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.
This is only a movie I "might" see. And a strong emphasis on that might.It looks like something that was written by an Xbox fanboy or something. Like it's trying too hard to be cool. I don't know, maybe it's just me (well, and Ebert evidently), but it kind of looks like Mystery Men (which I love), but making itself out to be some kind of be-all end-all cool because of swearing and violence.
Apr 15 - 03:36 AM
You and Roger are both retards, why did he give away the ending of the movie in his review, what an imbecile?
Jul 31 - 07:59 PM
You tell 'em Roger! Kick-Ass is retarded!Your scale is perfect! When Watchmen equates to four stars, Kick-Ass equates to one. No I am not being sarcastic. Kick-Ass is really really lame.
Aug 6 - 09:13 PM
and I guess The Last Song deserves an 2.5/4 right?unfortunately Roger is another moralist
Apr 15 - 03:56 AM
2.5 is a thumbs down for Roger.
Apr 15 - 04:15 AM
Hey! That was one the best reviews I've read all year. Focus on the review and not the content.
Apr 15 - 12:45 PM
Roger has to retire.
Apr 16 - 05:03 PM
Oct 13 - 12:12 AM
Ebert, at least be consistent with your moral righteousness. You give all of Tarantino's films high praise and they're gratuitously violent. You gave The Devil's Rejects a positive review. So because a 12 year old is committing the violence, it is suddenly morally reprehensible?
I think Ebert is trying to say that the movie revels in it's violence without consequences as some sort of joke. Note the "Hahahahaha" at the end of paragraph 4.Whereas in Tarantino's films, it's treated seriously etc.
Apr 15 - 05:08 AM
Tarantino films show the consequences of violence?! You have to be kidding me. Many of his films, like Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, have very cartoonish violence that's done for laughs.
Apr 15 - 02:29 PM
Your kidding right? How the hell does that make sense, really?! That's like saying if your under 18 you should be able to choose whether or not you smoke. C'mon watch the movie before you start defending it.
Apr 15 - 04:21 PM
What part doesn't make sense? Gratuitious violence is gratuitous violence irregardless of the age of the perpetrator. Your analogy isn't very good. With your logic, it's ok for an adult to murder because it's ok for an adult to choose to smoke. Also, I wasn't defending the movie. I was pointing out that Ebert isn't being consistent.
Apr 15 - 04:55 PM
There's HUGE differences in a Tarantino's violence and Kick-Ass's violence. The ONLY similarity that could be thrown in the same category is both being gratuitous. The way the characters are made are probably the easiest contrast. In Tarantino's films they are felt to be not only capable of the violence, but also handle the repercussions.In Kick-Ass, these are kids that think it will be cool to be heroes, yet once they kill 8-12 guys(the girl especially), their character has no implication that it can handle the emotions behind killing another person.The only way to achieve notable characteristics in kids that are able to kill without feeling are found in some recent films like 300 and Ninja Assassin.I see exactly where Ebert is coming from, and he's justified in his feelings.
Apr 16 - 12:48 AM
If age has no bearing on what is and is not acceptable then you are saying child pornography acceptable.
Apr 16 - 01:57 PM
That's an absurd comparison. Child pornography is real, the violence in Kick-Ass is not.
Apr 18 - 01:02 PM
Tall Cool One !
11 year old kids shooting each other and others is every bit as real as child pornography. What world are you living in?
Apr 18 - 02:14 PM
I'm living in a world where we're talking about (fake) violence in movies, not (real) child pornography.
Apr 18 - 05:56 PM
I meant to continue that last post with "nor real violence."
Apr 18 - 06:02 PM
You would be absolutely right...IF there was an actual child actually killing. It would be a snuff film.There have been plenty of movies about child pornography and child abuse. You do know that in these movie...no child was actually hurt right? Right? You know that in movies they tell stories?
Apr 18 - 11:24 PM
I'm not sure what part of Kill Bill Vol. 1&2, Death Proof, or Inglourious Basterds shows the consequences of violence. I know some people try to say that Pulp Fiction shows the consequences of violence. Well, the John Travolta character get killed because of karma, but Sam Jackson's character is "saved" because he converts to a good religious preacher. Apparently, as long as you redeem yourself, you can commit any amounts of violent acts.
