Is anyone else looking forward to this?
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashfilm.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Fkickassofficial2-409x600.jpg&hash=57d324e58cedc79478efb01cf80d8fed3f6d325e)
Cast:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/08/22/first-look-the-cast-of-kick-ass/
Teaser trailer.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/10/kick-ass-teaser-trailer/
I am forever weary of anything Mark Miller related after the train wreck that was Wanted. So, I'm suspicious of this one, but will probably end up seeing it anyway.
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on November 10, 2009, 08:52:50 PM
I am forever weary of anything Mark Miller related after the train wreck that was Wanted. So, I'm suspicious of this one, but will probably end up seeing it anyway.
Haha, train wreck.
Meh I thought Wanted was a decent popcorn actioner, in my opinion this looks a FAR better though. The Comicon buzz has been insane.
I love the book, so I'm looking forward to seeing how the movie handles the material. Especially Hit-Girl.
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on November 10, 2009, 08:52:50 PM
I am forever weary of anything Mark Miller related after the train wreck that was Wanted. So, I'm suspicious of this one, but will probably end up seeing it anyway.
Well when you have all these people:
QuoteMichael Brandt (screenplay) &
Derek Haas (screenplay) and
Chris Morgan (screenplay)
Michael Brandt (story) &
Derek Haas (story)
re-writing what Millar wrote in the original comics of course it is going to be a train wreck. Wanted the movie is nothing like the graphic novel.
It seems with Kick-Ass they are trying to be true to the book. I just wish there was more actual Kick-Ass comics out before they made a movie. They have barely scraped the surface in the book.
I'd agree, but I'm none too fond of the Wanted comic either :-\
UGH Lionsgate.
Very cool...
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu154%2Fcraigcrusade%2FKA.jpg&hash=41a5a647a630eae23325c2bd99b10d08cde0de65)
...and I'm an unabashed fan of the film adaptation of Wanted. It's fun...the Loom of Fate! :D
*never read the source material to Wanted*
However, looking forward to this very much, and the books are super!
Way to be TeamRAD :highfive:
Quote from: ScottH on November 10, 2009, 08:55:48 PM
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on November 10, 2009, 08:52:50 PM
I am forever weary of anything Mark Miller related after the train wreck that was Wanted. So, I'm suspicious of this one, but will probably end up seeing it anyway.
The Comicon buzz has been insane.
I just finally saw the Comic-Con footage...
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/kick_ass/news/?a=8980
...and there's so much win in those clips!
Holy shit that's awesome
Oh wow. I am on fire for this movie now.
Nice use of the Dickies version of the Banana Splits theme!
Okay, I have never heard of that comic before, but those clips have me hooked...... I NEED to see thsi.
Haven't read the comic, but I absolutely love the premise and I generally like Mark Millar's stuff. I found the trailer a bit disappointing, but this footage more than makes up for it.
Just watched the footage. Um...okay...it's premise is a world where the characters don't have superpowers, yet still are able to perform unbelievable stunts they would need superpowers to do (or at least not be CHILDREN)?!
...hahahaha, nice!
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu154%2Fcraigcrusade%2FRedMist.jpg&hash=58831bf7d462070bfbea37ce0a4fdc6bba4aa9bb)
Now if only a Pilgrim teaser trailer or poster of any sort can be made available soon, my Christmas would be perfect.
COOOOOOOOOOOOL :D
That'd better be just the tip of the Nic Cage crazyness in this movie.
New Hit-Girl red band clip/trailer. NSFW:
YEAH!!! I can't wait for this flick. Maybe by the time the movie comes out there will be another issue of the comic.
Nice to see the Dickies get some coinage for their cover of the Banana Splits theme too,.
Until this thread, I had never heard of this comic or movie... but I'll be seeing this one for sure.
You're welcome ;D
Must... see.. movie!
Is it me, or did that trailer just show clips of an action sequence of what looks like it would happen right after the scene where Issue #7 of the comic book left off. (That is, Hit-Girl and Kick-Ass in the elevator waiting to reach the floor with the mob)
Issue #8 hasn't even been released yet, yet they manage to spoil what's going to happen in the next comic.
Quote from: iv3rdawG on January 08, 2010, 03:07:03 PM
New trailer:
I'm lookin' forward to this!
Makes me look forward to American Jesus (though I wish they stuck with the original title, Chosen)
I'm....still not sure about this. It has comdey potential, but THEY'RE STILL JUST KIDS! Seriously, in Watchmen at least they were full grown adults fighting other full grown adults, not 100 pound (or in the case of Hit Girl, significantly less) skinny kids going up against full grown tough guys. It just seems like there is this disconnect between having a world where part of the point is that no one has superpowers, and yet still doing super powered things. I smell the "trying to have their cake and eat it too" that plagued Hancock and Daredevil when they didn't follow by even their own established rules (although Hancock was pretty good).
Hopefully this movie ends up to be just so much fun I can let that slide.
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 12, 2010, 09:06:57 PM
I'm....still not sure about this. It has comdey potential, but THEY'RE STILL JUST KIDS! Seriously, in Watchmen at least they were full grown adults fighting other full grown adults, not 100 pound (or in the case of Hit Girl, significantly less) skinny kids going up against full grown tough guys. It just seems like there is this disconnect between having a world where part of the point is that no one has superpowers, and yet still doing super powered things. I smell the "trying to have their cake and eat it too" that plagued Hancock and Daredevil when they didn't follow by even their own established rules (although Hancock was pretty good).
Hopefully this movie ends up to be just so much fun I can let that slide.
I think the movie will require some suspension of disbelief. :)
Quote from: warofthebees on January 13, 2010, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 12, 2010, 09:06:57 PM
I'm....still not sure about this. It has comdey potential, but THEY'RE STILL JUST KIDS! Seriously, in Watchmen at least they were full grown adults fighting other full grown adults, not 100 pound (or in the case of Hit Girl, significantly less) skinny kids going up against full grown tough guys. It just seems like there is this disconnect between having a world where part of the point is that no one has superpowers, and yet still doing super powered things. I smell the "trying to have their cake and eat it too" that plagued Hancock and Daredevil when they didn't follow by even their own established rules (although Hancock was pretty good).
Hopefully this movie ends up to be just so much fun I can let that slide.
I think the movie will require some suspension of disbelief. :)
I know, I know. But like I said, it's about following their own established rules.
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 13, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on January 13, 2010, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 12, 2010, 09:06:57 PM
I'm....still not sure about this. It has comdey potential, but THEY'RE STILL JUST KIDS! Seriously, in Watchmen at least they were full grown adults fighting other full grown adults, not 100 pound (or in the case of Hit Girl, significantly less) skinny kids going up against full grown tough guys. It just seems like there is this disconnect between having a world where part of the point is that no one has superpowers, and yet still doing super powered things. I smell the "trying to have their cake and eat it too" that plagued Hancock and Daredevil when they didn't follow by even their own established rules (although Hancock was pretty good).
Hopefully this movie ends up to be just so much fun I can let that slide.
I think the movie will require some suspension of disbelief. :)
I know, I know. But like I said, it's about following their own established rules.
You mentioned Watchmen: there were some pretty unrealistic fight scenes in that as well, but I chalked it up to Zack Snyder being a thirteen year old boy. Judging from the previews (a bad idea, I know), it seems like the movie will be very tongue in cheek, so I don't think there's too much to worry about.
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 13, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on January 13, 2010, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Geek on January 12, 2010, 09:06:57 PM
I'm....still not sure about this. It has comdey potential, but THEY'RE STILL JUST KIDS! Seriously, in Watchmen at least they were full grown adults fighting other full grown adults, not 100 pound (or in the case of Hit Girl, significantly less) skinny kids going up against full grown tough guys. It just seems like there is this disconnect between having a world where part of the point is that no one has superpowers, and yet still doing super powered things. I smell the "trying to have their cake and eat it too" that plagued Hancock and Daredevil when they didn't follow by even their own established rules (although Hancock was pretty good).
Hopefully this movie ends up to be just so much fun I can let that slide.
I think the movie will require some suspension of disbelief. :)
I know, I know. But like I said, it's about following their own established rules.
Hit-Girl is so talented because she's been taught how to use weapons and fight by her father her whole life. I know it's still a stretch, but she's supposed to be a ridiculously over the top character. I am worried that they seem to have made Kick-Ass a little more talented than he should be though. He gets his ass kicked in nearly every fight he gets in in the comics. I don't really care though, it looks like a hell of a good time and I can't wait for it.
You know, I was thinking about this when I'd read about Sony wanting to turn Spider-man into a gritty, angsty anti-hero, but Kick Ass is exactly what Peter Parker would be like if they went in that direction. We don't need a dark, moody Spidey. We need the Peter Parker alot of people grew up with, the awkward, nerdy guy.
Quote from: Klaatu on January 22, 2010, 01:54:32 AM
You know, I was thinking about this when I'd read about Sony wanting to turn Spider-man into a gritty, angsty anti-hero, but Kick Ass is exactly what Peter Parker would be like if they went in that direction. We don't need a dark, moody Spidey. We need the Peter Parker alot of people grew up with, the awkward, nerdy guy.
Who makes funny quips because he actually enjoys being spidey (most of the time).
and only 7 months late we finally get Kick-Ass #8 next Wednesday.
Quote from: MrTorso on January 22, 2010, 09:49:28 PM
and only 7 months late we finally get Kick-Ass #8 next Wednesday.
You sure about that? Marvel's website says February 17th http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859 (http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859)
Quote from: JimJ on January 23, 2010, 02:56:06 AM
Quote from: MrTorso on January 22, 2010, 09:49:28 PM
and only 7 months late we finally get Kick-Ass #8 next Wednesday.
You sure about that? Marvel's website says February 17th http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859 (http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859)
Our new release sheet from Diamond had it listed for this Wed. but with this title you never can tell.
Quote from: MrTorso on January 23, 2010, 06:07:06 AM
Quote from: JimJ on January 23, 2010, 02:56:06 AM
Quote from: MrTorso on January 22, 2010, 09:49:28 PM
and only 7 months late we finally get Kick-Ass #8 next Wednesday.
You sure about that? Marvel's website says February 17th http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859 (http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=11859)
Our new release sheet from Diamond had it listed for this Wed. but with this title you never can tell.
