65 replies to this topic

[Sark2.0]

No one I know would consider me a prude, but the fact that I have a sister about the same age as 'hit-girl' made me queasy. I guess in a world where child-soldiers are a very real phenomenon it's hard for me to be 'entertained' by prepubescent children committing extreme violence.

[B. Brown]

Looks like it'd be interesting to see while high and/or drunk.

[Forward Look]

From the preview trailer I saw on YouTube, it looked like an outlandish parody of the Batman TV-series, which was also played as high camp. Even Mr. Teriffic and The Greatest American Hero did better than this.

[Vauxhall]

If I’d based my opinion entirely on the posters on this, there would be no way I’d go to the cinema to see it. Having read views here, thought I’d give it a go and it was better than I thought it would end up. Not outstanding but enough decent bits in it to keep my interest. An added bonus is that Nicolas Cage appears to have discovered/remembered how to act.

[dodge]

If I’d based my opinion entirely on the posters on this, there would be no way I’d go to the cinema to see it. Having read views here, thought I’d give it a go and it was better than I thought it would end up. Not outstanding but enough decent bits in it to keep my interest. An added bonus is that Nicolas Cage appears to have discovered/remembered how to act.

Well, I won't be seeing this film, but I am tempted to order, sight unseen, the DVD for his role in the remake, or recreation, of THE BAD LIEUTENANT. It never played in our town, but reviews I read did indicate that he'd turned in a fine performance.

[JimmyBond]

An added bonus is that Nicolas Cage appears to have discovered/remembered how to act.

Hehe, that pops up a lot in reviews of the film. He seems to be having a resurgence of sorts, what with this and Bad Lieutenant. Perhaps it'll be a trend for him...but with National Treasure 3 on the horizon, it doesn't seem likely.

[DaveBond21]

I've read 2 reviews so far.


The Sydney Daily Telegraph slammed the movie, gave it one star, and called it "disgusting"

The British Daily Express loved it and gave it 4 stars.

[JimmyBond]

Supposedly Ebert's given it one star. But his review is not online yet so I have no way to confirm or deny this.

His review has been posted, and I so totally called this weeks ago. He gives it one star because he doesn't like the idea of an 11 year old doing the things she does in the film. While I can't agree with his reasoning's (maybe I've been desensitized by video games or something) I can definitely respect that many people are going to have similar criticisms against this film:

Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-” 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 move does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.

Full review found here.

[marktmurphy]

Finally saw it last night: loads of fun and full of laughs. There's a lot of wit and intelligence on display and it's also really well-directed. It's not the greatest film I've ever seen, or even seen this week; but it's a time well-spent in the cinema and feels very fresh. A lot of cracking talent in this too: some great performances.

The prudishness on display in this thread terrifies me, frankly. There's nothing worse in this film than you'd see in the average Tarantino; in fact a lot of the violence is in a similar style. And to see people basing their opinions on how successful the film is on the trailer alone... baffling.

[AliasTheJester]

I could understand the reactions to the Hit-Girl character if the violent acts she commited were at all realistic, or even if it were "heightened reality" along the lines of the young boy in ROBOCOP 2 (not that I agreed with the outrage there either), but as it stands it's sort of like saying Jerry is a disgusting portrayal of mice. I'm not saying people who are outraged are wrong, I just don't understand it personally. That said the part where she blew the title character a kiss definitely seemed a little... odd.

And the DAILY MAIL would be all over this film were one of the characters not a profane child, in the same way they were all over HARRY BROWN.

Edited by AliasTheJester, 15 April 2010 - 03:44 PM.

[JimmyBond]

About 2/3rds of the way into the film there's a scene (don't worry I won't give anything away) where Hit-Girl engages some villains in a dark room with the only light visible being strobe lights, and I said to myself: "I'm watching something special." Don't get me wrong, up until that point I was enjoying the film, but at that moment I knew this was a great film.

Ebert did get one thing right in his review, and that's that about halfway into the film things take an extremely dark turn, what starts out as a movie about a dopey guy playing superhero becomes something much more deadly (a remark Dave, the main character, makes in the film as well). No punches are pulled here, none of the violence is played for laughs, in fact I think this may be the most violent superhero film out there (and yes, that includes Watchmen).

So to cut this short, I loved the hell out of this film, it's been a long while I had this much fun watching a movie. Definitely five out of five stars for me

[AliasTheJester]

Hmm, I definitely thought a lot of the violence was played for laughs, or at least wasn't meant to be "realistic". And I definitely don't think the violence was as explicit, brutal or detailed as that of WATCHMEN.

