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.
Honestly, you give this wonderfully exciting, imaginative film 1/4 and 3/4 to Clash of the Titans, a dull, lifeless and above all lazy CGI fest? I'm really done with you Roger, I would have thought you of all people might not succumb to 'moral high horse syndrome' but obviously I was wrong.
Thousands of fictional people are butchered in cinema every year in the name of entertainment and suddenly because it's in a comic book film that's going to far? And your comment on the film's rating makes NO sense, yes it's rated R to keep children away, so suddenly i becomes attractive to them? What kind of logic is that? You could say that about any R rated film! Why is it suddenly the filmaker's fault because kids want to see it?
You ask what it's a satire of, which also makes no sense. It's a satire of super-hero movies, I would have thought that would be obvious and the reason it see-saws between the comical and the serious is because that's what satire IS, if it's all jokey then you're talking about farce and that is not the aim of this film. It blatanly lampoons Spider-man among others and to be honest I think you know it, but you feel guilty about giving the film credit where it's due because of its adult themes. I just don't get this whole single minded, double standard attitude that critics are having towards this film.
And as with all bad reviews about this film, all you do is rant about Hit-girl as if she's the only factor in the film, please for Christ's sake, sit down and actually review the film on its artistic merit, not as a jumped up moralist.
Disliking this film does not make you 'uncool', it's your opinion, but you are trashing for all the wrong reasons.
Apr 15 - 01:26 PM
Have you never read an Ebert review before? Among the most noteworthy examples of Ebert succumbing to 'moral high horse syndrome' is his lambaste of A Clockwork Orange, a canonized classic (for dubious reasons), not to mention his one-star for Blue Velvet, and yet you're through with him because of his review of a comic book film, one which will come and go and not be remembered? I haven't seen the film, but isn't satire of superhero stories one the most overused story types, originating with Watchmen, the film adaptation of which was an empty soulless over-lurid, crudely aestheticized series of typical comic book film cliches under the false pretense of following the satire/deconstruction of its source material? Even if this is a 'wonderfully exciting, imaginative' film, it's ultimately meaningless to film history, film culture, and everything a good critic should care about. Ebert's first rule of film criticism is not to pretend to have a different opinion than what he had while experiencing the film, and you're grinding him apart for that out of some reactionary fanboy reflex? Ebert is far from my favorite critic, but he has experience in all the proper areas; he's a competent writer and an avid cinephile who cares about film history, and you're pissed at him over one of the hundreds of reviews he has to write each year, one for a film that really isn't significant at all. Oh and if you are remotely familiar with art criticism and its history then you would know that in many cases, and rightly so, there is very little difference between critiquing something from an artistic perspective and critiquing something from a moral perspective. ugh
Apr 15 - 02:44 PM
Apr 15 - 02:45 PM
I agree. People need to stop acting like it's a bad thing to stand by morality and calling it "moral high horse syndrome."What do people have against morality?
Apr 15 - 04:33 PM
Yeah, okay. So what you're saying is the same guy who thinks Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are, in his words, "great films that argue for evil", is the same guy who is judging Kick-Ass from solely a moral perspective.Although his review would seem to argue for the latter, I would have to disagree with you. Clearly Ebert recognizes great films from an amoral perspective; if Kick-Ass was a great film, I'm inclined to believe that he would be truthful with us in saying so.
Apr 15 - 08:37 PM
Please then, will you point out where in the review he judges the movie based on something other than its moral content? I only see one place, and that's where he compliments Moretz's acting.And Slogan, no one has anything against morality; just against universal morality. What's considered right or appropriate for you may or may not be for everyone else. Believing in absolute morality just makes it a religious debate, and that has no place in movie reviewing. That's movie rating, and last time I checked Ebert isn't on the board of the MPAA.