I have it in hand. It comes out tomorrow.
New Red Band trailer out:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/19/new-red-band-kick-ass-movie-trailer/
Holy crap.
Quote from: gbeenie on February 19, 2010, 11:46:20 AM
New Red Band trailer out:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/19/new-red-band-kick-ass-movie-trailer/
Holy crap.
Yeah, I dont even like comic books and I want to see this.
This movie looks kind of interesting. Don't know if I'm 100% persuaded to see it in the theaters though.
I can't wait! Hopefully someday the comic will actually become a monthly title.
Huh. Super heroes without any powers element.
Do they just get shot? :) Cuz I'd like to see that poor man's michael ceras type get mowed down with an AK-47.
The only aspect of this movie that appeals to me is the copy of Runaways I saw him reading. There's a good reason why superheroes have powers: First, they are frigging cooler than just costumed action sequences, and second, it enables them to perform feats of greatness and not get turned into swiss cheese by small arms fire.
The important thing to remember, of course, is that everyone can be a hero. ^_^ You don't need special powers or well-honed muscles or superhuman speed to outfight large groups of heavily armed men.
Gods, what insipid little peppyness this movie has. ><
never heard of this one before, but it looks awesome, lol
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
Huh. Super heroes without any powers element.
Do they just get shot? :) Cuz I'd like to see that poor man's michael ceras type get mowed down with an AK-47.
The only aspect of this movie that appeals to me is the copy of Runaways I saw him reading. There's a good reason why superheroes have powers: First, they are frigging cooler than just costumed action sequences, and second, it enables them to perform feats of greatness and not get turned into swiss cheese by small arms fire.
The important thing to remember, of course, is that everyone can be a hero. ^_^ You don't need special powers or well-honed muscles or superhuman speed to outfight large groups of heavily armed men.
Gods, what insipid little peppyness this movie has. ><
Yeah, that damn Batman and his always getting killed by bullets.
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
Gods, what insipid little peppyness this movie has. ><
Yeah, it looks
super fun. How annoying
Hey, Fuzzy? Number One Rule of Curmudgeonliness: If it looks like you're trying, you're doing it wrong. :)
The only movies that I prejudge are whiny indie romances, anything with a talking animal (Babe is the exception), and anything preceded by the words "National Lampoon's".
I think I might come off as overly negative otherwise, and I'd hate to be the guy who tries to ruin movies for people.
/passive-aggressive
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
Huh. Super heroes without any powers element.
Do they just get shot? :) Cuz I'd like to see that poor man's michael ceras type get mowed down with an AK-47.
Sort of. The first few times the main character goes out he gets stabbed, beaten and humiliated.
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
The only aspect of this movie that appeals to me is the copy of Runaways I saw him reading. There's a good reason why superheroes have powers: First, they are frigging cooler than just costumed action sequences, and second, it enables them to perform feats of greatness and not get turned into swiss cheese by small arms fire.
First of all, there are character in Runaways, heroes if you will, that don't have powers, like Chase and Alex (before... you know...)
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
The important thing to remember, of course, is that everyone can be a hero. ^_^ You don't need special powers or well-honed muscles or superhuman speed to outfight large groups of heavily armed men.
Gods, what insipid little peppyness this movie has. ><
Peppyness (sic)? Wow, it sounds like you missed the point entirely. The point is it's about a guy who reads a lot of comics and decides that he can do this. Because he is a weak normal person he gets his ass kicked badly and starts to get a bit better through experience and beatings. Oh, and he inspires psychos who already have training like a father/daughter team of criminal murderers.
Quote from: Ra's Al Ghul on February 24, 2010, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: Fuzzy Necromancer on February 20, 2010, 08:14:59 AM
Gods, what insipid little peppyness this movie has. ><
Peppyness (sic)? Wow, it sounds like you missed the point entirely.
No, I just think he was being a douche for it's own sake
Yeah, I can't really see how you could mistake the blatantly dark, satirical tone of the trailers as "peppiness".
New full-length red-band trailer, btw:
Just finished the GN today and loved it. I am a bit concerned now about how closely the movie is following the story-arc from the comic.
Why the concern?
I think it is great that it looks like they are staying true to the source material mostly.
I haven't read the source material, not because I'm avoiding it but because I'm cheap which has lead to a wait for the softcover trade philosophy for most of my purchases. That said, based on the interview with Mark Millar, it's going to be mostly the same except for
it won't have Big Daddy's terrible secret that he was never a cop and that he was really just a fanboy accountant.
Turns out that it's not a mini-series... it's a series. The second storyarc is set to begin in September and he says the first issue of it might come with the DVD. The premise is that
there are now normal people dressing up like super-villains beating the shit out of people dressed like heroes and taping it and putting it on youtube and such. Sounds great!
I just saw this at the bottom of the
Kick Ass IMDb page:
QuoteIs this movie good for my 7 and 8 year olds? They really want to see it but is it appropriate? I don't really care about swearing or violence but is there any nudity? They keep asking me to see it and I think they would enjoy it.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzakyou.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fheaddesk_macro_400px.png&hash=76e5f0a1b1570f748ae9dc34b8976b2cda279534)
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 09, 2010, 06:43:34 PM
I just saw this at the bottom of the Kick Ass IMDb page:
QuoteIs this movie good for my 7 and 8 year olds? They really want to see it but is it appropriate? I don't really care about swearing or violence but is there any nudity? They keep asking me to see it and I think they would enjoy it.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzakyou.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fheaddesk_macro_400px.png&hash=76e5f0a1b1570f748ae9dc34b8976b2cda279534)
They lose at parenting.
Indeed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlerax1116nu5ji?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotForKids)
Nothing the lil'uns like better than girls slightly older than them using the c-word with abandon, and in a vaguely British way too.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 06:58:28 PM
Nothing the lil'uns like better than girls slightly older than them using the c-word with abandon, and in a vaguely British way too.
Is there a non-British way of using it?
Also, just because it bears repeating:
QuoteI don't really care about swearing or violence but is there any nudity?
"Daddy, what's a cunt?" "Something you can say but not see."
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 09, 2010, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 06:58:28 PM
Nothing the lil'uns like better than girls slightly older than them using the c-word with abandon, and in a vaguely British way too.
Is there a non-British way of using it?
Also, just because it bears repeating:
QuoteI don't really care about swearing or violence but is there any nudity?
"Daddy, what's a cunt?"
You are. Now shut your goddamn piehole and watch
Kick-Ass.
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 09, 2010, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 06:58:28 PM
Nothing the lil'uns like better than girls slightly older than them using the c-word with abandon, and in a vaguely British way too.
Is there a non-British way of using it?
Yes there is.
There are two basic senses as a insulting term for a person in addition to the anatomical meaning.
a) as a reference to a woman, along the lines of "bitch" but much much more loaded with offense
b) as a reference to an idiot or a fool, generally this would be used to describe a man.
Now, both of the senses can be found in both British and US English. However, in the US sense a) tends to be more common than sense b). In British English the reverse is the case.
sense b) carries with it significantly less offensive weight*, so much so that it could show up, albeit through a bit of rhyming slang, on innocuous early evening sitcoms during the '70s and 80s.
It's also why I was the only one laughing at Ed's first line** in
Shaun of the Dead rather than contributing to the shocked silence like the rest of the audience. ;)
*I'd never, ever use sense a), it's one of the few things I know I can't ever bring myself to do.
** not counting single exclamations.
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 09, 2010, 06:43:34 PM
I just saw this at the bottom of the Kick Ass IMDb page:
QuoteIs this movie good for my 7 and 8 year olds? They really want to see it but is it appropriate? I don't really care about swearing or violence but is there any nudity? They keep asking me to see it and I think they would enjoy it.
Typical. Hey Kid here is some blood curdling violence but cover your eyes if there is a titty!
I saw Devil's Rejects and had a 5 year old kid sitting next to me. Anytime there was a boob the mother covered his eyes. Faces being skinned off, gut shots, stabbings the kid was wide-eyed and scared shitless. By the end of the movie he was on his mother's lap cowering and shaking.
Yep; suck a tit get NC-17, slice it off with a sword, R.
*all excited for his midnite showing next Thursday*
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 07:59:11 PM
Yep; suck a tit get NC-17, slice it off with a sword, R.
the documentary "this film is not yet rated" explained how this is mostly an american thing while the opposite is true with european films, as you probably know. and a film is more likely to get an NC-17 rating for showing female sexuality rather than male. it gave an interesting example of american beauty with spacey in the shower jacking off vs another movie (i forget which) where a girl masturbates (while fully clothed). the first got an R rating, despite seeing an unfortunate view of spacey ass, while the other got an NC-17. interesting documentary if anyone wants to see it, and the mpaa should be sacked :P
I like how in that documentary he gets on them for making unauthorized copies of his movie.
Quote from: MrTorso on April 09, 2010, 08:07:00 PM
I like how in that documentary he gets on them for making unauthorized copies of his movie.
been a while since i saw it, what part was that? and other documentary series of the same vein is Indie Sex, though as can be expected it deals with more erotic subjects within the cinema than this film is not yet rated. both can be seen on netflix online.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 07:20:56 PM
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 09, 2010, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 09, 2010, 06:58:28 PM
Nothing the lil'uns like better than girls slightly older than them using the c-word with abandon, and in a vaguely British way too.
Is there a non-British way of using it?
Yes there is.
There are two basic senses as a insulting term for a person in addition to the anatomical meaning.
a) as a reference to a woman, along the lines of "bitch" but much much more loaded with offense
b) as a reference to an idiot or a fool, generally this would be used to describe a man.
Now, both of the senses can be found in both British and US English. However, in the US sense a) tends to be more common than sense b). In British English the reverse is the case.
sense b) carries with it significantly less offensive weight*, so much so that it could show up, albeit through a bit of rhyming slang, on innocuous early evening sitcoms during the '70s and 80s.
It's also why I was the only one laughing at Ed's first line** in Shaun of the Dead rather than contributing to the shocked silence like the rest of the audience. ;)
*I'd never, ever use sense a), it's one of the few things I know I can't ever bring myself to do.
** not counting single exclamations.
I must admit that I can't recall ever hearing the word uttered before I saw
Shaun Of The Dead, and just assumed it was a uniquely British expletive. I led a sheltered childhood, I guess.