Apr 15 - 05:05 PM
"Im not sure what part of Kill Bill Vol. 1&2, Death Proof, or Inglourious Basterds shows the consequences of violence."Wow. Now - I haven't yet seen Death Proof, but KB1&2 and IB all deal in major MAJOR ways with the consequences of violence. It's the whole damn point of Kill Bill!
Apr 16 - 03:49 AM
Riiight. Uma Thurman's character kills hundreds of people in a cartoonish, stylized manner and it's done for our amusement. That's realism for you.
Apr 18 - 01:09 PM
Actually, yeah, I have a feeling he would say EXACTLY that. A child committing horrendous acts of glorified violence is worse than adults committing morally dubious acts of violence (as you'd find in a Tarantino film).Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this movie. I've seen clips, and by and large they're funny, but clips don't show you everything.
Apr 15 - 10:07 AM
Age alone should not be the deciding factor between what is acceptable and what isn't.
Apr 15 - 02:43 PM
Why not? As someone who works with children, the idea of them being in violent situations bothers me a lot more than adults. Bear in mind she's not just dishing out the violence, she's receiving it too. I didn't know that from the clips I've seen, and yes, it makes me less inclined to see this movie.
Apr 15 - 02:58 PM
It shouldn't be the deciding factor because you're drawing an arbitrary line. If you're going to use the morality argument, use it consistently or else you look like a wishy washy hypocrite. It makes no sense that Ebert would enjoy a movie like The Devil's Rejects (which I kind of liked) but then bashes Kick-Ass. I haven't seen Kick-Ass yet, but I'm going to guess it's nowhere near as disturbing as The Devil's Rejects.
Apr 15 - 05:22 PM
crushin russian nailed it im afraid. kill bill is not a movie about the consequences of violence. where are the consequences to the bride's murder of like a thousand japanese people? we see nothing of consequence in that movie that is in any way effective. tarrantino makes movies that are supposed to be enjoyed, he has never pretended to be a director that wants to "criticise violence by using violence" like a hypocrite such as sam peckinpah used to try to con us all into believing. to say that tarrantino uses excessive violence in order to show the consequences of such acts is so far wide of the mark...
Apr 16 - 06:27 AM
You can argue that *ANY* moreal lines are "arbitrary." But I think Ebert's really clear here: violence against and perpetrated by children is inherently more abhorrent than violence perpetrated against and by adults. You may see it as arbitrary. I see it as a valid argument. Lines must be drawn somewhere. Honestly, I'm not so sure I want to see this now knowing what Hit Girl is going to be like, and I thank Roger Ebert for letting me know.
Apr 16 - 06:46 AM
Ok but who decides where the line is drawn? Kids get into fights all the time at school, who hasn't seen, been involved in, or heard about the playground brawl after school?Is vicious violence okay if its taken/perpetrated by a 12 year old? What about 13.2578?The idea that children should be protected and only become adults at some arbitrary age is a societal norm, and is not consistent by time or world region. Just one generation ago you were a man at the age of 12 or 14, and could be the head of household and sole provider.If people, such as Ebert or anyone in general are going to find violence morally reprehensible, then it must be consistent, whether it be Kick-Ass, any of Tarantino's movies, The Matrix, any of the genre of superhero movies etc. To draw a line and say that over the top violence is okay when perpetrated by a 18 year old because they're "adults" is hypocritical at best, and terribly naive at worst.Plus, Ebert is quite wrong in his assertion that other movies show the consequences of violence, whereas Kick Ass does not. Take a movie like Wanted, 300, etc. or any comic book by Mark Millar. Ebert claims that characters in other movies proceed through some moral quandary tunnel (violence therapy perhaps) that leads them to character development and the realizzation that violence for its own sake is wrong.Yet this doesn't happen in any of the movies he listed because movies like Kick Ass aren't real. The idea that Ebert thinly veils is that Kick Ass could spur a bunch of sixth grade murder sprees across the U.S., which was the same stupid argument used with the Columbine shootings and the Matrix. Anyone who believes that tripe is just a fool.
