yeah it is! I personally had no issue with Hit Girl being so young and so violent, because in the end it is a film made from a fucking comic book. We have to suspend some kind of disbelief. Plus, lets not act like we haven’t seen worse in films before. Ebert couldn’t get past the fact that this young girl was able to commit these violent acts and he’s entitled to feel that way, but I’m also entitled to disagree, and say I had no problem with it. My issues with the film were minor, I felt like some of the characters could have used a little more development, and there were a few stiff line deliveries that bothered me here and there. I could go into more detail but I’m not reviewing the film. In the end I thought Kick-Ass was an awesome and fun film. It’s easily one of the better comic book films to come in a long time, but it did have the potential to be an even better comic book film. p.s. Let’s stop ripping Harry for being a Fanboy, so what if he is. I have screenings with press all the time and most of these old cronies that people respect are mean old bastard that go into the film wanting to hate it. Most of the time I can tell you what their reviews will be before they write them just because their so fucking irritated before they even watch the movie. Harry may be a Fanboy, but at least he loves what he does. He loves to watch movies and doesn’t complain about having to do so, and lets face it he has a job that most of us would kill for, I know I would. You can read Harry’s reviews and take them with a grain of salt if you want, but don’t tell me they’re not fun reads, and if you want to keep bashing him for being a Fanboy then just stop reading his reviews.
-
I hope Ebert writes an opinion about Harry's opinion of his opinion. And gets an unnecessary criticism of Bush 2.0 in there too.
-
I haven't seen Kick-Ass, but Ebert really lost even more credibility as a film critic with me. One of his comments was "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." Yet he gave The Hurt Locker four stars, and slobberred all over the actors and director. Are people not dying every day in the middle east from IED's? He just didn't like the movie, but won't just come out and say it. He is like most other movie critics...out of touch with what the general public thinks. He mostly only likes movies that are not hugely commercial and a little off-beat, so that he can feel like he found a diamond-in-the-rough, that the regular folk weren't refined enough to notice.
-
I’m morally bankrupt, don't give two shits Ebert, and care very little about how this film will affect people. I’m-a seeing it in about 4 hours.
-
I’m morally bankrupt, don't give two shits about Ebert, and care very little about how this film will affect people. I’m-a seeing it in about 4 hours.
-
....A Rebuttal to Roger Ebert's critique of a film from Harry is like a deaf person's critique of a symphony. At least Ebert writes like he has good command of the English language. This site now consists of Harry telling you of whats he's read on other sites.
-
Learn it, live it, love it.
-
...and obviously marketed to children. <p>Morally reprehensible? </p>I don't know if it is any different than 90% of the other crap that Hollywood slyly markets to children. A good parent wouldn't bring/allow their children to watch something like this.
-
Ebert has lost his damn mind. Time to retire!
-
If you take kids under 10 to this, you are making a huge mistake - in my opinion. I have kids under 10, and they won't see this (I loved it) for a looooong time. <p> My in-laws also have kids under 10 who have unfettered access to the internet, every cable channel in their rooms, and any PS3 game they want (MA are the best, says them). Their favorite show is Bones. They have already seen a bunch of porn (thanks interwebs). These will be fucked up people and I have to explain this to my kids every goddamn day that their Mom and Dad aren't doing them any favors by shoving them in a room and filling thier minds with shit. <p> My point is, parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids see and do at this age. Absentee or soft parenting is fucking up the world for everybody.
-
nothing in the film was so unnerving...it was all done in a humorous way...and perhaps seeing hit girl get punched in the face will give impressionable kids a visceral pain and fear that would have been missed if she was invulnerable. this movie was fun
-
Before we saw "The Green Zone" in my local theater, my Dad and I were treated to our first preview of "Kick Ass."<p> I'd read some things on this site about it, so I was fired up to see things in motion. I really liked what I saw and am still eager to see it. A bloody, violent superhero movie that actually takes the laws of physics into consideration -- who knew?<p> My Dad's reaction, however, was like Ebert's. He made a face, munched some more popcorn, and shelled out derogatory comments like, "That's stupid! Why would anyone parent take their kid to see that?"<p> To which I replied, "They're not going to, Dad. It's not for kids. It's R-rated."<p> He didn't believe me. Probably still doesn't.<p> But whatever. I still don't agree with moral arguments pretending to be film critiques.<p> I read your columns every week, Roger, and have huge respect for you. But not this time.<p> Give us an actual critique, please, not a moral judgment.