Living just outside of the New York City region, I've learned that it's a favorite expletive of the.. um.. let's call them "theater types."
Quote from: FLOCK of RABID SHEEP?!?! on April 09, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: MrTorso on April 09, 2010, 08:07:00 PM
I like how in that documentary he gets on them for making unauthorized copies of his movie.
been a while since i saw it, what part was that? and other documentary series of the same vein is Indie Sex, though as can be expected it deals with more erotic subjects within the cinema than this film is not yet rated. both can be seen on netflix online.
I don't think that part was in the documentary, but rather some controversy that arose after the film's release. Still funny either way :P
And yeah, ordering my tickets shortly for the Thursday midnight show. Can't wait ;D
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on April 10, 2010, 01:27:54 PM
Quote from: FLOCK of RABID SHEEP?!?! on April 09, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
Quote from: MrTorso on April 09, 2010, 08:07:00 PM
I like how in that documentary he gets on them for making unauthorized copies of his movie.
been a while since i saw it, what part was that? and other documentary series of the same vein is Indie Sex, though as can be expected it deals with more erotic subjects within the cinema than this film is not yet rated. both can be seen on netflix online.
I don't think that part was in the documentary, but rather some controversy that arose after the film's release. Still funny either way :P
And yeah, ordering my tickets shortly for the Thursday midnight show. Can't wait ;D
Myabe it was a special feature on the DVD? He is on the phone with them and he finds out they made copies of the film when there weren't allowed to.
Oh Daily Mail, you never disappoint: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html)
QuoteDon't be fooled by the hype: This crime against cinema is twisted*, cynical**, and revels in the abuse of childhood
By Christopher Tookey
Verdict: Evil
Rating: 1 out of 5
Millions are being spent to persuade you that Kick-Ass is harmless, comic-book entertainment suitable for 15-year-olds.
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*****.
* Drink!
** Drink!
*** Drink!
**** Drink!
***** DRINK!
I don't think I can keep this up, I'll have drained the bottle by the second paragraph.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 13, 2010, 12:31:48 PM
Oh Daily Mail, you never disappoint: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html)
QuoteDon't be fooled by the hype: This crime against cinema is twisted*, cynical**, and revels in the abuse of childhood
By Christopher Tookey
Verdict: Evil
Rating: 1 out of 5
Millions are being spent to persuade you that Kick-Ass is harmless, comic-book entertainment suitable for 15-year-olds.
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*****.
* Drink!
** Drink!
*** Drink!
**** Drink!
***** DRINK!
I don't think I can keep this up, I'll have drained the bottle by the second paragraph.
If you take your child to an R rated film with the word "Ass" in the title, you have failed as a parent.
Also, alcohol poisoning kills! Don't drink and read!
I still can't believe people think all comic book films are for kids. I thought we were done with that issue post-Watchmen (or post-Punisher: War Zone, but since no one watched that one I can let it slide).
Also, I found that my theater here is doing the first showing on Thursday at 10:00 PM instead of at Midnight. Not entirely sure why, but I've already purchased my ticket, so I really don't care.
Also also, this one's not being shown in 3D, right? It can stand proud as proof movies don't need it to be good or profitable (all things going right, at least).
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on April 13, 2010, 02:08:36 PM
I still can't believe people think all comic book films are for kids. I thought we were done with that issue post-Watchmen (or post-Punisher: War Zone, but since no one watched that one I can let it slide).
Also, I found that my theater here is doing the first showing on Thursday at 10:00 PM instead of at Midnight. Not entirely sure why, but I've already purchased my ticket, so I really don't care.
Also also, this one's not being shown in 3D, right? It can stand proud as proof movies don't need it to be good or profitable (all things going right, at least).
Don't you understand? Someone figured out how to have sex so now the whole world must become kid friendly. Otherwise the parents might actually have to assume responsibility for their children.
I can't remember what film it was, but recently Mark Kermode took the Daily Mail to task for reviewing a film badly...when they hadn't seen it. They railed against it in their review, but even admitted they hadn't the bloody thing.
Note: The Daily Mail has about as much credibility as The Sun.
Quote from: mrbasehart on April 13, 2010, 04:17:10 PM
Note: The Daily Mail has about as much credibility as The Sun.
Yes, they're awful.You can rely on them to have a knee jerk Tory reaction to whatever is happening out there in society, as long as it allows them to feature sexy pictures of boobies for their reader to be "appalled" at if at all possible.
Also, I'd not let Chris Tookey within 500 yards of a school or playground, just saying.
You should be ashamed of what you Brits call newspapers.
Oh please, the Mail isn't a newspaper, it's a porno comic for Col. Buffton-Tuffton types.
Also one of the only papers outside of Germany to support Hitler, during the War.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 13, 2010, 12:31:48 PM
Oh Daily Mail, you never disappoint: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html)
QuoteDon't be fooled by the hype: This crime against cinema is twisted*, cynical**, and revels in the abuse of childhood
By Christopher Tookey
Verdict: Evil
Rating: 1 out of 5
Millions are being spent to persuade you that Kick-Ass is harmless, comic-book entertainment suitable for 15-year-olds.
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*****.
* Drink!
** Drink!
*** Drink!
**** Drink!
***** DRINK!
I don't think I can keep this up, I'll have drained the bottle by the second paragraph.
Yeah, if I didn't know that the current reviews are heavily weighted toward U.K. and Australian reviewers (the film opened in those places already), I'd be inclined to think the U.K. and Australia had a disproportionate number of
complete pussies reviewing movies. But, I'm sure once more American reviews are out, there'll be some of the same nonsense from that direction as well.
Quote from: gbeenie on April 13, 2010, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 13, 2010, 12:31:48 PM
Oh Daily Mail, you never disappoint: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html)
QuoteDon't be fooled by the hype: This crime against cinema is twisted*, cynical**, and revels in the abuse of childhood
By Christopher Tookey
Verdict: Evil
Rating: 1 out of 5
Millions are being spent to persuade you that Kick-Ass is harmless, comic-book entertainment suitable for 15-year-olds.
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*****.
* Drink!
** Drink!
*** Drink!
**** Drink!
***** DRINK!
I don't think I can keep this up, I'll have drained the bottle by the second paragraph.
Yeah, if I didn't know that the current reviews are heavily weighted toward U.K. and Australian reviewers (the film opened in those places already), I'd be inclined to think the U.K. and Australia had a disproportionate number of complete pussies reviewing movies. But, I'm sure once more American reviews are out, there'll be some of the same nonsense from that direction as well.
Hahaha, reminds me of those hilarious sites like 'Sceen-it!' who review movies for hysterical christian parents.
Screen It is hilariously stupid. They have a category where they rate scariness of the musical score. :D
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.screenit.com%2Fimages%2Fscared_kids.jpg&hash=7967ab28a11d6616491f2edbd1030a7d80cb32e6)
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 14, 2010, 12:20:18 AM
Screen It is hilariously stupid. They have a category where they rate scariness of the musical score. :D
I know! and cleavage is included in 'nudity ratings', that's why I love it. I also enjoy when they can't hide their venom and go all Scarlet Letter, usually at movies involving young women being sexual.
Quote from: ScottH on April 14, 2010, 02:43:54 AM
Quote from: Sharktopus on April 14, 2010, 12:20:18 AM
Screen It is hilariously stupid. They have a category where they rate scariness of the musical score. :D
I know! and cleavage is included in 'nudity ratings', that's why I love it. I also enjoy when they can't hide their venom and go all Scarlet Letter, usually at movies involving young women being sexual.
According to Screen It, 2009's
Star Trek has an "extreme" amount of direspectful attitude and a "heavy" amount of sex and nudity. Did they accidentally screen the porno version?
QuoteCurious if this title is entertaining, any good, and/or has any artistic merit?
Then read OUR TAKE of this film.
(Note: The "Our Take" review of this title examines the film's artistic merits and does not take into account any of the possibly objectionable material listed below).
MUSIC (SCARY/TENSE)
An extreme amount of suspenseful, ominous, heavily dramatic and action-oriented music plays in the film.
:D :D :D
hahaha, I've spent the last few hours laughing at those sites too. :cheers:
Quote from: ScottH on April 14, 2010, 04:10:22 AM
hahaha, I've spent the last few hours laughing at those sites too. :cheers:
I have to laugh, otherwise steam would shoot comically from my ears. "Warning! This movie has suspenseful music!" :speechless:
I looked at Sceen it awhile ago, and I honestly thought it was a joke...is it really meant to be serious?
Pshaw. Back in my day (2004) we had capalert to make fun of, and we didn't need anymore silly movie review websites! Damn kids.
Quote from: warofthebees on April 14, 2010, 11:14:56 AM
I looked at Sceen it awhile ago, and I honestly thought it was a joke...is it really meant to be serious?
Yeah, there was even a guy who did the same thing for rifftrax WAY back in the early days. Sometimes I really don't understand people.
Let's bring this up, it's showtime in 90 minutes!!
*dances in chair*
Back from my screening. Short version it was pretty good, but I don't think it quite lived up to all the hype.
Main problem was it felt pretty empty. Had the fights and people being superheroes and all that jazz, but it was one of those situations where there's just no substance. Most of the characters were pretty flat, which made it pretty hard to care about them. Kick-Ass especially, since I just found him to be pretty annoying. Also, he had one sub-plot that just bugged the hell out of me.
The whole thing of him pretending to be gay to get with the girl (may not have started out that way, but he went along with it). I hate when guys do that, it's one of the most douchbaggish things you can do. Insult to injury that he gets the girl anyway.
Still, it definitely had plenty of good parts. Hit Girl and Big Daddy were both very sweet and easily the best part of the movie. They had all the best battles (including an ending sequence that's pretty awesome), and most of the funny moments. Hit-Girl especially was pretty damn cool, even if the whole Oh-look-a-12-year-old-is-swearing-how-edgy thing got old really fast. By and large the humor of the movie worked, and it was fairly entertaining to watch. I also liked that it fully embraced how ridiculous things were getting, and just went nuts with everything by the end.
