Ebert Calls Kick-Ass Movie "Morally Reprehensible"

[Little Duck]

It's the black dot on the white bit of paper philosophy. We notice the black dot and ignore the white bit of paper. This movies uniqueness (a swearing, murdering 11 year old with under currents of humour, not to mention decent writing) makes it stand out and so become entertaining. We've seen the 30 something man kill the villain, but never seen the 11 year old girl shoot him, nor the 17 year old boy blast him out the window with a bazooka.

 

[Little Duck]

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.

I've seen the movie and for the record, it's more like 30 million. Still good though. Go watch.

 

[Lullabye]

bert also trashes the meager regard for human life Kick-Ass appears to exhibit. "This movie regards human beings like video-game targets. Kill one, and you score. They're dead, you win. When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny."

Well, besides the issue of "Hitgirl", the other main point is both brought up, and solved in the paragraph above.
"This movie regards human beings like videogame targets."-I agree. It shows peoples lives are worth as much a the pixels in a game. In an objective sense, it's true, but the point is made non the less.
"When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny."-Again, I agree......so the point? It comes down to whether or not people can recognize the difference between "reality" and "fantasy", as well as the values people have regarding each. I mean, if your going out and beating the crap out of 11 year old girls, chances are you have bigger issues than "I saw a movie and it looked like fun to imitate".

 

[Jennacide]

As I previously stated, welcome to the internet where independant thought has died. People back the popular source of opinion that agrees with thier own, villify opposing ones, and make no claim at thier own opinion out of fear. It's easier to hide behind a bigger name than argue your own beliefs and opinions.

Heck, i agree with you there, the internet is the cult of personality writ large across everything. It always surprises me how few people even read the starting article or check into things a little. I hate lack of research and uninformed popularist opinions. The funniest thing is people get upset when you point it out too, it's almost like people don't want a discussion on a discussion forum...Still, Pimppeter2 said we newbs need a personality and I guess maybe we got too much?

I guess so, and as such we'll be called "liberals" in a fashion that it's meant to be an insult. Oh the internet, such a vile den of depravity, why do I still love you?

 

[Metallgoth]

What action movie doesn't regard humans as targets? Action movies are full of nameless, faceless people getting blown away. Also, there are consequences to their "crimefighting", such as getting their collective asses kicked. Plus, there are movies with much more gratuitous violence and gore. Is our nation really so conservative that one so-called "bad word" is enough to set people off? On that note I would like to direct you to this article, which has quotes from Chloe about her decision to appear in the movie.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-04-15-chloe15_ST_N.htm

I have seen it twice and read the comic. I don't find the character of Hit Girl disturbing. I guess that's because the idea is so absurd. This movie, like so many others, gives us a chance to escape from reality. It should not be taken as representative of real life.

There are many people that claim that movies such as Kick-Ass influence "the children". This movie is rated R for a reason, as was the comic for mature audiences. Which means that parents should make the decision on whether or not their children get to see it. I agree with the idea that violence in media does not cause people to become violent. History has proven that humans were incredibly violent and reprehensible long before TV, movies, videogames and comic books.

In the end I would urge people to view the movie before denouncing it. If you feel that it's not something you want to see, then don't. All I ask is that you not criticize something you don't have firsthand knowledge of. Finding something entertaining and enjoyable is subjective.

 

[ender214]

Violence committed by pre-teens is funny to us because violence committed by teens and adults has grown so common that their entertainment value has fallen greatly. So until violence by pre-teens gets overdone and and we grow desensitized to that as well, it'll serve as our form of entertainment.

I wonder what would come after we do grow tired of pre-teen violence though. Killer babies, anyone?

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

some people really don't like violence and/or have uncomfortable feelings about 11 year olds.

I have neither, he has one or both
no biggie

Ebert doesn't have a problem with Violence, as I recall he's really fond of Tarentino films. Which are very violent, mostly because the violence is tasteful and actually adds a whole nether element to the plot.