-
Is Kick-Ass just a socially acceptable vehicle for middle aged men to lust after an 11 year old girl?
-
You are a fucking idiot and possibly a pervert.
-
She wears a school uniform to appear harmless so that she can infiltrate the bad guy's lair. If someone finds that lustful, that is THEIR problem. I didn't find myself lusting after her at all. Do you think you might?
-
Chocolate covered pussy juice.
-
April 16, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST
Robin- The Boy Wonder was pretty violent in the comics!
by Bob Cryptonight
You people worry too much.
-
The Dark Knight Returns version of Batman and Robin.
-
. . . a comic book-style heroine that hasn't been fetishized in a sexual manner? Is Hit Girl the first?
-
I suppose some random 11-yr-old boys who sneak into this can mark her down as a dream date. Anybody else who does should seek help immediately.
-
http://i.imgur.com/4JyGk.jpg <p>Take it what you see. LOL.
-
I have never found school girls nor their outfits the slightest bit attractive. Not when I was in my teens, and certainly not now. I know this has been said already, but I think it bares repeating. Whatever perversions you get out of Hit-Girl's wardrobe, they were taken into the movie with you, pre-existing. That's your problem, not the filmmaker's.
-
all republicans I bet LOL
-
It's much easier for me to be offended by a movie's stupidity than by its morals, and, quite frankly, all this stems from Mark Millar's penchant for constantly trying to be "irreverent" in the most puerile way, which I do find annoying. I couldn't care less about so-called profanity in a film, be it uttered by a grown-up or a little girl, and I want to think it only bothers the narrow-minded puritan within most USA citizens. So all this KICK-ASS controversy is no big deal for me, and I can't help but wonder what's all the fuss about, but just part of the marketing campaign. Having said all that... ... I have to agree with Mr. Ebert about the movie being essentially a glamourization of violence and its "coolness" factor, no matter the unrealistic, comic-book world context. The difference is that I am not as bothered by that as he is, but, to me, he certainly has a point that you can hardly argue with.
-
Her first movie in about a billion years.
-
Obviously Ebert missed the point because he's at least thirty years older than the target audience. It's like Quentin Tarantino writing a TWILIGHT review.
-
But he's still an idiot.
-
It exceeded my expectations. <P> I am not a comic book reader, but Kick-Ass felt like the perfect comic book film - what I wish Spiderman could have been. <P> Most of the attention has been given to Hit Girl and Nic Cage, but I thought Aaron Johnson carried the film with a great performance that was equal parts dorky & charismatic. Tobey Maguire's similarly-styled Peter Parker is a shit performance in comparison. <P> Mark Strong, one of my favorite character actors, made a great, multi-dimensional, Tony-Soprano-like villain (loving family man and bad-ass crime lord). <P> I thought direction by Matt Vaughn was fantastic - propulsively shot and edited with a great soundtrack. I was never once bored or disinterested - the film was always engaging, entertaining and often very funny. <P> So I am sorry that Ebert, who I respect, didn't 'get' that this is a comic book film. <P> Question for anyone who saw it at BNAT... when did November Rain play?
-
vaughn keeps it fun, frolicking and suprising.... he breaks the rules of the universe and undermines any thematic throughline to do so. his choice, not my taste..... put it this way, its no die hard
-
They'll get my money when Millar writes a movie starring an established character. He does better on that front (I would have gone to see his Superman). His own characters tend to be unsympathetic. Example: he lost me during Wanted (the comic book) with the whole "You can rape whoever you want," thing. Maybe Matthew Vaughn makes Dave Lizewski easier to relate to, less of a dick than he is in the comic. Either way, I'll wait.
-
Mr. Beaks' mantra.
-
...along with everything else these days.