In the end, it's definitely a good movie. A good, enjoyable, fun movie. But (and I get the feeling I'm in a small minority here), I just couldn't embrace it. It was one of those movies where I've seen it once, and I'm done with it (another example off the top of my head is Superbad). I guess it didn't... get blown away by it. It's main shtick is that it's younger people doing really violent things. I guess I'm just really jaded, but that doesn't impress me. Fun, but not really intense. But what's important here is that most folks should still enjoy it, and it's definitely worth watching.
"Show's over, motherfuckers."
Hit-Girl's gonna be an icon!
Was it worth the hype? It exceeded it for me. It's a thrill-ride, and the price-of-admission's worth its weight in gold w/ Hit-Girl's rescue of Kick-Ass & Big-Daddy. It's a spectacle, and one-of-the best orchestrated action sequences I've ever seen. It's SO wow. Oh, and Cage doing an Adam West impression is also a spectacle for obviously different reasons. Hit-Girl's quotes were intact too, especially..."Wotta fuckin' douche." :D
It's definitely a loose adaptation of the comic; Dave's true motivation for creating Kick-Ass was never mentioned (the perfect combination of loneliness & despair), but I'm definitely okay w/ that as it would clash w/ the overall tone of the movie. But on the other hand, I did wish any semblance of a relationship was established w/ his father. In the comic, his dad's truly an awesome guy who's searching for solid footing since his wife's death, and looks out for him. It really was a wasted opportunity, and would've added a humanizing element the narrative was sorely missing. With that in mind, the sequence in Book #2 when Dave envisions the apparition of his mother chastising him for being selfish for not realizing if he dies, his dad will be alone, would've been so super and unforced. That alone had Dave hanging up the wetsuit temporarily, and it would have been a neat moral conundrum to explore on Dave's behalf in the movie (in the comic, that conundrum's only explored for probably 15 panels...so Vaughn's off the hook) . However, I'm kind of baffled Vaughn & Goldman hadn't adapted the above into their screenplay; running time sure wasn't an issue.
One small thing I do want to touch on yet regarding missed opportunities is w/ Mindy, she was all kinds of awesome in the movie, don't get me wrong, but in the comic, there's pathos established within the character's steely & cocky demeanor w/ her yearning of wanting a regular family again. Even w/ the angle they took w/ her mother in the movie, it would've provided a nice touch seeing the little girl underneath the killing machine her father produced.
And for the wh-wha-what moment in the movie for me; they actually linked Katie w/ the character who was Eddie Lomas in the comics. That was...convenient...and just all kinds of weird. But then again, the majority of the adaptation of Katie was off sans Dave being her gay best-friend.
But w/ all that being said, it's heaps of fun...fuck this, I'm getting the bazooka!!! :D :D :D
Quote from: Compound on April 14, 2010, 01:24:17 PM
Pshaw. Back in my day (2004) we had capalert to make fun of, and we didn't need anymore silly movie review websites! Damn kids.
Speaking of, here's a comedy blast from the past:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm (http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm)
Question for any christians reading this: Is "fuck" really the worst thing a christian could say?
Truth to tell, I kind of feel sorry for CAPAlert guy (despite his use of the royal "we," there is roughly a 0% chance that the "organization" is anything more than one lonely schmuck banging away at a computer keyboard in his basement). Looking at the latest "reviews," I notice they are ALL for movies that have been released on video; in other words, this poor bastard is
no longer leaving his house. I guess it speaks to the truism that the signs of deep religious fervor are virtually indistinguishable from the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. :P
I saw Kick-Ass last night, its true, its kick ass. Nicolas Cage was awesome, it rocked in general, fun flick.
Quote from: gbeenie on April 17, 2010, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: Compound on April 14, 2010, 01:24:17 PM
Pshaw. Back in my day (2004) we had capalert to make fun of, and we didn't need anymore silly movie review websites! Damn kids.
Speaking of, here's a comedy blast from the past:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm (http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm)
Question for any christians reading this: Is "fuck" really the worst thing a christian could say?
Truth to tell, I kind of feel sorry for CAPAlert guy (despite his use of the royal "we," there is roughly a 0% chance that the "organization" is anything more than one lonely schmuck banging away at a computer keyboard in his basement). Looking at the latest "reviews," I notice they are ALL for movies that have been released on video; in other words, this poor bastard is no longer leaving his house. I guess it speaks to the truism that the signs of deep religious fervor are virtually indistinguishable from the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. :P
This comment on [urlhttp://www.capalert.com/capreports/benditlikebeckham.htm]Bend it like Beckham[/url] is precious:
Quotehomosexual touch
I love that Genesis song!
Even though the movie quickly falls apart for me, I think their version of New York is just about the best approximation of the version of New York portrayed in Marvel comics. The Manhattan skyline, the apartment building rooftops, the endless alleys and the weird outerborough neighborhoods all meshed together in a really good way.
Also big ups for using the proper name for a balisong, the third best filipino invented weapon behind eskrima sticks and the mighty yo-yo.
I think Banana Ketchup deserves an honorable mention...
I saw it yesterday and loved it. The changes they made were handled quite well.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on April 17, 2010, 10:39:27 AM
I think Banana Ketchup deserves an honorable mention...
I will agree that banana sauce could be considered a weapon. It's nasty enough.
It was a ton of fun for 2 hours straight. It feels like a movie that will have a lot of replay ability as well. It mixes in a lot of different genres like teen high school comedies between the three friends, the comic book movie and a twist on the family drama with Hit Girl and Big Daddy all seamlessly. Very, very fun.
The box office (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/04/17/kick-ass-underwhelms-box-office-likely-to-be-off-10-percent-from-last-year/) for this has been weak so far....but then, so was Death At A Funeral....
Which makes me wonder. They were giving away free tickets to Death... at a theater that wasn't close but wasn't far at a used CD store. Turned it down because what seemed like a glut of commercials for it. The feeling was that the amount of ads seemed "desperate" and we probably saw all of the good parts already.
And then someone said that Kick-Ass was probably the same with ad after ad.... And that was before the "audience reaction" ads that started just before it opened. Maybe I'm wrong but those ads in particular always smell of desperation to me. Like they're selling being part of "the crowd" more than they are the movie.
Or maybe - like the story says - it's just the R-rating that messed them both up.
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 17, 2010, 07:59:14 PM
The box office (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/04/17/kick-ass-underwhelms-box-office-likely-to-be-off-10-percent-from-last-year/) for this has been weak so far....but then, so was Death At A Funeral....
Which makes me wonder. They were giving away free tickets to Death... at a theater that wasn't close but wasn't far at a used CD store. Turned it down because what seemed like a glut of commercials for it. The feeling was that the amount of ads seemed "desperate" and we probably saw all of the good parts already.
And then someone said that Kick-Ass was probably the same with ad after ad.... And that was before the "audience reaction" ads that started just before it opened. Maybe I'm wrong but those ads in particular always smell of desperation to me. Like they're selling being part of "the crowd" more than they are the movie.
Or maybe - like the story says - it's just the R-rating that messed them both up.
I think Kick Ass is going to be helped quite a bit by word of mouth, unlike Death at a Funeral. It may do better next weekend.
Just got home and I LOVED it all, the music, the comic cliches, the comedy... the pain................ I can't wait for the Blu Ray,Vaughn says we get an extra 18 minutes.
Now I'm off to read the book for the first time :)
Quote from: mearnest on April 17, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 17, 2010, 07:59:14 PM
The box office (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/04/17/kick-ass-underwhelms-box-office-likely-to-be-off-10-percent-from-last-year/) for this has been weak so far....but then, so was Death At A Funeral....
Which makes me wonder. They were giving away free tickets to Death... at a theater that wasn't close but wasn't far at a used CD store. Turned it down because what seemed like a glut of commercials for it. The feeling was that the amount of ads seemed "desperate" and we probably saw all of the good parts already.
And then someone said that Kick-Ass was probably the same with ad after ad.... And that was before the "audience reaction" ads that started just before it opened. Maybe I'm wrong but those ads in particular always smell of desperation to me. Like they're selling being part of "the crowd" more than they are the movie.
Or maybe - like the story says - it's just the R-rating that messed them both up.
I think Kick Ass is going to be helped quite a bit by word of mouth, unlike Death at a Funeral. It may do better next weekend.
I would've thought that word of mouth would be helping already, since in the weeks leading up to the films release I heard nothing by amazing things about it (which probably led to my slight disappointment, but I digress). But when I was in the theater (for the 10 PM Thursday show), it was barely half empty. I didn't check around so I don't know if the midnight shows were packed, but still... very odd.
And PSCD, I know what you mean with all the clips. Seems like they put out a third of the movie in clip form. I avoided all of them but the main trailer, but from what I've heard, they pretty much had all the best parts of the movie (which is exactly why I avoided them, and all movie clips besides trailers).
Quote from: Relaxing Dragon on April 17, 2010, 09:09:33 PM
And PSCD, I know what you mean with all the clips. Seems like they put out a third of the movie in clip form.
And I understand the need to advertise and give people a taste. But these days more and more they're giving all the good jokes/plot points/effects away for free - only you don't find that out until you've bought your ticket.
On the other hand, you don't want ads and trailers full of stuff that isn't in the film - or misrepresents it in a major way. There's a notorious example of the movie
Darkness Falls (check out the episode of Bad Movie Beatdown that reviews this thing).
It makes people gun shy and good movies can end up suffering.
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 17, 2010, 07:59:14 PM
Which makes me wonder. They were giving away free tickets to Death... at a theater that wasn't close but wasn't far at a used CD store.
Side question: Cheapo? (On S. Colo?)
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 17, 2010, 07:59:14 PMWhich makes me wonder. They were giving away free tickets to Death... at a theater that wasn't close but wasn't far at a used CD store. Turned it down because what seemed like a glut of commercials for it. The feeling was that the amount of ads seemed "desperate" and we probably saw all of the good parts already.
We DID see the good parts already. Two years ago. With a better director and cast.
(Actually, I still haven't seen the original OR the new one, but this is the consensus I've been hearing.)
Quote from: gbeenie on April 17, 2010, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: Compound on April 14, 2010, 01:24:17 PM
Pshaw. Back in my day (2004) we had capalert to make fun of, and we didn't need anymore silly movie review websites! Damn kids.
Speaking of, here's a comedy blast from the past:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm (http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm)
Question for any christians reading this: Is "fuck" really the worst thing a christian could say?
