Ebert Calls Kick-Ass Movie "Morally Reprehensible"

[Rogue 9]

I really enjoyed the movie, but I kinda agree with Ebert's comments re: hit girl. For those that haven't both seen the movie and read the comic, there are several plot changes in the transition to movie, and one of the biggest is with regard to Hit Girl and Big Daddy's back story. The comic's story resonated a lot more with me, and I suspect that if it hadn't been changed for the movie Ebert might have had a different opinion.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

Ebert claims games can't be art. Strike 1
Ebert claims that all violence should have context and purpose: Strike 2

To clarify both point.
1) Not all games are art, and that's ok. Most movies aren't art either, they're committee-built bile. Shadow of the Colossus on the other hand, art.

2) Much like a good percentage of games and romantic comedies: Kick-Ass's only purpose is to appeal to our love of violence. Why do we love violence? Well, why do we love monster movies, slasher flicks and ghost stories? Violence scares the crap out of us and that's fun. And just like slasher flicks play on our pre-existing conceptions of what's safe and what's not, Kick-Ass delivers a tiny six year old girl and turns her into a murdering psycho. Now THAT's subversive horror.

I wrote an editorial about games being called art, I sorta agree with ol' Bert.

OT: I had no idea people still cared about anything that this guy has to say about movies, hell why was he even watching this?

Surly he knew he wasn't going to like this and I'm sure just about anyone who still pays attention to him knows he won't like this movie.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I would have given Avatar 3 1/2 out of 4 myself. The plagiarism in the story and the cliches would have brought it down. Weirdly enough, I am a semi-professional film critic (I write for a newspaper from time to time), so maybe I'm fanboying again, but I digress.

Yeah, he does rely too much on his emotions. While I don't mind this, he does tend to get a bit self-righteous about it. Like Yahtzee, he's great when he rips into what's obviously bad, as well as praises what's universally considered good, but when he offers a differing opinion on things, that's when you start to get the feeling he isn't considering anything other than how he feels about it at that precise moment in time.

Well, I would've panned Avatar into the ground if I were to review it.
But then again, maybe it's not exactly fair.
However, I don't particularly agree that him offering a "different opinion" is wrong. It's just that when you see his review in combination with other reviews, you don't notice that he tends to concentrate on one or two points in the movie, which is very noticeable when you disagree with his review.
Also, I just checked, he gave The Rock a 3.5/4.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I like Roger Ebert, big fan of his reviews (and his twitter feed) but this honestly just makes the movie even better. I just came back from seeing it and it absolutely delivers on the title. In spades. The movie knows what it is and doesn't shy away from it, I like that a lot.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

It's worthy of note that while Movie Bob said the movie was fun, he also made very clear that we are supposed to be made very uncomfortable by the role of hit girl in the film. entertaining and beautifully choreographed or not, the contrast (and associated cognitive dissonance) created by framing an 11 year old as a perpetrator of brutal violence can still have a message.

Hell, wasn't hard candy essentially about a 14 year old girl torturing pedophiles? What did he rate that?

Edit: oh, look at that, 3 1/2 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REVIEWS/60421003/1023

(though to be fair, he does congratulate the movie for not using an actual 14 year old in the role.)

-m

you know I never see the problem, so she's 11, who cares it's just a number, they put her in not because of her age but because she's a good actress (or they thought she'd be perfect for the role) if Ebert can't see that well, that's just sad

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I hate to say it, but I think I might actually agree with Ebert on this. And when I say "I hate to say it" I mean I really hate to say it. I think the guy is a miserable old fuck who wouldn't know a good movie if it bit him in the ass.
Now admittedly I have not actually seen the movie yet, I'm mostly just going on MovieBob's review and the few commercials I've seen (and of course this article), and while I appreciate the message the film might be going for, esp since I recently found out about a registry for people who actually dress up as superheoes and go out and (try to) fight crime and shit; but I just have to wonder how much is too much. I don't know, just something about this film rubs me the wrong way.

 

[shadow skill]

You know I remember watching part of a history channel program on the effects of a fictional pandemic. They pointed out that children would be some of the most dangerous individuals because they would be even quicker than older people to resort to violence. I haven't seen Kick-ass, but frankly I'm not bothered by the prospect of Hit-girl exterminating people. It's not as if it is unheard of for children to join gangs and commit violent crime.