-
You know I have never been one to scan over this website. Certainly have no interest in being fanatical about anything. And some of the writing is downright horrid, but certainly nothing to bitch about. And there are hundreds of other ways to get the information on the things that I am interested in. But since I just got back from watching the movie Kick Ass, and one of my news sources pulled up the Roger Ebert Kick Ass review, as well as this rebuttal by Knowles, I figured I would read what both men had to say. Mainly because from the beginning I understood that both men would have very different views. First Ebert: He thought that the violence went much further then it should have. This surprised me a little because the movie was made by a man who is not only a good buddy to ulra--violent director Guy Ritchie, but also a person that started in the film industry working with Ritchie. Ultra-violence has been very good for this guy and put a lot of money in his pocket. Did Ebert really think that Kick Ass wouldn't follow suit in extreme violence? No that just doesn't make sense, but then later Ebert clarifies that the 12 year old girl (Hit Girl) killing with wild abandon with no visible signs of remorse was the thing that he did not agree with. And especially at the final scene the violence seems to be of the very gratuitous type. (For the slow people out there, and we know there are a lot of them. Gratuitous: being without apparent reason, cause, or justification.) The ending was filled with over the top ludicrous violence that fits far better in a Looney Tunes cartoon then a supposedly super-realistic movie about the implication of real superheroes in a real world. Ebert may have been worried about the implications of a young female character being an unemotional killing machine with little signs of true humanity, dispatching other humans as if they were worth double body score in a video game. But to try to state that Ebert is against any depiction of violence in movies is an incredibly broad exaggeration, and has little basis in reality. Ebert isn't against violence in movies, he's against pointless violence in movies, and say what you will, some of the violence in Kick Ass was pointless. Here's an example: Years and years ago, way back in Ebert's career he was sent to cover Sam Peckinpah's new movie "The Wild Bunch" that had been directed by Sam Peckinpah. Now Sam was the king daddy of ultra-violence back in the day. And if he had anywhere near the budgets that Tarantino and Ritchie get to make those movies, it is pretty obvious that Peckinpah would have made the type of movie that would have bitch-slapped both of those directors and show them what making a violent movie was all about. Wild Bunch was so violent that at one time it was given an X rating for the intense violence in it. Peckipah's epic ultra violent Western "The Wild Bunch" was so revolutionary with its realistic depiction of old West violence that cowboy legend John Wayne was quoted as saying that Peckinpah had destroyed the image of the cowboy. Now when they screened "The Wild Bunch" for the press, including various film critics, a young Roger Ebert was there. And since this was way back in 1969 the extreme ultra-violent violence shocked and disgusted a large portion of the movie reviewers that were there, with one very notable exception...Roger Ebert. Roger liked the movie, defended the movie, and even made the comment that he thought that it was one of the greatest movies ever made. Again. Read my example I just wrote. Roger Ebert is not against violence in movies, he's against pointless violence. Harry Knowles rebuttal: He admits that he hasn't seen the theatrical release, but assures everyone that he will naturally love it, although some changes could have possibly been made that could lower his "love" for the movie. Harry then compares the violence of an old Disney version of "Treasure Island" to the violence in Kick Ass, telling us that the violence is comparable. Harry you are obviously riding the short bus on your field trips. I'd suggest you take two televisions side by side and look at the violence depicted on film in these two movies. Only a blind man would try to relate one film's depiction of implied violence, to an over the top movie filled with bloody carnage. (I hope this Knowles guy isn't really blind. That would suck.) We are talking about Disney back in the day. The same Disney that depicted the massacre at the Alamo with less blood than most women lose in one day during that time of the month. This is an incredibly stupid argument and makes a certain responder look like an emotional knee-jerking crybaby. Here's a clue Knowles, when you make a point in an counter argument, don't say stuff that reveals that you don't have a clue. Knowles next argument is that children back in Ebert's day were heavily exposed to violence because they had toy guns that looked like real guns, roman candles, and magic guns that always killed with one shot. But Harry Knowles needs to remember that it was a different time, and violence had a mythical quality to it back then. A hero could use violence to save the day type of world. But this American concept of violence was ripped to shreds when the average American tuned in their televisions and watched live footage from the Vietnam war. And Harry you need to read that last sentence. Having a draft for the Vietnam had much less affect on the way American's thought about violence then that footage. The Korean War draft didn't cause a major change in perceptions, and most would