Truth to tell, I kind of feel sorry for CAPAlert guy (despite his use of the royal "we," there is roughly a 0% chance that the "organization" is anything more than one lonely schmuck banging away at a computer keyboard in his basement). Looking at the latest "reviews," I notice they are ALL for movies that have been released on video; in other words, this poor bastard is no longer leaving his house. I guess it speaks to the truism that the signs of deep religious fervor are virtually indistinguishable from the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. :P
I just checked out a couple of the Harry Potter reviews on this guys site and I, as an agnostic, think I have more faith in God than this guy. He honestly seems to believe that the creator of all existence will be undone by a children's book/movie series.
Well that movie lived up to its name. Bazookas, jetpacks, 11-year-old foul-mouthed vigilante antiheroes, and Nick Cage in a good performance for once! I enjoyed it a lot.
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 18, 2010, 12:07:47 AM
Well that movie lived up to its name. Bazookas, jetpacks, 11-year-old foul-mouthed vigilante antiheroes, and Nick Cage in a good performance for once! I enjoyed it a lot.
Nic Cage definitely made this movie for me. His Adam West delivery was absolutely hilarious. By the way, he was also really good in Bad Lieutenant, but he was playing a drug-addled maniac, so it might not have been too much of a stretch for him (besides the drugs...he's still a crazy man)
Quote from: warofthebees on April 20, 2010, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 18, 2010, 12:07:47 AM
Well that movie lived up to its name. Bazookas, jetpacks, 11-year-old foul-mouthed vigilante antiheroes, and Nick Cage in a good performance for once! I enjoyed it a lot.
Nic Cage definitely made this movie for me. His Adam West delivery was absolutely hilarious. By the way, he was also really good in Bad Lieutenant, but he was playing a drug-addled maniac, so it might not have been too much of a stretch for him (besides the drugs...he's still a crazy man)
Yeah, he's just got to find a way to do movies where he can do good crazy.
I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. Not perfect, but really fun for the most part. Interestingly, Mark Millar said issue 9 of the series is being released in September, possibly along with the DVD.
By the way, I have five questions about Big Daddy.
"HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!?"
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on April 21, 2010, 04:41:48 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 20, 2010, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 18, 2010, 12:07:47 AM
Well that movie lived up to its name. Bazookas, jetpacks, 11-year-old foul-mouthed vigilante antiheroes, and Nick Cage in a good performance for once! I enjoyed it a lot.
Nic Cage definitely made this movie for me. His Adam West delivery was absolutely hilarious. By the way, he was also really good in Bad Lieutenant, but he was playing a drug-addled maniac, so it might not have been too much of a stretch for him (besides the drugs...he's still a crazy man)
Yeah, he's just got to find a way to do movies where he can do good crazy.
I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. Not perfect, but really fun for the most part. Interestingly, Mark Millar said issue 9 of the series is being released in September, possibly along with the DVD.
By the way, I have five questions about Big Daddy.
"HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!?"
Because his legs caught on fire, and then the rest of him. It was cut a little quick, but you could still see it.
Quote from: CrowTeeRobot on April 21, 2010, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Johnny Unusual on April 21, 2010, 04:41:48 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 20, 2010, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 18, 2010, 12:07:47 AM
Well that movie lived up to its name. Bazookas, jetpacks, 11-year-old foul-mouthed vigilante antiheroes, and Nick Cage in a good performance for once! I enjoyed it a lot.
Nic Cage definitely made this movie for me. His Adam West delivery was absolutely hilarious. By the way, he was also really good in Bad Lieutenant, but he was playing a drug-addled maniac, so it might not have been too much of a stretch for him (besides the drugs...he's still a crazy man)
Yeah, he's just got to find a way to do movies where he can do good crazy.
I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. Not perfect, but really fun for the most part. Interestingly, Mark Millar said issue 9 of the series is being released in September, possibly along with the DVD.
By the way, I have five questions about Big Daddy.
"HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!? HOW'D HE GET BURNED!?"
Because his legs caught on fire, and then the rest of him. It was cut a little quick, but you could still see it.
Sometimes, they just don't get it
Yeah, I totally got the joke after I had posted and was on my way to work. I'm a total tard. ;D
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
I don't really need Roger Ebert to tell me that a movie called Kick Ass may have some loose moral fiber.
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
I'm in both camps. Roger Ebert is a windbag and Kick Ass is a turd that flopped.
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Well said Sir.
:clap:
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
So you're okay with swearing but not violence?
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 10:04:08 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
So you're okay with swearing but not violence?
It's awfully hard to kill somebody with foul language.
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 10:08:24 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 10:04:08 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
So you're okay with swearing but not violence?
It's awfully hard to kill somebody with foul language.
It's also hard to hurt someone with pretend violence.
Ebert's 20+ year crusade against violence is only a part of why I think he's a pompous joke though if that helps.
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn." humans developed the ability to speak.
.
There. Fixed it for ya.
And it's exactly as true now as it was then.
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
hahahahahaha
Hold up because you might need to reserve that smiley for me.
Let me make this all clear: I HATE and I mean HATE movie fads. Whether its good or bad. And I also hate the "dark" and so called "realistic" direction that pretty much every non-kid's movie takes. I also hate how films are bashed because they go against that. The Dark Knight was a good movie, but that's it. I general hate that type of superhero movie. Its people in costumes, why take it seriously? Why can't it just be a fun fantasy adventure film like the good old days? That's my thinking going into this movie.
Now that being said I found myself LOVING this movie. Kick Ass really did kick ass. It has ZERO to do with hype. I don't give a crap about being "cool" and none of you know me outside the internet anyway so why would it matter? But man I was blown away by this movie. I can't wait to watch it again.
And I thought Zombieland was pretty bad too just to give you guys more of an idea where I'm coming from. I'm never one who enjoys super violent for the sake of being violent. I hate movies like Pulp Fiction and Scarface and other gangster movies. So figure that one out, huh?
EDIT: Oh and Watchmen was one of the worst movies I thought I've ever seen too. Yeah, makes no sense, I know.
Quote from: Moleman on April 25, 2010, 12:59:53 AM
Hold up because you might need to reserve that smiley for me.
Not really, beside the fact you seem to have some misdirected rage and think you take on something is the only way of seeing it I still think gbeenie would be using the smiley where it fits the best.
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
You've got a point, but here's my theory: You are more than likely over the age of 18, and are legally allowed to go see Kick Ass. If you were twelve and your mother or father took you to see it, it has nothing to do with the fact that a violent movie, but rather the fact that the parents should think twice about showing their kids something like this, especially because yeah, it IS imitatable.
Yes, the movie is violent and does have bad language. I'll be the first to admit it. I thought Braveheart had more realistic and disturbing violence than Kick Ass, some of it was even gratuitous (hammer to the head, anyone?) and what did Ebert have to say about it?
Quote"What people are going to remember from the film are the battle scenes, which are frequent, bloody and violent."
That's all. But Kick Ass was a comic book movie, and Ebert doesn't like comic book movies. Therefore: "KICK ASS IS LEADING US INTO A MORAL SEWER OH NOES!!!1"
Quote from: ScottH on April 25, 2010, 01:39:24 AMQuote from: Moleman on April 25, 2010, 12:59:53 AMHold up because you might need to reserve that smiley for me.
Not really, beside the fact you seem to have some misdirected rage and think you take on something is the only way of seeing it I still think gbeenie would be using the smiley where it fits the best.
A..wha...HUH? I think I'm going need a translation on that Scott. No idea what you mean.
I saw the movie last night and loved it as much as any geeky idiot fanboy does. I was just explaining that I pretty much never like the super violent, immoral, and "dark realism" type movies but I liked this one. That's all I meant to say but I was actually too pumped and excited over how much I liked this movie that my post is a little poorly worded to say the least. Nothing to do with any misdirected rage. I'm not raging against anything. I did hear the movie was very violent but a lot of people liked it so I saw it. What does "take on something is the only way of seeing it" even mean?
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
Quote from: Moleman on April 25, 2010, 08:57:44 AM
Quote from: ScottH on April 25, 2010, 01:39:24 AMQuote from: Moleman on April 25, 2010, 12:59:53 AMHold up because you might need to reserve that smiley for me.
Not really, beside the fact you seem to have some misdirected rage and think you take on something is the only way of seeing it I still think gbeenie would be using the smiley where it fits the best.
A..wha...HUH? I think I'm going need a translation on that Scott. No idea what you mean.
I saw the movie last night and loved it as much as any geeky idiot fanboy does. I was just explaining that I pretty much never like the super violent, immoral, and "dark realism" type movies but I liked this one. That's all I meant to say but I was actually too pumped and excited over how much I liked this movie that my post is a little poorly worded to say the least. Nothing to do with any misdirected rage. I'm not raging against anything. I did hear the movie was very violent but a lot of people liked it so I saw it. What does "take on something is the only way of seeing it" even mean?
By 'misdirected rage' I meant your anger at things that have always existed and aren't really that important like "movie fads" and I took your dismissal of Dark Knight, Pulp Fiction, etc because you personally didn't like them as thinking you ake on something is the only way of seeing it. It seemed a VERY long way to to go to make your point is all.
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of onlinjavascript:void(0);e anonymity?
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb4%2Frobotrix%2FSmileys%2Fthjerkit.gif&hash=6c476838d10e3c43d3bfb8e37c77772cbd717004)
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
If we met in person, I could just do the "mental masturbation" motion myself, and not have to solicit help from others.
p.s. We'd probably get along just fine. Disagreeing doesn't mean people can't enjoy each other's company. Here (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gbeenie?ref=profile)'s my Facebook info if you wanna.
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
If we met in person, I could just do the "mental masturbation" motion myself, and not have to solicit help from others.
p.s. We'd probably get along just fine. Disagreeing doesn't mean people can't enjoy each other's company. Here (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gbeenie?ref=profile)'s my Facebook info if you wanna.
:highfive:
Compare this movie to, oh, 80 percent of the movies that have won oscars throughout history, or nearly anything at an indie film festival, and I'm sure you'll find WAY more disturbing stuff to blame our nation's downfall on.
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 26, 2010, 05:17:21 PM
Compare this movie to, oh, 80 percent of the movies that have won oscars throughout history, or nearly anything at an indie film festival, and I'm sure you'll find WAY more disturbing stuff to blame our nation's downfall on.
