Kick-Ass

[Nunyerbiz]

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?

[warofthebees]

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.

[Moleman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Bob]

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."

[Nunyerbiz]

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.

[warofthebees]

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)

[Nunyerbiz]

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.

[Tripe]

Far be it from me to interrupt this, but

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.

[Moleman]

Far be it from me to interrupt this, but

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.

[a pretty girl is like]

Far be it from me to interrupt this, but

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.

[Moleman]

Pretty random but I accidentally found Ben on the TGWTG forum: 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


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.

[warofthebees]

If you start driving slowly past his house, Moleman, I think it will be time for me to get worried about you.

[Tripe]

Far be it from me to interrupt this, but

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.

[Moleman]

If you start driving slowly past his house, Moleman, I think it will be time for me to get worried about you.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

Far be it from me to interrupt this, but

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?