Apr 18 - 03:53 PM
I think the difference is in the presentation. The gratuitous violence in Kick Ass is being presented along-side humor. The gratuitous violence in Kill Bill is not meant to be laughed at so much.
Apr 17 - 10:09 PM
Rick van Veldhuizen
I agree with him. This movie is just plain bad. The costumes are ridiculous, the plot. Hahahahah, and indeed the lack of moral and emotional depth is really a huge gap in the whole.
Apr 15 - 05:19 AM
Apr 15 - 09:12 AM
You hate critics? Then what the hell are you doin on RT?
Apr 15 - 04:50 PM
Apr 16 - 01:31 PM
First, Roger presumes that the first time he sees Hit Girl kill is the first time Hit Girl kills. It can be assumed, and is actually stated in the film, HG and BD have killed several men prior to the start of the film. HG may have already had her struggles with death and overcome them before Scene 1.
Next, while there is a glut of gratutitous violence, in a film called Kick Ass, is it really a surprise? And yes, i have both read the book and seen the film and the book is far more bloody and heartless.
Dont mistake this for high cinema. Perhaps Dark Knight has created a standard that is unfair (go ask Watchmen). This is a fine, fun film that may be hard to watch at times (thanks Roger for detailing the END OF THE FILM!!) but its supposed to be hard to watch. And the end is the dose of reality that the first half of the film was trying to impress upon us.
Relax and enjoy. No Oscars here, just ass kicking and laughs.
Apr 15 - 06:05 AM
BUT...if the filmmakers wanted us to understand Hit Girl or her motivations, that should have been shown and not assumed. The fact is, all of a sudden it turns into a bloated action film, and as such, loses the satiric edge. It's an ok movie overall...Hit Girl is obviously loads of fun...but it could have been so much better.
Apr 18 - 12:07 AM
I sorta predicted he'd hate it... ;P
Apr 15 - 06:14 AM
Really? I was predicting a 3 or even a 3.5
Apr 15 - 07:05 AM
He hated Team America, and I knew Hit Girl would be an offense to him.
Apr 15 - 07:12 AM
I'm on the fence with this, especially after seeing the red-band trailer; I don't know, I'll see it myself and make my own decision.
Apr 15 - 06:43 AM
1? Are you ****ing serious?The Bounty Hunter - 1.5Pearl Harbour - 1.5Showgirls - 2All About Steve - 1.5But this, only 1? ****! Well a note to anyone out there, this movie ****ing rocked 4.5/5 from me! Yep 90%! If by morally reprehensible means ground-breaking, funny, cute and entertaining then yes this is a morally reprehensible film!Ebert is a good critic, I don't always agree with him, especially not this time but he usually writes good reviews. But this one wasn't even good! It sounded like a moralistic rant! A moralistic rant from the guy who liked The Devil's Rejects! I gotta say I'm very disappointed!
Apr 15 - 07:01 AM
I bashed the critics, but then I realised that this is the most controversial movie of the year so far, so it's a love-or-hate film. What really shocks me about Ebert is that he gave 2012 a 3.5/4, when that movie was horrid!
Apr 15 - 07:17 AM
In my opinion Roger Eberts reviews are now retarded
Apr 15 - 07:44 AM
I generally agree with ebert, i havent seen this movie yet, but can't wait to see it, but i have seen 2012, and that movie gets a BLEH!
Apr 15 - 08:15 AM
Yet he didn't like Roland Emmerich's other films? Did Roland use some sort of torture device to get him to write a positive review?
Apr 15 - 08:29 AM
We all have to feel bad for Ebert. He's been suffering from his throat or whatever-the-hell-it-was cancer, and he's giving good reviews to films like Garfield, 2012 and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. But he was like this in the past - he disliked Tim Burton (Roger now likes his recent movies) and Brazil, and he and Siskel enjoyed Speed 2: Cruise Control.
Apr 15 - 08:25 AM
1 star for this, but 3.5 for Death at a Funeral?
Apr 15 - 08:21 AM
Yes, try and follow.. 1 is a a not so good review for a movie, 3.5 means it is good.