Yeah, but they're violent in AN IMPORTANT WAY
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb4%2Frobotrix%2FSmileys%2Fthjerkit.gif&hash=6c476838d10e3c43d3bfb8e37c77772cbd717004)
Quote from: warofthebees on April 26, 2010, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: Pak-Man on April 26, 2010, 05:17:21 PM
Compare this movie to, oh, 80 percent of the movies that have won oscars throughout history, or nearly anything at an indie film festival, and I'm sure you'll find WAY more disturbing stuff to blame our nation's downfall on.
Yeah, but they're violent in AN IMPORTANT WAY
As Warofbees alluded to, one of the most laughable parts of his moral outrage is that it only seems to be an issue if he doesn't like the movie.
Just saw this....
Someone (the film makers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 04:28:31 PM
Just saw this....
Someone (the film makers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
...either that or they read the series of books it's based on.
Quote from: ScottH on April 27, 2010, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 04:28:31 PM
Just saw this....
Someone (the film makers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
...either that or they read the series of books it's based on.
Excuse me then....
Someone (the comic book writers) watch a lot of
Kill Bill and
Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 06:08:20 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 27, 2010, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 04:28:31 PM
Just saw this....
Someone (the film makers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
...either that or they read the series of books it's based on.
Excuse me then....
Someone (the comic book writers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
Actually both the movie and the comics were written at the same time. Millar pitched the idea then they wrote the comics and the script. So it is safe to say that
ALL involved watched a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet.
Quote from: a pretty girl is like on April 26, 2010, 07:15:46 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
If we met in person, I could just do the "mental masturbation" motion myself, and not have to solicit help from others.
p.s. We'd probably get along just fine. Disagreeing doesn't mean people can't enjoy each other's company. Here (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gbeenie?ref=profile)'s my Facebook info if you wanna.
:highfive:
Yeah, she sure put me in MY place, didn't she? Showing off how supremely awesome facebook. ::)
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 06:08:20 PM
Excuse me then....
Someone (the comic book writers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
No, Mark Milar's a bit... unique. His equally violent, if not more so, comics first got notice in 2000-3, making them contemporaries of Kill Bill, if not predating them a tad. He's always been this way. Except when writing "Sonic The Hedgehog." I think Archie had tight reigns on him on that one.
Quote from: Compound on May 02, 2010, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck on April 27, 2010, 06:08:20 PM
Excuse me then....
Someone (the comic book writers) watch a lot of Kill Bill and Ultraviolet, don't they? ;)
No, Mark Milar's a bit... unique. His equally violent, if not more so, comics first got notice in 2000-3, making them contemporaries of Kill Bill, if not predating them a tad. He's always been this way. Except when writing "Sonic The Hedgehog." I think Archie had tight reigns on him on that one.
Sorry.
If all you take is Hit Girl's first rampage taking place to the theme from The Banana Splits, the comic book art flashback, the Gun Fu that Wimmer has made infamous and the pages flying through the air during the gunfight.....
....there's a lot of 'homage" in this film.
Quote from: Ben on May 02, 2010, 08:59:29 PM
Quote from: a pretty girl is like on April 26, 2010, 07:15:46 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
If we met in person, I could just do the "mental masturbation" motion myself, and not have to solicit help from others.
p.s. We'd probably get along just fine. Disagreeing doesn't mean people can't enjoy each other's company. Here (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gbeenie?ref=profile)'s my Facebook info if you wanna.
:highfive:
Yeah, she sure put me in MY place, didn't she? Showing off how supremely awesome facebook. ::)
We've all moved on from your straw man dear boy
Quote from: ScottH on May 03, 2010, 02:24:24 AM
Quote from: Ben on May 02, 2010, 08:59:29 PM
Quote from: a pretty girl is like on April 26, 2010, 07:15:46 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 25, 2010, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: gbeenie on April 25, 2010, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 07:04:00 PM
Quote from: ScottH on April 24, 2010, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ben on April 24, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
Roger Ebert Was Right After All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcaAJjn_ic)
What's that pompous winbag's problem this time?
Meh, just the usual: The stark terror of living in a world that's slowly losing all sense of morality, conscience, or civility, and being dismissed as a boring prude every time he dares to mention it aloud.
People have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Sure, but you didn't see Clark Gable's daughter mowing down Union soldiers with a semiautomatic, now did you?
Yawn. Anyone have a good "jerking off" smiley to put here?
Nice. Would you be this pleasant if I met you face-to-face, or do you prefer the safety of online anonymity?
If we met in person, I could just do the "mental masturbation" motion myself, and not have to solicit help from others.
p.s. We'd probably get along just fine. Disagreeing doesn't mean people can't enjoy each other's company. Here (http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gbeenie?ref=profile)'s my Facebook info if you wanna.
:highfive:
Yeah, she sure put me in MY place, didn't she? Showing off how supremely awesome facebook. ::)
We've all moved on from your straw man dear boy
Ladies, ladies...you're
all pretty!
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PMPeople have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Come to think of it, why do I even need to explain my position? You're comparing a grown adult cursing to a ten-year-old girl slaughtering people with semiautomatics. What the hell is wrong with you?
Quote from: Ben on May 05, 2010, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PMPeople have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Come to think of it, why do I even need to explain my position? You're comparing a grown adult dropping a dirty word to a ten-year-old girl slaughtering people with semiautomatics. What the hell is wrong with you?
Quote from: Ben on May 05, 2010, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PMPeople have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Come to think of it, why do I even need to explain my position? You're comparing a grown adult cursing to a ten-year-old girl slaughtering people with semiautomatics. What the hell is wrong with you?
Leaving is probably a good idea. If I was the one arguing with Scott and he pulls that "straw man" shit on me I would have exploded. God damn man could it just be that this guy Ben sees things a little differently? For it to be a straw man he would have to fully understand the other side but then intentionally argue the other side weaker. Thats just how he sees whats going on. If you want to claim he doesn't get it, fine. Sorry but that stuff pisses me off.
And I'm actually on his side. I LOVED this movie and see no problem with mindless and moral-less violence as long as the movie is rated "R". Sure kids will always find a way to see it but as long as the movie is intended for adults, adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally.
And I don't see this movie as screwed up mentally at all. 10 year olds kill people with guns all the time in cartoons. Its usually just off-screen or not focused on. I use to play cowboys and Indians all the time when I was 5 too. I think you're way off base.
Quote from: Ben on May 05, 2010, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PMPeople have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Come to think of it, why do I even need to explain my position? You're comparing a grown adult cursing to a ten-year-old girl slaughtering people with semiautomatics. What the hell is wrong with you?
The point I was trying to make, since it went over your head, is that people have always said that movies are leading us down the moral sewer. I think that "what the hell is wrong" with me is the fact that a movie can do whatever it wants as long as it's "arty".
Hey, Ebert, what did you think of the film "Hounddog", which includes the simulated rape of Dakota Fanning?
QuoteDakota Fanning takes an impressive step forward in her career, but that's about the only good thing about "Hounddog."
Hmm...so, no complaints whatsoever about the child rape?
Cool. So rape of a minor is okay by you, how about the violence in Kick Ass?
QuoteA movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.
So, to recap: simulated rape of a minor, OKAY! Simulated fighting of a minor (who overcomes her attackers) HOLLYWOOD IS A DISGUSTING MORAL SEWER!!!
So, Ben, I guess I answered just what the hell is wrong with me.
Edit: Not wanting to be accused of taking things out of context, here's the link to the Hounddog review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/REVIEWS/809180302/1023 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/REVIEWS/809180302/1023) Rape mentioned as occurring in the film, yet not decried for seven out of eight paragraphs like violence in his Kick Ass "review"
My 2 cents: It's not like the movie is reccomending that 10 year olds start hacking up criminals. The way the movie portrays it, I think we're all supposed to feel a bit uncomfortable with the concept. There's a difference between what a movie portrays and what a movie promotes. This movie doesn't make the case that it's a good idea to dress up and beat up criminals. (In fact, much more family friendly movies do a much better job of that). It just shows what would happen if you did.
Now if this movie were being promoted as the best family movie since Beverly Hills Chihuahua, I'd have issues with that. As it was, this movie was rated R, wasn't advertised during any kid-friendly programming, and was given a title that was sure to prevent any parents from becoming confused and sending their kids to the film by accident. This film decided to pull the grown-ups aside and portray Superheroism from an adult perspective. And even if a few kids DO see it, it won't be any different from the 10-year-olds of my day getting to go watch Robocop. They'll see some over-the-top violence, probably talk about how awesome it was after, and resume their lives.
Quote from: Pak-Man on May 05, 2010, 11:28:17 PM
Now if this movie were being promoted as the best family movie since Beverly Hills Chihuahua
That was not a family film. I would be damn sure not to let any children see Beverly Hills Chihuahua, it would scar them for life.
Sequel on the way!: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/05/kick-ass-2-balls-to-the-wall-will-begin-production-in-2011/
;D
Quote from: warofthebees on May 05, 2010, 08:08:37 PM
Quote from: Ben on May 05, 2010, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: warofthebees on April 24, 2010, 07:48:25 PMPeople have been saying the same thing since Clark Gable said "Damn."
Come to think of it, why do I even need to explain my position? You're comparing a grown adult cursing to a ten-year-old girl slaughtering people with semiautomatics. What the hell is wrong with you?
The point I was trying to make, since it went over your head, is that people have always said that movies are leading us down the moral sewer. I think that "what the hell is wrong" with me is the fact that a movie can do whatever it wants as long as it's "arty".
Hey, Ebert, what did you think of the film "Hounddog", which includes the simulated rape of Dakota Fanning?QuoteDakota Fanning takes an impressive step forward in her career, but that's about the only good thing about "Hounddog."
Hmm...so, no complaints whatsoever about the child rape?
Cool. So rape of a minor is okay by you, how about the violence in Kick Ass? QuoteA movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.
So, to recap: simulated rape of a minor, OKAY! Simulated fighting of a minor (who overcomes her attackers) HOLLYWOOD IS A DISGUSTING MORAL SEWER!!!
So, Ben, I guess I answered just what the hell is wrong with me.