agree that the Vietnam war draft played a much less part then the live footage from the Vietnam war zone. My suggestion would be for Harry Knowles to turn of his computer and try reading a book that doesn't have pictures in it. Again uses the ludicrous old Disney films were just as violent argument, but this time including Errol Flynn and Gangster movies as an example. Once again Harry, try watching these movies side by side with Kick Ass and see if you can tell the difference, because most of humanity can see the difference. Here's another clue Harry, films made back then have an element of racism and sexism in them because that's the way the world was back then. You're saying those movies have bad qualities, but without the understanding that those movies had those elements because that was the way of the world back then. And than once again Harry spits venom at Roger because Roger had the luck to be born in an age where the toy guns he had were much cooler then the toy guns that Harry had. Someone order Harry one of those toy guns from way back when, he's obviously pretty bitter about not having one of those as a kid. And you know Harry you may live in a world where you think all kids are fanatical lovers of violent video games, but you are wrong. Other things in the world than ultra-violent video games that kids enjoy doing. Like being out in the sunlight... You do remember sunlight don't you Harry? You know I liked Kick Ass overall, but it certainly wasn't the greatest movie ever made, and I personally think that the fatal flaw was that you could tell which parts were written by the Guy Ritchie buddy, and which ones were not. Here's a clue, the super ultra-violent parts by the buddy, and the Not Another Teen Movie part by the other writer... But I certainly won't be getting my twelve year old daughter a Hit Girl outfit, nor will she be watching this movie for quite a while. Sorry Harry, I understand that it's important that you push the comic book industry, and the comic books made into movies industry, but frankly I am determined that my daughter doesn't fall into line with the rest of the mediocre idiots over any useless fad based on a truly two dimensional character just because the character has your personal approval.
-
Wow - you remember Ebert defending Scorsese when you were 6...that's exceptional.
-
I really thought this thing was for kids. I wondered why they showed the trailer prior to Shutter Island. But now I read words like 'ultra-violence' being tossed around in this TB and I'm curious as to what the hell this is actually portraying that's so bad besides the hijinks and pratfalls of McLovin.
-
Harry - you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your respectful disagreement with Roger. I love you both.
-
Holy shit...this all makes so much more sense now. And if we don't know what gratuitous means...then what makes you think we'll get ludicrous? Anyway, that's a really long post just to point out that you're not going to bring a six year old to an R-rated bloodbath. Would you like your Father of the Year award now, or down the road when you keep her from going to the prom with a guy in hockey mask holding a machete? Mediocre idiots in-fucking-deed!
-
I would agree with Harry that kids of yester-year and even my own childhood were exposed to much more violence in tv, cartoons, and films. The difference between those kids and kids today is accountability and parenting. Sure I sneaked a view of R-rated films before my parents would allow me, but because of my parents being strict about following the rating guidelines I knew right from wrong and by the time I had the guts to sneak these views I was pretty much ready to see it even if I was still under the age of 17. Kids see these violent films today and act out not because of the movie, but because they were never taught right from wrong and reality from fiction. Also, if a kid goes out and does something stupid after watching a violent film, no one blames the kid. There is no accountability. Maybe Roger understands that subconsciously.
-
Mediocre implies being average, while idiot implies a below average intelligence. You either be average, or below average, not both. Just like you can't be, "extremely average." If you're going to insult us, put some more thought into it, please.
-
I'll still see the movie being the fanboy I am!
-
Freudian slip. I was looking at Albaturkey's post. That was "extemely average," of me.
-
note to self: don't type angry.
-
Does anyone know a way to contact Roger Ebert to ask him how good friends he is with Harry Knowles? My bet - "Harry who?" is the answer.
-
Does anyone know a way to contact Roger Ebert to ask him how good friends he is with Harry Knowles? My bet - "Harry who?" is the answer.
-
This is what KICK-ASS is like: http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/300px-kick-ass_vol_1_2.jpg
-
in that this film has moments where it suggests that it's going to treat violence as something serious and having ramifications in the real world, but by the end ultimately abandons that premise and devolves into the very same ultra-stylizied comic book fluff it seems to be satirizing. The first 20-30 minutes of "Kick Ass" had me thinking I was in for a dark, edgy ride into the world of an anti-social geek's power fantasy but the movie ultimately reconfirms the audience's safe and happy worldview while delivering a deadly preteen for kicks.
-
You were 6 years old and Siskel and Ebert were your heroes for defending Taxi Driver? You saw that movie when you were 6? Wow, just....wow.