EDIT; Statement withdrawn I confused Ebert with Siskel.. >.>

 

[ironfist86]

I was like "huh? people still give a crap about what that fat bastard thinks about movies?" and then i read what he had to say, and understood that nope, people don't give a crap, or at least i don't haha

 

[Treblaine]

Wow, with his "video games are pathetic" blog, Ebert is being a real Mr Scrooge this week.

What next? Is he going to say Rock and Roll is too noisy? Cancel Christmas?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Dude have you seen the movie?
There's a sequence about a minute long near the end that's basically straight out of an FPS. And when I say straight out of an FPS I mean the movie for a minute has a camera that is the perspective of one of the characters, and that character is just going around shooting people in the head. All you see is their "view" and their hands shooting and reloading the gun. (ie the typical game screen of an FPS. Complete with a HUD I might add)

The video game comment is entirely appropriate and relevant when it comes to this movie.

Wait... when did the idea of a "First person perspective" all of a sudden come under the SOUL remit of video games?!?!?

Cinema has been showing views from 1st person perspective half a century before video games did. I mean consider Halloween, the entire opening sequence was entirely shot from the killer's perspective and it is a common horror movie trope as well as murder mystery films you see the victim address the camera to say something like:

"My god... it's YOU! I should have known, I suppose you've come here to kil-"

raised gun from bottom of shot and BANG! It's a great filming method, shows what the killer did, the victims reaction but keeps the killer secret.

The director of Kick Ass may have gotten the idea from video games... but it certainly isn't an idea original to video games and isn't an excuse to blame video games for anything in the movie.

And even Ebert would have known about that and he is being dishonest if he chooses to ignore that and actually thinks the "First person shooting scene" is a reason to tar video games.

Is there anything else in the movie SPECIFICALLY video game related? I'd accept references, representations and comparisons... but don't just say "it looks the same as some thing that this other thing sometimes does"

To be honest Avatar has more to do with video games (control a remote character, unreal fantastical world, all CGI). Or Ong Bak with the hammer fight scene where it all seemed to go into a side scrolling beat em up, one continuous shot, but the director strenuously denies it. He had never played any video games and it was never his intention.

You're just seeing shapes in the clouds.

 

[Low Key]

Kick-Ass is currently ranked #166 on IMDB's top 250 movies picked by users. haha

Anyways, Mr. Ebert shouldn't worry what little kids might think because the movie has an R rating. It is a film clearly aimed at young adults. They are not the first to take an idea designed for children and turn it into something for an older crowd. I personally think Roger is getting too cynical in his age to still be reviewing movies. That's just me though.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Oh the internet, such a vile den of depravity, why do I still love you?

Probably for the same reason some people love New York City despite it being one of the most crime-heavy cities in the US. It's an amazing place with plenty of cool sites to see, you just have to be careful of where you go (and when). Internet is kinda the same way. Long as you avoid /b/ and the likes, it's not all bad.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Gotta say, Ebert is starting to sound really old... sometimes a movie is just silly fun.
Or perhaps Kick Ass works in the way Postal did and satirizes an idea, though for Postal it was America, for Kick Ass, I guess it was super heroes.

Not actually seen it, myself.

Also, is it me or is Ebert steadily getting more and more aggresive towards videogame players?
Seriously, people act like video games invented violence or in this case, Ebert seems to be saying "video game violence inspires violent movies", forget the movie, I don't understand that statement!

 

[Vuljatar]

I used to like Ebert, but recently I have come to realize that he is nothing but a sad old man. I wouldn't care if he just thought it was a bad movie, but the moment I saw the word "morally", he lost me. We don't want your fucking morals, you archaic fuck. We want a movie review.

 

[Treblaine]

And even Ebert would have known about that and he is being dishonest if he chooses to ignore that and actually thinks the "First person shooting scene" is a reason to tar video games.

Is there anything else in the movie SPECIFICALLY video game related? I'd accept references, representations and comparisons... but don't just say "it looks the same as some thing that this other thing sometimes does"

You're just seeing shapes in the clouds.

And so are you.
Where does it say that the movie review "tars" video games? He says from the article:

"This movie regards human beings like video-game targets. Kill one, and you score. They're dead, you win. When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny."