Apr 16 - 01:46 AM
I too would say that Ebert is holding a double standard when placing Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will on his Great Movies list, as they only seem to be placed there out of some impulsive need to include the big canonical and historical films, whether they be morally grotesque or not. Jonathan Rosenbaum, another critic who judges from a moral perspective, does not include those films in his canon.It is silly to judge any film from an amoral perspective. Along with not being able to criticize films for what you deem offensive, it would also be a violation for you to praise a film for what you deem morally good, meaning that Ebert should not be invoking morality in his personal essay on Make Way for Tomorrow for instance. No, obviously universal morality is not a very worthwhile concept in the field of film reviewing, but there clearly are standards and lines to be drawn and I highly doubt any of you would deride a critic for giving Cannibal Holocaust less than adulation because he or she found it morally reprehensible.
Apr 16 - 09:13 AM
Speaking of morals, commonsensemedia.com whcih advises parents of what their kids should watch said 'no kids' at this film but gave it 4 stars out of 5, which I think proves my point.
Artistic merit and moral viewpoints are NEVER the same.
Think how much critical acclaim pulp fiction got including a 4/4 review from Roger despite the fact that all of the characters involved are very ammoral - they consist of hit-men, gangsters and drug-dealers - what makes that so ok in his eyes?
Morals are one thing, but the least we can ask for from one of the most revered critics is a little consistency. Roger's so called 'review' of Kick Ass is a childish and unprofessionally written rant, dedicating only a measely paragraphy to actually deconstructing the film.
Apr 19 - 11:32 AM
"Artistic merit and moral viewpoints are NEVER the same."If you honestly believe this, you probably have no knowledge of the history of film criticism, let alone art criticism.
Apr 30 - 08:46 AM
Considering how often Roger and I disagree on superhero films (4 stars for Watchmen? WTF!), this is good news to me.
Roger's still a great critic, no matter how often I disagree with him. But I'm disappointed at how much he devoted his review to the violence, and made few (if any) comments on how well-made the movie is.
Apr 15 - 01:34 PM
Roger not again.. You always give good movies bad scores! And plus you gave Remember Me a good score. That film sucked!
Apr 15 - 03:01 PM
This doesn't make sense. Violence can be justified in Roger Ebert's eyes, as long has it's committed by adults and not children. Kick Ass has more or less the same amount of violent content that Kill Bill 1 has, yet he rates the latter a 4 star, compared to 1 star.So if Hit Girl was in Kill Bill, would he have a problem with the whole movie too, just because a young girl is doing the killings?And in the review, he barely mentions ANYTHING at all except for Hit Girl, the mention of the main character comes in the second to last paragraph, and only for a few sentences.Ebert has to be more consistent if his reviews are to be trusted. If he didn't like the style, or script, or acting, fine. But if all he critiques is one character, then that's BS.
Apr 15 - 03:03 PM
Come on people! Common sense has to tell you that this film is already bad. Who the hell would want to watch a bunch of idiots dress up in PJ tight attaire, trying to save the world or the city or while at the sametime looking like fools? Kick-Ass is easily set for DUMB ASS audiences.
Apr 15 - 03:53 PM
"DUMB ASS audiences"... Lol! That has been my exact thought on a lot of movies lately. Almost all the people I know personally are part of that audience. Most people now-a-days don't wanna have to think when watching a movie. I think it was Ebert who mentioned once that the "general" audience needs a manual in the movie to understand it. I was looking forward to this film, but after reading a few reviews I'll just add it to my Netflix queue.
Apr 15 - 04:41 PM
go **** yourself Critique Threatt
Apr 17 - 09:37 AM
Jun 23 - 09:05 AM
If you like this retarted picture then go watch "The Spirit" and if you loved both films then I seriously don't want to be your friend.
Apr 15 - 03:58 PM
The most irritating thing about this review (which I doubt any of you dip*****s even read, instead simply looking at the blurb and star rating) was that Ebert blows the f**king ending.
His editor, Jim Emerson, did a blog entry about critics who spoil plot details. Nothing more then the simple premise and unsubstantial examples from from the plot should be used to support your critiques.
I don't care how f**king big a fan base Ebert thinks this comic book series has, he owes respect to the people who haven't read the comic and don't know whats going to happen. I also don't care if he didn't like the film. Don't f**king spoil it. This is not the first time this has happened and it needs to stop.
