Ebert Calls Kick-Ass Movie "Morally Reprehensible"

[Arcane Azmadi]

Wow, I had no idea that this movie had so much violence or was even rated R. All the trailers looked more PG.

...

I wanna see it now.

Now see, that's what Ebert and a lot of people (including myself) don't understand. You weren't interested in the film on the merits of its story or humour, but now you know there's insane levels of violence and gore in it you're desperate to check it out. So the only appeal of the film for you is brutal violence? What does that say about you?

As a social experiment, someone should make a movie called Brutal Fight Scene which is just 90 minutes of anonymous people beating, shooting, choking and slashing the stupid out of each other -no story, no characters, no humour- just to see how much money it makes. I'm sure the results would be depressingly enlightening.

 

[Necromancer1991]

To the people who have been quoting me, I still stand by what I originally said, but I'm more than willing to allow counterpoints, look I hate people, especially people like Jack Thompson and his ilk who blame video games (and media in general) for everything from violence to the black plague. Yes ripping into something you hate is ok in my book, but critics in general tend to piss people off (me included) when they badmouth something they feel strongly about (just look at Yahtzee) because by way of being called an "Expert" their words weigh more heavily in the mind of the unwashed masses.

 

[Doc Cannon]

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.

The 'moral obligation' was actually a joke since I have no moral obligations. Or morals for that matter.
And I really don't think I was reading too much into it...

Spoiler: He said:

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.

He is being condescending. He implies his morals are higher than those of the people who enjoy this movie.

 

[RelexCryo]

but a little piece of me still wonders why extreme violence perpetrated by pre-teens is entertaining to us.

Because it is awesome. A 11 year old girl who can kick that much ass? Pure win.

 

[Callate]

What I find kind of sadly amusing is looking at the respective "Ebert's score/Viewers' score" for "Kick Ass" and "Death at a Funeral". ("Death"'s review is headlined as "this week's better kick-ass comedy", so he kind of has this coming...) The scores are completely inverted: his readers loved "Kick Ass", while he hated it; they disliked "Death", and he adores it.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that the public is always right, and the highly experienced and/or jaded critics are always wrong. Someone made Transformers 2 a box-office hit. (Damn you...) But I've seen the previews for both movies, and "Death"'s is about a four-to-one cringe-to laugh ratio. (Oh joy, guy freaking out on drugs, cantakerous old people beating up on long-suffering younger people, and toilet humor. How... original.) Sometimes I get the feeling that a critic is trying to make a point at the viewer's expense. In this case, that point may be "Screwball humor is inherently superior to your cynical teenage violence, consarn it."

 

[Danglybits]

I haven't see the movie yet but I think it's funny to see someone complaining about a little girldishing out violence. I like the idea of her being dangerous instead of a victim. We find it entertaining because it's such an outrageous idea that an 11 year old could do those things.

 

[Pendragon9]

I actually agree with Ebert. There's no point to this movie whatsoever, and it's attempt for ratings is nothing more than shock humor.

 

[De Ronneman]

I really admire Ebert. I always wanted to be a profesional troll myself.

This guy has a problem with violence executed by and to 11-year olds. I can understand that, but PLEASE do not forget it's just a movie. It's not like every 11-year old is going out there in a green divingsuit and go pummel on gangs...

 

[pirateninj4]

We're on a downward spiral...not long now. Watching children commit violence? I'd say we're already there. I just wish I could be there when we have to explain it all to the animals and aliens why we fucked it all up.

 

[cocoadog]

To Ebert: TUNK YOU ASSHOLE!

 

[Soxafloppin]

I still enjoyed watching it, i must be a bad person

Shame on me