 

[Svenparty]

....And here was Me thinking it wasn't violent enough!

Roger Ebert Should Lay off the Fatty foods....

Films are an art form they are NOT moral oracles....Art is either Good or Bad. Kick-Ass owes nobody anything.

 

[elricik]

I feel that he's trying to sneak a message about video games and violence but I couldn't hear it over the anger in my head. Kick-Ass may not be a literary master piece, but it is by no means a one star film. Just because you find something morally wrong doesn't mean its bad, documentaries do it all the time yet there praised, and you know the thing about documentaries, there real as well. It just seems wrong to bash a film just because its not your cup of tea. Not every film needs to be thought provoking or have a strong message, some are just fun like Kick-Ass, and if he can't understand it then so be it, but don't give it one star, this movie deserves at least four stars.

 

[Daveman]

Basically this guy is too old and with too many "morals" (or pretentious fantasies of right and wrong as I like to call them) to suspend his disbelief. Whenever he saw the 11 year old he probably thought "It's just a poor little girl" rather than seeing the perfect example of conditioning behaviour and how much we aspire to be like our parents. He never saw a movie, he saw lots of clips stitched together with a soundtrack in the back. He didn't get the experience of just relaxing and enjoying the ride.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Eh... Ebert's a bit of a pussy. He's a good critic, sure, but movies that tend to have quite a bit of violence are given a lot of disapproval from him. If anything, this is the same guy who gave The Hangover a good review. And this was an hour and thirty minutes of dick and fart jokes.

 

[UberNoodle]

Ebert's an idiot. He couldn't of missed the point of the movie more if he fired in the wrong direction and started in a different country all together. Human's enjoy violence. It's inherent because it allowed you to kill things you were going to eat, just like every other carnivor on the planet.

No, not at all. All hunting cultures would once thank the animals they killed, asking them for forgivenss and to return again next season. Hunting was never about killing and violence. It was about being part of the cycle of existance. The enjoyment of vuilence has nothing to do with hunting. It is finding pleasure in the creation of carnage and is a purely selfish emotion.

Besides, to call Ebert an 'idiot' because you don't agree with him, is 'missing the point' of entirely another nature.

Shit. I'm torn in three directions- I like Ebert (despite disagreeing with him on several points, the man is clever and spawned an entire new generation of critics), I like MovieBob, and I'm interested in this movie. It seems like the only logical conclusion is the see it for myself and, GASP, develop my own opinion of it.

Be careful! You are heading into No Man's Land! As long as you don't start calling Ebert names because you disagree with him.

Fuck Roger Ebert. Even if I agree with most of his reviews, he is still a movie critic, and movie critics are full of crap.

Wow, why get so angry at ANY reviewer? I am sure you can see the irony of how you are acting. 'Fuck' them because your opinion clashes with their opinion? It seems that today's culture of grazers has nurtured an atmosphere where having a contrary opinion is grounds for belittling and abuse.

This is from the same guy that gave a negative review for Die Hard...Die Hard. It seems that pointless violence does not sit well with Ebert. Let's get one thing straight: Ebert's is a very smart critic and he usually hits the nail on the head when it comes to his reviews. But I think that his own personal tastes really prevented him from just enjoying the ride here.

That's what reviewers and critics do. It is all subjective. There is no way a review or critic of a film can be completely without subjectivity. You say 'but', yet, I see that as a given.

This is the same guy who doesn't think a video game can be art. I'm not very interested in Mr. Ebert's world, either.

What, because he doesn't think games can be art? I am sure you are aware how old he is, yet you are going write him off completely over the simple matter of a generation gap?

Hell, wasn't hard candy essentially about a 14 year old girl torturing pedophiles? What did he rate that?

Edit: oh, look at that, 3 1/2 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REVIEWS/60421003/1023

(though to be fair, he does congratulate the movie for not using an actual 14 year old in the role.)

-m

And in that spirit of fairness, it should be noted that that film was much deeper than Kick Ass and therefore, the 'context' he spoke of, made more sense.

Somehow has to bring up video games! Even when video games are not involved they still bring them up to make them out to be the bad guy. Seems like video games are the pariah of this generation and anything "morally reprehensible" will be automatically linked to video games.

No, I think you are reading too much into what he said there. He brought up the idea of 'videogames' in the sense that HE knows them, to illustrate a point about emptiness and dehumanisation. It wasn't a stab at games at all. Besides, how many games today use a 'point system' like that?