Apr 15 - 04:39 PM
Reverse effect actually, if people don't know that the ending was spoiled (people like me, I didn't "catch" any real spoilers I thought extremely relevant), then they won't have anything to worry about. But now that you mention he spoiled it, I think I might know the ending.:/
Apr 15 - 04:51 PM
You know, I love this man. He judges movies very clearly from personal feeling, and I admire his conviction. If he enjoyed a stupid blockbuster, he'll give it 3 1/2 stars, and he doesn't care what you think!However, I am a little surprised at his moral grandstanding here. I decided to do a little research. He gave Sin City 4 stars, 8mm 3 stars and Last House on the Left 2 1/2 stars (which I haven't seen and have no desire to put myself through its ugliness, but have the feeling is much nastier and crueler than Kick-Ass). I cannot see how Kick-Ass will be any worse in terms of violence/cruelty/depravity than these three, yet now he finally felt the need to bring those issues up. Maybe it's because it involves an 11-year old (which granted is a little more disturbing, but shouldn't tip the scales on this being worse than all of the previously mentioned films and their sexual violence)? I must say I am disappointed though.I guess I can decide for myself tonight!
Apr 15 - 04:48 PM
I am more disturbed at the fact that Ebert has no problem dishing out spoilers for films he doesn't like. It may not be a big deal to him but he's been to a prescreening. Most of everyone else has yet to see the film.
How ****ing hard is it to include *spoiler* - *end spoiler*?
Apr 15 - 04:54 PM
last time i checked...spider man was doing crazy **** and he was in high school....does the film have to be realistic? its based on a ****ing comic book
Apr 15 - 05:52 PM
Ok most of the time I do like Roger Ebert and I agree with him but recently idk. He's starting to turn into an Armond follower. I mean come on you gave
Clash of the titans(30%) -3/4
Death at a funeral(36% will change obviously since it opens tomorrow) 3.5/4 stars
Remember me(27%)- 3/4
No I don't hate Ebert I still like him even though i do disagree with him from time to time I'm just warning everyone. I still don't understand why he gave movies like Sunshine Cleaning(71%), Star Trek(94%), day breakers(67%), the crazies(71%), The boys are back(72%), Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs(86%), Julie and Julia(75%) and this such bad reviews. Oh did I mention he also like speed 2 cruise control(2%), he was the only critic who did. Oh and also he even defended Armond after everyone hated him for giving the wrestler a bad review. People don't take this the wrong way Ebert is still an awesome guy even if I don't see eye to eye with him.
Apr 15 - 06:48 PM
his review to the marvelous "How to Train your Dragon" was also not so good. It was a 2.5/4 I guess.He also overrated The Last Song with and 2.5/4.And the worst of all examples I guess is still Knowing. One of the worst movies ive seen in my entire life (it has only one or two good scenes) and he gave a 4/4?????????
Apr 15 - 11:31 PM
I know right!
Apr 16 - 01:54 PM
I'm a comic fan (So I guess you can draw some conclusions right there :) ) Comics certainly CAN be morality plays, but, like movies, don't have to be to be good. For that reason, bashing a comic book movie on its lack of morality seems a little silly and out of place to me. Just my opinion (and I still respect Mr. Ebert's), but condemning 'Kick-Ass' for being immoral seems as 'mis-matched' (and vacuous)a philosophy as praising an Archie comic movie for being a 'pillar of values'. The movie may be great, or it may be awful - but nothing in this review suggests either to me. Mr. Ebert committed the most basic faux pas of pop culture review - he explained at length why HE didn't like it, without ever suggesting why I might not (which may still indeed be the case). I suppose he'd say we're inhabiting two different worlds. I wish his review had taken MY world into account - where its playing down the street tomorrow night.
Apr 15 - 07:48 PM
"...praising an Archie comic movie for being a 'pillar of values'."
Archie comics are hardly "pillars of values". Archie is a compulsive liar, is rude at times, and shallow. And never learns from his mistakes. Saying a comic with a main character with traits like that is a "pillar of values" is like calling all stupid people an accurate representation of human intelligence as a whole.
Also, it's his review, so it's his opinion. Isn't that what a review is, giving your opinion of the film?