And that's what it does. The movie reduces the humanity of the characters to mere video game characters, and as I said it depicts a scene that is straight out a video game. Ebert never even comments on video games at all so I'm not sure why people are taking offense. He's commenting on the movie and the movie alone. He said the same thing about Black Hawk down. When the Somali bad guys popped up like video game characters. It's just an allusion to another source of entertainment. But the commentary is on the movie alone.


And from the way you're talking. You've obviously not seen the movie. Because if you had, you wouldn't be bringing up other movies and saying "this uses first person perspective too". The video-game inspired scene is absurdly obvious. It's not a First Person perspective scene, it's a First Person Shooter scene. Moreso than even the FPS sequence from the Doom movie if that's possible.

Well I have not seen the film but I have played video games so to hear a supposedly respected film critic like Ebert equate video games to merely "Kill one, and you score. They're dead, you win" is NOT the kind or professional critique I would expect from a commentator of the arts. It is meaningless and denigrating to an entire industry, nothing but weasel words born out of his own ignorance and exploiting the ignorance of others like him who don't know nor even understand video games.

Is he trying to say that the goons need more character? Oh, yeah, because that makes great cinema, can't get to the action till all the bit parts have had plenty of face time with well fleshed out back stories. I don't know, I can't tell as his review fails in informing me on any decision with all the weasel words (against an industry he admits he hates and considers can NEVER be an art form) and social commentary hand wringing about youth crime.

Are you trying to say that video game characters by definition can have no humanity? Or are you just stating that is what Ebert was trying to say as that is ridiculous, he obviously thinks video games are little more than big fancy toys, I've seen it in his critique of an arty video game he says "it looks like a shooting gallery" and then states that therefore it can't possibly be anything more than that. He has likely never even heard of Half Life, Mass Effect, Uncharted or Metal Gear Solid to name a few.

And to say enough about his convoluted moral rationalisation of "When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny." is exactly that, pure rationalisation for his own prejudice.

I don't think he should have ever reviewed this film. He should have been honest to himself and admitted that he cannot do the service to the wider viewing audience of putting him moral prejudice to the side.

 

[Doc Cannon]

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.

I don't have a personal problem with the guy, but critics (especially Ebert) tend to look down on the rest of us mortals like we didn't know anything about films and our tastes sucked ass. I respect him a bit more than other critics because he often manages to have a good point, but if he's now saying "If you like this movie you are beneath me", I have a moral obligation to tell him to go fuck himself.

 

[maddog015]

This isn't the end of the world. One guy said he didn't like it. So what. Why even bother trying to defend it? Its not like he's going to change his mind, no matter how well you express your opinion.

Tbh, i saw it in the cinema a few weeks ago and i thought it was pretty shit. Ended up leaving 30 mins before the end, i couldnt take it. There were some hilarious moments, yes, but a few hilarious moments do not make up for what i thought felt like a childrens film where the protagonist 11 year old shouts '****' every 20 minutes.

Im sorry, but it wasn't my cup of tea.

She only said it once. For the shock value, undoubtedly. And cheap laughs.

Karina Longworth gave this movie a bad review too. Maybe it just couldn't Roper in?

I see what you did there.

 

[UberNoodle]

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.

I don't have a personal problem with the guy, but critics (especially Ebert) tend to look down on the rest of us mortals like we didn't know anything about films and our tastes sucked ass. I respect him a bit more than other critics because he often manages to have a good point, but if he's now saying "If you like this movie you are beneath me", I have a moral obligation to tell him to go fuck himself.

Wow. I don't see it that way at all. Perhaps you are reading into things too much. Either way, when do we ever have a 'moral obligation' to tell someone to 'fuck themselves'?
The role of a critic is to unappolagetically give opinion. It will always be subjective, and people will always disagree. I have been reading Ebert for years and he doesn't strike me as the type that you defined. That type are the tabloid and magazine writers who don't have the chops to review or critic a film and therefore ONLY tear to shreds - in the most self congratulating way possible.