Edit: Not wanting to be accused of taking things out of context, here's the link to the Hounddog review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/REVIEWS/809180302/1023 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/REVIEWS/809180302/1023) Rape mentioned as occurring in the film, yet not decried for seven out of eight paragraphs like violence in his Kick Ass "review"
:clap:
Quote from: Moleman on May 05, 2010, 04:36:02 PMAnd I'm actually on his side. I LOVED this movie and see no problem with mindless and moral-less violence as long as the movie is rated "R". Sure kids will always find a way to see it but as long as the movie is intended for adults, adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally.
A line like
"Adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally" always has a major loophole. I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum. Now, I realize that KICK-ASS is "just a film" and isn't anywhere near the same league as the Romans; I'm just following the logic of that statement to its natural conclusion.
This goes beyond a person accusing a movie of lacking in ethics because one character uttered "damn". This is about basic human ethics
themselves being viewed as something archaic and out-of-date. GONE WITH THE WIND was made in 1939; I'm sure in the year 2080, we'll be chastising some stuffy prude for throwing a hissy fit just because the latest action film out in theaters had the hero force a five-year-old into giving him a blowjob in a long, extended, uncut sequence.
QuoteAnd I don't see this movie as screwed up mentally at all. 10 year olds kill people with guns all the time in cartoons.
Examples, please.
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
Quote from: Moleman on May 05, 2010, 04:36:02 PMAnd I'm actually on his side. I LOVED this movie and see no problem with mindless and moral-less violence as long as the movie is rated "R". Sure kids will always find a way to see it but as long as the movie is intended for adults, adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally.
A line like "Adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally" always has a major loophole. I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum. Now, I realize that KICK-ASS is "just a film" and isn't anywhere near the same league as the Romans; I'm just following the logic of that statement to its natural conclusion.
This goes beyond a person accusing a movie of lacking in ethics because one character uttered "damn". This is about basic human ethics themselves being viewed as something archaic and out-of-date. GONE WITH THE WIND was made in 1939; I'm sure in the year 2080, we'll be chastising some stuffy prude for throwing a hissy fit just because the latest action film out in theaters had the hero force a five-year-old into giving him a blowjob in a long, extended, uncut sequence.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb4%2Frobotrix%2FSmileys%2Fthjerkit.gif&hash=6c476838d10e3c43d3bfb8e37c77772cbd717004)
...and if homosexuals are allowed to get married there'll be people marrying livestock next!
Quote from: warofthebees on May 05, 2010, 08:08:37 PM
Hey, Ebert, what did you think of the film "Hounddog", which includes the simulated rape of Dakota Fanning?QuoteDakota Fanning takes an impressive step forward in her career, but that's about the only good thing about "Hounddog."
Hmm...so, no complaints whatsoever about the child rape?
Cool. So rape of a minor is okay by you, how about the violence in Kick Ass? QuoteA movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.
So, to recap: simulated rape of a minor, OKAY! Simulated fighting of a minor (who overcomes her attackers) HOLLYWOOD IS A DISGUSTING MORAL SEWER!!!
Not a big Ebert fan or anything, but not sure if this is really fair. His outrage towards Kick-Ass, whether justified or not, is expanded elsewhere in his review. Basically stating that movies with people in superhero costumes will appeal to underage kids. In his mind, this makes Kick-Ass particularly irresponsible / morally reprehensible / whatever. Now obviously a 1950s period piece about the poor South, never really aimed for the mass-market anyways, probably isn't going to get many kids sneaking into daddy's DVD shelf to see Fanning get raped.
Also, kids get raped... it happens... and I doubt Houndog is designed to glorify the act. How many 11-year olds put on purple capes and go all Matrix with handguns? Not many I would presume, but the advertising for this movie does make it look pretty fuckin awesome. I'll agree that Ebert tends to be a stick-in-the-mud... but "simulated rape of a minor, OKAY!" can't be taken seriously based on anything presented in his review of Houndog. Just because he didn't explicity condemn child rape doesn't mean he is alright with it... Just because he condemns what he feels is socially irresponsible portrayals of violence in certain movies doesn't mean that ALL VIOLENCE ON FILM IS TEH EVIL!
I don't have any huge moral dillemas concerning Kick-Ass. While I haven't seen it yet, I was already fully aware of what to expect... But just based on the clips I've seen, I don't feel Ebert's views are necessarily meritless.
Ben-your argument is so idiotic and irrational that I must disect it piece by piece, like a man would explore a dead alien (hope I didn't offend with that graphic imagery!)
QuoteA line like "Adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally" always has a major loophole.
You are aware that there are these things called "laws" which prevent adults from choosing whatever they want to do? Like, I can't kill and rape a bunch of people, because there are laws to prevent that. Also, despite seeing violent movies most of my life, I'm a rational person. I assume what you meant was that adults can choose to
watch whatever they want, no matter how screwed up. Is it a loophole? I suppose you can see it that way, but your argument seems to make it seem like people use it as a flimsy excuse, when in reality, it actually has some legs.
QuoteI'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum. Now, I realize that KICK-ASS is "just a film" and isn't anywhere near the same league as the Romans; I'm just following the logic of that statement to its natural conclusion.
Whoo, nice cover up. I'm glad you realized the lack of common sense in comparing slaves being mercilessly ripped apart by savage animals to the obviously special effects-laden scenes of a ten year old flipping around the room with guns. And no, you did not follow that statement to its natural conclusion. You are implying that an adult's ability to choose to see acts of cartoonish violence, simulated on film, is on par with the savage murder of defenseless people.
QuoteThis goes beyond a person accusing a movie of lacking in ethics because one character uttered "damn". This is about basic human ethics themselves being viewed as something archaic and out-of-date.
Yeah, we sure do view human ethics as out of date, huh? I sure do miss the bygone days of slavery, witch burnings, lynchings, and not letting black people drink from the same fountains as us! People aren't requesting to show Kick-Ass to an elementary school crowd. They aren't broadcasting it on ABC Family (although, with Disney owning Marvel, one assumes they could...). Thirty years ago, grindhouse films were a hell of a lot worse than the violence seen in Kick Ass. Ever hear of
Cannibal Holocaust? Don't look it up, I'm not sure you could handle it.
QuoteGONE WITH THE WIND was made in 1939; I'm sure in the year 2080, we'll be chastising some stuffy prude for throwing a hissy fit just because the latest action film out in theaters had the hero force a five-year-old into giving him a blowjob in a long, extended, uncut sequence.
And with that sentence, you have managed to destroy the little shred of credibility you may have had left.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on May 06, 2010, 08:53:58 AM
Not a big Ebert fan or anything, but not sure if this is really fair. His outrage towards Kick-Ass, whether justified or not, is expanded elsewhere in his review. Basically stating that movies with people in superhero costumes will appeal to underage kids. In his mind, this makes Kick-Ass particularly irresponsible / morally reprehensible / whatever. Now obviously a 1950s period piece about the poor South, never really aimed for the mass-market anyways, probably isn't going to get many kids sneaking into daddy's DVD shelf to see Fanning get raped.
Also, kids get raped... it happens... and I doubt Houndog is designed to glorify the act. How many 11-year olds put on purple capes and go all Matrix with handguns? Not many I would presume, but the advertising for this movie does make it look pretty fuckin awesome. I'll agree that Ebert tends to be a stick-in-the-mud... but "simulated rape of a minor, OKAY!" can't be taken seriously based on anything presented in his review of Houndog. Just because he didn't explicity condemn child rape doesn't mean he is alright with it... Just because he condemns what he feels is socially irresponsible portrayals of violence in certain movies doesn't mean that ALL VIOLENCE ON FILM IS TEH EVIL!
I don't have any huge moral dillemas concerning Kick-Ass. While I haven't seen it yet, I was already fully aware of what to expect... But just based on the clips I've seen, I don't feel Ebert's views are necessarily meritless.
I didn't mean to make it seem like Ebert supports raping children (there's something I'd never thought I'd type), I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that when he likes a movie, he doesn't have any problem with the violence, sexual or otherwise, within it, but if he doesn't like the movie, he rails about how horrible our morals are. I think I used his review of Braveheart earlier in this thread, which has several gratuitous scenes of violence, but it's a good movie, so Ebert has no qualms about it. And I get the problem with the fact that in Kick Ass, it's a child doing these things, and
might be imitable, but check out his review for the vile film "Kids," which is way more imitable. Not much of a problem with it.
Edit:Sorry about the double post, I was on a role, here.
Quote from: warofthebees on May 06, 2010, 09:14:52 AM
I didn't mean to make it seem like Ebert supports raping children (there's something I'd never thought I'd type), I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that when he likes a movie, he doesn't have any problem with the violence, sexual or otherwise, within it, but if he doesn't like the movie, he rails about how horrible our morals are. I think I used his review of Braveheart earlier in this thread, which has several gratuitous scenes of violence, but it's a good movie, so Ebert has no qualms about it. And I get the problem with the fact that in Kick Ass, it's a child doing these things, and might be imitable, but check out his review for the vile film "Kids," which is way more imitable. Not much of a problem with it.
Heh, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth about Ebert loving child rape... Just trying to point out that context plays a part here... and I'm not sure if you are taking that fully into account. I won't claim to be an expert on Ebert's reviews. But I have little doubt that like many of us, his views don't always seem 100% percent consistent in everything he has ever written. That said, I can't necessarily be on board with things being so simplistic as "he likes the movie = violence is fine, he hates the movie = violence is bad". Couldn't the context in which the violence is presented have something to do with his opinion of the movie in the first place?
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on May 06, 2010, 09:24:23 AM
But I have little doubt that like many of us, his views don't always seem 100% percent consistent in everything he has ever written
That may be true, but most of us aren't nationally published film critics.
In all honesty, I agree with you, context does play a role. But with his review of Kick Ass, Ebert uses 7 of his 8 paragraphs to complain about one scene in the film. That's not a review, that's an old man writing a letter to the editors. I wouldn't be bothered so much by it had he said that he just didn't like the movie because it was too violent at points and the ending was ridiculous, the acting was bad, or whatever. Instead of doing what a critic should do, writing the merits and demerits of the film, Ebert chose to complain about one scene.