[JimmyBond]

Hmm, I definitely thought a lot of the violence was played for laughs, or at least wasn't meant to be "realistic". And I definitely don't think the violence was as explicit, brutal or detailed as that of WATCHMEN.

For the most part the violence was played for laughs, especially Hit-Girl's debut scene. But I think after that the violence takes a dark turn.

[Cruiserweight]

I love that this film is so colorful visually despite the fact that the director is literally color blind.

[MrKidd]

Oh, so here's the thread!

Well I loved it, really did. Thought it was excellent. Really funny, quite moving in places(!) and a new spin on a pretty stale idea. Yes, loved it - and so did my wife!

I think it's an 'adult' film and best appreciated that way. Well by adult I mean teenager - I'd have loved this when I was 15/16. Although I was amazed at how many kids were in the theater - that does annoy me as I do think its unsuitable for young kids but that's Americans for you! They do seem to let their kids watch anything - I generalize of course but I'm sure its not as bad in England?? Feedback welcome...

Anyway, I've no doubt some people/critics don't like it because of the swearing/violence from an 11 year old but you know, so what?! There are loads of things reprehensible in movies in general and we don't complain so why this? I enjoyed Leon, thought the kid getting blown away in John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 was awesome and thought this film was hilarious.

As for the BO Gravity - I don't know, but given the nature and tone of the film I wouldn't have expected a mega-hit. I think 20+ is pretty good for this type of movie. The quote seems to be from a rival studio and its probably a hoax anyway

So in summary, I would recommend it - highly. And so would my wife!

On a final note I will say this; America is my home, I love this wondeful nation, my kids are citizens and I believe that God blesses this beautiful country (quite an achievment from an atheist! ). But they simply have no idea how to say C***! Some thing are best left to the English!

Edited by MrKidd, 18 April 2010 - 12:05 PM.

[Sark2.0]

Although I was amazed at how many kids were in the theater - that does annoy me as I do think its unsuitable for young kids but that's Americans for you! They do seem to let their kids watch anything - I generalize of course but I'm sure its not as bad in England?? Feedback welcome...

Anyway, I've no doubt some people/critics don't like it because of the swearing/violence from an 11 year old but you know, so what?! There are loads of things reprehensible in movies in general and we don't complain so why this? I enjoyed Leon, thought the kid getting blown away in John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 was awesome and thought this film was hilarious.

On a final note I will say this; America is my home, I love this wondeful nation, my kids are citizens and I believe that God blesses this beautiful country (quite an achievment from an atheist! ). But they simply have no idea how to say C***! Some thing are best left to the English!

1. That's just a feature of American culture. Violence=Ok, but 'bad' language or sex will earn you a stern rebuke.

2. I haven't seen the movie you reference (so this might not apply to that film), but just because a movie has something reprehensible in it, doesn't mean that it glorifies that reprehensible content. This film unquestionably glorifies 11 year olds committing acts of extreme violence. And (judging from the trailer and R-rating) it's not a cartoonized, 60's Batman-style satirical take on violence either. What's more, as you noted there were many children in the audience. In spite of the rating, the content of the film makes it abundantly clear that the target demographic is not old enough to see it. How many kids may have difficulty separating reality from fantasy when it comes to this? A hell of a lot. And that, I cannot abide.

I'll catch hell for this, but....this film's concept could have been pretty much left in tact with a PG-13 rating and still had enough edge to it to satisfy more people in the marketplace. I *GET* that it's really more for adults, but it might help to get more adults into the joke if they found a way to the material that was a bit more accessible. I have a problem with a film that has an 11 year old girl, or even teenage boys, killing and using words too vulgar to be repeated. I don't care what anyone says, the violence, nudity, sexual content, drug use and foul language in the film was not necessary in order to spoof and send-up the genre the way the studio wanted to do.

I think hell froze over, because I agree with you. Well, I don't have a problem with 'foul language', because I don't believe it exists, but the rest I agree with.

[marktmurphy]

I'll catch hell for this, but....this film's concept could have been pretty much left in tact with a PG-13 rating and still had enough edge to it to satisfy more people in the marketplace. I *GET* that it's really more for adults, but it might help to get more adults into the joke if they found a way to the material that was a bit more accessible. I have a problem with a film that has an 11 year old girl, or even teenage boys, killing and using words too vulgar to be repeated. I don't care what anyone says, the violence, nudity, sexual content, drug use and foul language in the film was not necessary in order to spoof and send-up the genre the way the studio wanted to do.