 

[cobra_ky]

This is the same guy who doesn't think a video game can be art. I'm not very interested in Mr. Ebert's world, either.

What, because he doesn't think games can be art? I am sure you are aware how old he is, yet you are going write him off completely over the simple matter of a generation gap?

I don't write him off completely. I simply regard many of his opinions with skepticism, since I believe he operates under a flawed premise of what constitutes art. That "generation gap" grows increasingly significant as more and more films are made by and for people Mr. Ebert has no interest in understanding.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Human's enjoy violence.

And thats been criticized since the Roman Colosseum.

Your point?

That criticizing the human love of violence is nothing new? That the argument "ITS WHAT PPLS WANT TO SEE" is a slippery slope that can be used to justify anything?

What's that have to do with fictional violence?

You can't justify anything with "its what people want to see."

That is true, but are you saying that all entertaiment that involves violence should be banned even though nobody is getting hurt so everyone one is forced to follow your defination of how things should be? If yes, Then you are an incredibly arrogant and narrow minded individual.

No, I'm saying "You can't justify anything with "its what people want to see.""

Certain levels of violence can't be justified. Attempting to do so is futile. Shoving words in my mouth doesn't mean ebert is wrong.

That would be true if it was real violence, but the weak point in your argument is that the violence if fictional, and very clearly so. It's not like the Colosseum in your comparison because that was entertainment fueled by real people actually dieing horribly.

I hate to say it, but I think I might actually agree with Ebert on this. And when I say "I hate to say it" I mean I really hate to say it. I think the guy is a miserable old fuck who wouldn't know a good movie if it bit him in the ass.
Now admittedly I have not actually seen the movie yet, I'm mostly just going on MovieBob's review and the few commercials I've seen (and of course this article), and while I appreciate the message the film might be going for, esp since I recently found out about a registry for people who actually dress up as superheoes and go out and (try to) fight crime and shit; but I just have to wonder how much is too much. I don't know, just something about this film rubs me the wrong way.

That's the thing: it's supposed to rub you the wrong way. The juxtaposition of cheery camp and 11 year old girls with ultraviolence is intended to make us uneasy, that's the whole point.

 

[ShadowKirby]

---->Someone post an opinion on the Internet that is opposite to the one of the majority of a group.
---->Said group flips the fuck out and starts calling names.

Seriously guys. A man whose job is to review movies and give his opinion does exactly that, give his opinion, and gamers who like the movie somehow see this as both an attack on video games (it is not) and some kind of proof that this man is some kind of evil right-wing conservative (he ain't).

The difference between him and most of you, is that this man is a respected critic because he is able to make good arguments about what he thinks of the movie, something most of you can't do since the only way you can find to defend the movie is to personally attack Ebert. Calling him an old fat conservative isn't a good argument for the movie.

As for those saying "if you don't like it don't watch it". Going by your logic, there would never be a bad review for any movies, games, books, etc...

Fuck, are gamers so defencive and reactionary that they need to savagely attack anything that goes against the opinion of the majority in fear of... I don't even know what you'd fear! The fear of people forming their own opinion instead of following the opinion of some personality(no offence Bob)? Now THAT, would make you the conservatives here.

 

[VanityGirl]

Sounds like Ebert can suck a n-


The movie was funny, outrageous and a good time (for adults) at the theature. I woudn't recommend children see it.

 

[ilion]

I find both reviews very alike, just different generations. There are parts roger liked, people should read the entire review. Its just a movie, even if its a bit sick.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I hate to say it, but I think I might actually agree with Ebert on this. And when I say "I hate to say it" I mean I really hate to say it. I think the guy is a miserable old fuck who wouldn't know a good movie if it bit him in the ass.
Now admittedly I have not actually seen the movie yet, I'm mostly just going on MovieBob's review and the few commercials I've seen (and of course this article), and while I appreciate the message the film might be going for, esp since I recently found out about a registry for people who actually dress up as superheoes and go out and (try to) fight crime and shit; but I just have to wonder how much is too much. I don't know, just something about this film rubs me the wrong way.

That's the thing: it's supposed to rub you the wrong way. The juxtaposition of cheery camp and 11 year old girls with ultraviolence is intended to make us uneasy, that's the whole point.

If that' the case, then they've hit the mark and got about a million KM to far.