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
A line like "Adults should be able to choose whatever they want to do no matter how screwed up it might be mentally" always has a major loophole. I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
Well those slaves aren't being allowed to choose what they want to do as adults so no I don't see how that applies. In that case, you have those in authority forcing other people to do what they want them to do. I would think that if anything, your side is closer to that since you're basically saying that they shouldn't be allowed to make a movie like Kick-Ass and people shouldn't be allowed to watch it because YOU don't like it and think it has a negative effect on the moral fabric of society. It sounds like you want to take away people's freedom which is kind of like what slaves don't have, freedom.
Of course it ridiculous to compare of an argument a 10 year old murdering CRIMINALS to Romans throwing slaves to the lions IN REAL LIFE. But you went there man don't blame me when you started it.
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AMThis goes beyond a person accusing a movie of lacking in ethics because one character uttered "damn". This is about basic human ethics themselves being viewed as something archaic and out-of-date.
I don't know if you're arguing from a Christian perspective or not but in case you are...I remember a particular story in the Bible where someone DROVE A STAKE THROUGH A MAN'S TEMPLES! Wasn't David a young man of 15 or something when he killed Goliath? Remember how Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son? Remember how like almost everything in the old testament is unbelievably violent? Don't know if this is your perspective but I thought I'd throw that out there. Its not that violence itself is morally wrong, its the intention of the violence.
In the case of the movie all these guys who are killed are mobsters, low-life scum, criminals who probably have connections with judges and could get out of any punishment. Anyone who can tie someone up and set them on fire so they die in the most painful suffering way imaginable pretty much deserve to die themselves. No its not due process so its not right from a civil rights standpoint but then again ITS A MOVIE! This is the time when we can actually take a step back from reality and feel the things we often repress in our day to day lives. Its a release. I sometimes wish we can throw civil rights out the window and just kill these bastards, so the movie is giving me exactly what I want.
And another thing, I don't know about you Ben but I'm able to watch a violent movie, enjoy it, and then go back to real life where I'm actually too scared to own a gun and typically avoid confrontation. If anything, in my case, all this violence has pacified me. I can't possibly imagine myself actually killing another human being and I applaud the soldiers that get shipped off overseas who are able to do what I can't do.
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
QuoteAnd I don't see this movie as screwed up mentally at all. 10 year olds kill people with guns all the time in cartoons.
Examples, please.
Well I'm not up with the current shows on cartoon network so I guess you got me. But I could swear I see this kind of stuff all the time while flipping channels.
How about a better example though. How about every video game ever made? Wouldn't you say that 10 years olds or at least people with a 10 year old mentality are usually the targets of all these mindless
first person shooters. Isn't the very idea of a FPS to make you feel like you're the guy killing everybody? You should consider that worse since instead of watching someone kill someone else you're actually virtually doing it yourself. They're almost literally putting the gun in a child's hands aren't they?
I'm not going to comment on the review nor the movie (I have not seen it yet) but Ebert did write a kick-ass (irony noted) paragraph.......
"Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find "Kick-Ass" morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let's say you're a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the movie does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in."
While obviously a hatchet job, I didn't have any huge complaints on Ebert's review. Sure, it wasn't much of a critique of the overall work... But if he finds that one sequence completely torpedoes any merit the overall work might have otherwise had... I can't crucify him for focusing on that. At the end of the day, he's paid for his opinion more so than anything else.
Being paid for an opinion does not make that opinion any more valid.
You know who paid for opinions? HITLER. (Sorry, it's just that the way this thread has been going, someone's bound to call someone Hitler eventually anyway)
Being paid for an opinion does not make that opinion any less valid either. (This is of course assuming that these opinions are honest, and that Ebert was not told by his employers to shitcan the movie on purpose. Which I don't think anybody would presume to be in play.)
Either way, I wasn't trying to comment on whether or not you or I or anybody else should agree with his opinion... Just that I don't have an issue with how he chose to present it in this case. Most of the time, I have an idea for the plot and basic nuts and bolts of who is involved in front of the camera and who is sitting in the director's chair before I ever get to Ebert's website. Therefore, I'm not terribly concerned with his critique of the editing or directing or acting if he thinks there is one fatal flaw that he could not ignore. I mean, a fatal flaw is just that... and it would be the focus of his review either way. I don't need him to tell me that a restaurant served a great salad if the waiter took a piss on his main course and then slapped off his abjectly terrifying reconstructed jaw.
Far be it from me to interrupt this, but
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
No slaves were fed to the lions in the Colosseum, the Flavian Amphitheater was used for Gladiatorial Combat, Staged Hunts and, for a while at least, the reenactment of Naval Battles.
Occasionally a condemned criminal would be put to death there, but generally not through mauling by animals.
It wasn't until around the end of the 17th century that people even began supposing that Christian martyrs met their end there. If any of them truly met their end in the maws of Lions it was at the Circus Flaminius, and that's a big if there.
Also, the Romans were fairly dependent upon their slaves; a good slave was not something you merely wasted for a spectacle, that's what the condemned were for.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 06, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
Far be it from me to interrupt this, but
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
No slaves were fed to the lions in the Colosseum, the Flavian Amphitheater was used for Gladitorial Combat, Staged Hunts and, for a while at least, the reenactment of Navel Battles.
Occasionally a condemned criminal would be put to death there, but generally not through mauling by animals.
It wasn't until around the end of the 17th century that people even began supposing that Christian martyrs met their end there. If any of them truly met their end in the maws of Lions it was at the Circus Flaminius, and that's a big if there.
Also, the Romans were fairly dependent upon their slaves; a good slave was not something you merely wasted for a spectacle, that's what the condemned were for.
(https://forum.rifftrax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoorimpulsecontrol.net%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fnbc_the_more_you_know-784146.jpg&hash=c8302664b239a63f44ba320600ff3704f146b495)
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 06, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
Far be it from me to interrupt this, but
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
No slaves were fed to the lions in the Colosseum, the Flavian Amphitheater was used for Gladitorial Combat, Staged Hunts and, for a while at least, the reenactment of Navel Battles.
I support the Innies. Outies can go scratch.
Pretty random but I accidentally found Ben on the TGWTG forum: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15770&p=196064#p195882 (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15770&p=196064#p195882)
I take it you don't have a problem with Ask That Guy...
EDIT: He also bitches about this movie over here: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16570&start=80#p188241 (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16570&start=80#p188241)
Sorry I'm sure this is no big deal to anybody else but I think the only time I've ever seen the same person at two completely different places I go to was one time I saw an Angry Video Game Nerd comment by Ronin Fox. As someone who doesn't spend all day on multiple different internet sites this is quite fascinating to me.
You may resume talking about belly button battles now.
If you start driving slowly past his house, Moleman, I think it will be time for me to get worried about you.
Quote from: a pretty girl is like on May 06, 2010, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 06, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
Far be it from me to interrupt this, but
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
No slaves were fed to the lions in the Colosseum, the Flavian Amphitheater was used for Gladiatorial Combat, Staged Hunts and, for a while at least, the reenactment of Navel Battles.
I support the Innies. Outies can go scratch.
Damn it I knew I'd made a mistake, couldn;t quite put a finger on it though. :)
Quote from: warofthebees on May 07, 2010, 03:37:49 AM
If you start driving slowly past his house, Moleman, I think it will be time for me to get worried about you.
:D
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 07, 2010, 05:21:28 AM
Quote from: a pretty girl is like on May 06, 2010, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 06, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
Far be it from me to interrupt this, but
Quote from: Ben on May 06, 2010, 07:51:09 AM
I'm sure the Romans applied the same argument when they fed their slaves to hungry lions in the Coliseum.
No slaves were fed to the lions in the Colosseum, the Flavian Amphitheater was used for Gladiatorial Combat, Staged Hunts and, for a while at least, the reenactment of Navel Battles.
I support the Innies. Outies can go scratch.
Damn it I knew I'd made a mistake, couldn;t quite put a finger on it though. :)
You'd put your finger
in, wouldn't you?
In my experience, the "Oh No! Civility is on the decline! Western civilization stands poised on the brink of ruin!" argument is composed of the following base elements:
Nostalgia for a period in time that never actually existed - 100%
Knowledge/understanding of human history - 0%
Quote from: gbeenie on May 10, 2010, 11:12:49 PM
In my experience, the "Oh No! Civility is on the decline! Western civilization stands poised on the brink of ruin!" argument is composed of the following base elements:
Nostalgia for a period in time that never actually existed - 100%
Knowledge/understanding of human history - 0%
:clap:
Quote from: gbeenie on May 10, 2010, 11:12:49 PM
In my experience, the "Oh No! Civility is on the decline! Western civilization stands poised on the brink of ruin!" argument is composed of the following base elements:
Nostalgia for a period in time that never actually existed - 100%
Knowledge/understanding of human history - 0%
I don't know if this is exactly accurate. I'm sure there were naysayers from days of yore who foresaw the decline of civilization... and the proof is sorta in the pudding. We aren't reading this fancy interweb device in Latin... great civilizations have been poised on the brink of ruin before and have gone over the edge.
Yeah, but predicting the downfall of our civilization is like saying, "You're gonna die some day." This is more like saying, "You're gonna die some day- From this movie!"
Hah! Fair enough... I'm certainly not trying to say that the chicken little crowd is fully justified in their chicken little-isms... Just that I'm not sure if you can state with 100% certainty that moral depravity or lack of civility has never contributed to the downfall of a great civilization.
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on May 11, 2010, 09:10:57 AM
Just that I'm not sure if you can state with 100% certainty that moral depravity or lack of civility has never contributed to the downfall of a great civilization.
Depending on how one defines lack of depravity and clean living, Gibbon argues that Rome fell for the complete opposite reason really.
Quote from: Tripe H. Redux on May 11, 2010, 10:12:11 AM
Quote from: Nunyerbiz on May 11, 2010, 09:10:57 AM
Just that I'm not sure if you can state with 100% certainty that moral depravity or lack of civility has never contributed to the downfall of a great civilization.
Depending on how one defines lack of depravity and clean living, Gibbon argues that Rome fell for the complete opposite reason really.
Well, that's kinda my point really... If we could talk about history in terms of 0% knowledge versus 100% knowledge versus wishful thinking versus nostalgia... then Gibbon wouldn't need to argue anything to begin with.