Apr 15 - 11:55 PM
Apr 18 - 02:28 PM
EZRAS HUGE REVIEWS
He put Kick-Ass in the exact same realm as The Last Airbender with an extremely negative review. How is that possible?
Apr 27 - 03:51 AM
Because he really didn't like it. It's really not that complicated.
May 30 - 06:45 PM
All of you should grow up. Personally attacking Ebert because his opinion is different from your own is ridiculous. Why do you need him to validate your own perspective? He didn't like the movie. Deal with it and move on with your life.
Yeah, I was a fanboy at first but then I realised that Kick-Ass is getting some terrible reviews, so I grew up.
Apr 15 - 09:07 AM
Apr 15 - 09:13 AM
HOW is bite me an insult? What the fuck is wrong with you?
May 30 - 06:46 PM
Most of the attacks I saw were against his review.
Apr 15 - 05:43 PM
It's sad that after reading through a hundred comments, Robert H's is the first one that isn't retarded. Max's reply to the comment, however, showed his complete misunderstanding of it, and TheATeamRocks' comment showed how incapable he is at being able to come up with an intelligent response.No, I have never seen Kick-Ass, although from what I've the trailers, I'd probably love it. If you want to dislike Ebert just because he disagreed with you on a film, fine, no one likes it when people disagree with them. And if you wantto rant on about how wrong Ebert is, go ahead. But please, stop making comments that make you look like retards. ATeam, the only time your counterargument to something should be "bite me" iswhen the original argument is just as idiotic. Crushin, just because Ebert liked Pulp Fiction doesn't mean he'll like this film. That's like saying that anyone who likes LOTR must like "The Last Airbender", because they are both fantasy films. In Ebert's review of "Hanna", he explains why he loved it so much more than "Kick-Ass", even though they both involve young girls committing acts of extreme violence. Max, just because Ebert tends to disagree with the popular opinion now and then (which is rare, if you look at his RT profile) doesn't mean he needs to retire. You are all getting worked up about one guy's opinion differing from yours.
May 30 - 08:09 AM
Arun Kumar N
This review is not for the movie but for the character named Hit-Girl ! I must admit but this is the first time I find Eberts review to be one sided !
Apr 15 - 08:32 AM
Sometimes a single character can represent the movie as a whole. At least, that's what people thought with The Phantom Menace.The fact that the movie, from the trailers alone, looks to boil down to nothing more than "This little girl kills people and swears the worst swears out there! Isn't that funny?!" Just makes the movie look like a juvenile catastrophe.
Apr 15 - 11:26 AM
Please go see the movie, it's a piece of cinematic genius. I love Ebert but I think he's going a little soft on us. Must be the old age.
Apr 19 - 05:12 PM
Yup, by his review alone he states Hit Girl is the main character, she's not. I really don't care as long as I enjoy this movie. And since Ebert states that fans of the comic will enjoy it, then it's guaranteed I will have a great time.
Apr 15 - 05:26 PM
All of his reviews are one sided
May 25 - 07:09 PM
Im still gonna see it and love it because from all the reviews it folows the source material, and thats all I care about.But Ebert is a good critic overall, but I can see him disliking this film.
Apr 15 - 09:43 AM
I find it interesting that most of the people attacking Ebert's review are doing so because he dared make a moral judgment about the movie, not because they actually disagree with anything he said. The fact is that Ebert brought up a LOT of good points about the movie, only some of which were "moral" issues. For example, the entire premise of the movie is that these are just regular people... but clearly they're NOT. That's what bugged me about the comic, and it's what bugs me about the movie. Hitgirl clearly has super powers, because otherwise she wouldn't be murdering rooms-full of heavily armed Mafioso single-handedly. Still, the fact remains that most of you don't seem to have read the comic or seen the movie- you're just angry that Ebert dared invoke morality in a movie review.
Apr 15 - 10:13 AM
Actually, much of his review was subjective. The point is to be objective while reviewing a film.
Aug 13 - 03:33 PM
Mr. Ebert, I am very dissapoint.
Apr 15 - 10:15 AM
So is your English teacher.
Apr 17 - 04:37 AM
Apr 18 - 02:32 PM
Apr 29 - 01:11 AM
Congratulations, you corrected an intentional error. l2meme.