Apr 17 - 01:39 AM
You liked Watchmen....But hate this?
Shooting pregnant women and raping girls is fine....lil girls killing people is just too far...lol ohhhhhhh Ebert
Kick-Ass kicked Ass.
Apr 15 - 11:55 PM
This is a very simple subject that seems to have been amazingly overcomplicated. Mr. Ebert gave us his opinion/review of a movie. A lot of people disagree with him and some people seem to agree. What bugs me about the comments i'm reading is the hypocrisy behind them. You have the right to openly express your opinion but when someone disagree's with you and expresses their's, they are apparently stupid or just didn't get "it".Every movie made can mean something different for every person who sees it. You might think that it has an agenda of sorts or that it's completely mindless. We all have different perspectives on what is valuable to us in films. But why not just let someone have their opinion and.....wait for it, not call them ignorant or stupid(radical idea to some).This quote by Nicolas Gomez Davila basically sums up the general idea I am trying to present(probably not very effectively): "truths are not relative. What are relative are opinions about truth."
Apr 16 - 01:59 AM
What people fail to remember is that the world is full of perspectives, and this is simply one person's perspective on a movie.
An evaluation is establishing a criteria, making judgments based on that criteria, and arriving at an overall claim about the worth of a subject. In this case it is a movie. You (the representative reading audience of these comments) could have arrived at a different conclusion because your criteria could have been different. And you know what, that is actually okay.
To say that movie reviews, or any evaluation, is absolute would be an error in critical thinking. Therefore, when one comments on how another person's evaluation is incorrect it may in fact be an incorrect statement because he or she would have evaluated it differently. However, to not take into consideration that Ebert is also entitled to his evaluation only adds to the problem.
Whether or not you accept his value judgment is up to you, and clearly many of you don't. However, that does not mean his judgment is incorrect or invalid.
Apr 17 - 08:05 AM
Judging by his review, I suspect that the movie doesn't so much lack because of its violence as it does the lack of a compelling story or the sort of story-telling method that Kill Bill was famous for . . . not to mention the dialogue. Kill Bill was famous for its homage to everything from spagetti westerns to old samuri flicks, with japanese anime thrown in for good measure (and to avoid an NC-17 rating for dark sexual themes), and the way it was editted, shot, and generally measured out between two films. From the sounds of some of the reviews I've read from some of the more high profile dudes like Ebert, it seems like this flick is just something a wee bit short of that.
Me, I don't care about violence in flicks. It's largely cartoon violence as far as I'm concerned. But if a film fails to draw me into it, then it doesn't matter how you compare it to other flicks based only on one trait as a form of measure . . . it's like comparing a chocolate ice-cream dispenser with an ******* . . . both will give you brown soft-serve, but chances are you're only going to like the taste of one of those.
I read a lot of comics, but didn't really get into this one, but I'll give this one a DVD shot.
Apr 16 - 04:04 AM
I guess the movie's producer's didn't pay the guy enough money... I saw the movie, and the concept of hit girl stems from the fact of teenage violence and bad parenting, the movie is full of references to it. I loved the movie, maybe no Nick Cage so much, but everything about it... Ebert being morally up-righteous about the matter is no better than dissecting a apple pie... Everyone knows what's under the crust... Seriously, some of the movies he likes, I feel he's been paid off by producers, and in this one, he wasn't paid enough
Apr 16 - 04:21 AM
Morality aside (hey.. its like a cartoon), this is a GREAT movie. Haven't had so much fun at the movies for a long time.
Apr 16 - 06:07 AM
I haven't seen the film yet, so I don't know, but I can see where Ebert is coming from. The film seems to make violence look "really cool", all slow motion and blood flying slowly across the screen, and it seems to be showing violence just to entertain the audience, which, when you think about it, is kinda bad. But like I said, have not seen the film yet, so I will get back to y'all once I have :)
Apr 16 - 06:15 AM
I won't be able to see Kick-Ass for two more days, but the fact is Kick-Ass is a great read and if the movie is faithful I'm sure to like it.
Apr 16 - 07:52 AM
Retire already, you've completely lost touch with the modern world.
Apr 16 - 08:38 AM