Kick-Ass

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

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.

[ScottotD]

Roger Ebert Was Right After All

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's my Facebook info if you wanna.

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

[warofthebees]

Roger Ebert Was Right After All

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's my Facebook info if you wanna.

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!

[Ben]

People 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?

[Ben]

People 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?

[Moleman]

People 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.

[warofthebees]

People 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?

Dakota 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?

A 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  Rape mentioned as occurring in the film, yet not decried for seven out of eight paragraphs like violence in his Kick Ass "review"

[Pak-Man]

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.

[warofthebees]

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.

[ScottotD]

Sequel on the way!: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/05/kick-ass-2-balls-to-the-wall-will-begin-production-in-2011/

People 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?

Dakota 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?

A 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  Rape mentioned as occurring in the film, yet not decried for seven out of eight paragraphs like violence in his Kick Ass "review"

[Ben]

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.

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.

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.

Examples, please.

[ScottotD]

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.

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.

...and if homosexuals are allowed to get married there'll be people marrying livestock next!

[Nunyerbiz]

Hey, Ebert, what did you think of the film "Hounddog", which includes the simulated rape of Dakota Fanning?

Dakota 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?

A 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. 

[warofthebees]

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

And with that sentence, you have managed to destroy the little shred of credibility you may have had left.

[warofthebees]

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.