Jul 9 - 08:58 PM
Okay, I have to bring something up. I am tired of people always bringing up his recent health issues as to why he had a particular view point about a film. Some bring it up accompanied with hostility. I understand that when you are a film critic verbal attacks come with the territory but I feel that this is just totally uncalled for. The people who do this are about as classy as those Westboro Baptist Church nuts. People like this make me wish the first amendment did not exsist.
Apr 15 - 10:54 AM
It's pretty depressing that people will attack someone because they found something to be morally bankrupt. People care more about the idea that lackluster-superheroes-are-cool-and-liking-this-movie-makes-me-cool more than they care about moral standard.
Apr 15 - 11:31 AM
No, they really don't.We can just separate PERSONAL morality from those of fictional characters. Why is Silence of the Lambs, a movie about a serial killer, any less "morally reprehensible"? It isn't, if you want to think in those terms. But we don't.You said you enjoyed Dark Knight. This movie's "moral" is far more positive and uplifting than that movie (and a hell of a lot more fun frankly). Yes, that's right, despite the violence, despite the cursing, despite the shock of an 11 year old assassin, the overall tone is positive:Evil is bad. People should be less apathetic and help their fellow man. Aspire to be a hero, not a Paris Hilton wannabe. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't bow to bullies. family is good. Love your kids, love your fathers, love your friends, love human beings. It just doesn't beat you over the head with all this is all. It beats you over the head with a sword wielded by an 11 year old force of nature instead.It's positively overflowing with positivity, as hard as that might be for you to believe from the negative reviews. Read some of the positive ones for balance perhaps?
Apr 15 - 12:36 PM
The serial killers in Silence of the lambs were the villains, and they were depicted as such. This makes vengeance look like something to aspire to.More moral than Dark Knight? I greatly doubt that. The Dark Knight was all about standing up for your beliefs, and not bowing to evil and terrorism. It was also about the importance of even the smallest sign of hope.This looks to confuse any attempt at a moral by having its "heroes" kill mercilessly.
Apr 15 - 03:38 PM
I'm not gonna say anything about Kick-Ass because I haven't seen it, but I can hardly believe that the movie is trying to be moral. In contrast, The Dark Knight is trying to be some kind of philosophical/intellectual movie to differentiate itself from other movies in its genre. So what does the Dark Knight say? Well it says that an American "hero" is misunderstood by the world because he is fighting his "just" fight against terrorism and standing for his beliefs, and everything will be okay because terrorism will not ultimately prevail against Americans. He will use whatever force is necessary including torture and anyone trying to use legal/legislative force against terrorism is obviously a two-faced man that will kill children.Also, Silence of the Lambs labels the Anthony Hopkins character as a "villain" but the movie does not believe that to be bad considering that any entertainment that is found in the movie is derived from the eccentricities of the Anthony Hopkins character.I'm not very interested in Roger Ebert's moral teachings with his track record of praising such movies as Saving Private Ryan which recreates actual tragedies into carnival attractions that people can just say, "Ew," and walk away unscathed.
Apr 15 - 04:54 PM
It's amazing how someone can twist the moral of The Dark Knight and think its some kind of American megalomaniac agenda.Just goes to show that if a movie doesn't vilify America, then some of today's liberals will go into a spiraling madness.Seriously, don't just make something up based on some political paranoia.
Apr 17 - 01:04 PM
It is a movie. . . a movie. No politics, nothing and you *******s have to bring up politics. Can't I get a break somewhere from all this bull****.
Apr 18 - 09:11 PM
I had a feeling before I saw Ebert's review he would not like it. He gave a thumbs down to The Professional for basically the same reason.A young girl put into a violent situation where she didn't belong.However, The Professional is a terrific film, so I look forward to seeing Kick-Ass later tonight.
Apr 15 - 12:21 PM
ebert is one of the better critics, but i'll have to watch the movie for myself, cause i kind of disagree with him.
Apr 15 - 12:54 PM
do i need to point out how unbearably stupid this comment is?
Apr 15 - 05:54 PM
hehehe... you and your 'opinions'
Apr 28 - 09:46 AM