Studio? You know Vaughn put his own money into this to get it made, don't you? This ain't a studio film. For that alone I think it's a brilliant bit of work. It was either this or Thor: I think he made the right choice.
Have you actually seen it? Or is your opinion just based on prudish notions of what you think it might be like? Hit Girl's part as a young girl in an adult world she shouldn't be in and the bad effect it's having on her is part of the plot, for heaven's sake. Unless you know what it's about I don't think you can comment.

[Sark2.0]

I'll catch hell for this, but....this film's concept could have been pretty much left in tact with a PG-13 rating and still had enough edge to it to satisfy more people in the marketplace. I *GET* that it's really more for adults, but it might help to get more adults into the joke if they found a way to the material that was a bit more accessible. I have a problem with a film that has an 11 year old girl, or even teenage boys, killing and using words too vulgar to be repeated. I don't care what anyone says, the violence, nudity, sexual content, drug use and foul language in the film was not necessary in order to spoof and send-up the genre the way the studio wanted to do.

Have you actually seen it? Or is your opinion just based on prudish notions of what you think it might be like? Hit Girl's part as a young girl in an adult world she shouldn't be in and the bad effect it's having on her is part of the plot, for heaven's sake. Unless you know what it's about I don't think you can comment.

I haven't seen it, because I don't want to contribute money to something I find reprehensible. And I don't think anyone would call me a prude (actually, I don't think, I know).
Does the film glamourize/glorify Hit-Girl's part in it? From everything I've seen in the trailers etc, the answer is yes, Yes, YES.
As an example of what I mean by glamorizing, consider James Bond v Bourne. Nobody wants to be Bourne or have his lifestyle. No one would say that the Bourne films glamorize the espionage trade. So, is Kick- more like Bond or Bourne in that regard? (I don't view being a Bond fan as being hypocritical because Bond is an adult, and thus understands what he's killing for and that when you kill someone there's really gone forever, something I highly doubt an 11 year old could)

Edited by Sark2.0, 19 April 2010 - 01:17 AM.

[JimmyBond]

When we first meet Hit Girl she is portrayed as believing it's all a big game. About halfway through the film something happens where she starts to take this stuff serioulsy, and at the end of the film she's shown to get the childhood she was missing out on. But then her being the way she is is not her fault. This much is pointed out in the movie. Nicholas Cage's father is portrayed as a monster the way he took away her childhood to turn her into a little weapon in his quest for vengeance against the people he believes lead to his wife's suicide.

And for the record, the sequel is going to be called (no lie) "Balls to the Wall"

[marktmurphy]

Studio? You know Vaughn put his own money into this to get it made, don't you?

He had $20 million dollars?

This ain't a studio film. For that alone I think it's a brilliant bit of work. It was either this or Thor: I think he made the right choice.

Doesn't matter whether it was a studio release or independent film to me. The Catholic Church could have released this film and I'd have had a problem with it.

Shows how little you know before you think you're qualified to comment though, doesn't it?

Have you actually seen it? Or is your opinion just based on prudish notions of what you think it might be like?

No, it's based upon my prudish notions of what it IS, not what it might be like.

I repeat: have you seen it?

I haven't seen it, because I don't want to contribute money to something I find reprehensible. And I don't think anyone would call me a prude (actually, I don't think, I know).

I would!

I genuinely think the world is a poorer place for all these people complaining about something they haven't experienced: the whole furore over the Jerry Springer opera is a case in point. As far as I experienced Kick created absolutely no stir over here at all. It's not controversial because people understood the tone it was intended in.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing: maybe it's more of a British sense of humour. For example I saw one those American Comedy Roasts things the other day (the Shatner one) and, although I enjoy bad taste comedy, it seemed entirely without wit and was actually homophobic and racist, rather than ironically so. Something like South Park manages it, but this fell wide of the mark for me. Are they considered funny in the States?

EDIT: the swear filter editing out the title of the film in my post rather answers my question, I think!

[AliasTheJester]

Actually KICK, er, CENSORED has created quite a stir over here, a bigger one than I can remember being caused by any film with many thinking the 15 age restriction is inadequate (when was the last time any of these people met a 15 year old?), Matthew Vaughn appearing on THE ONE SHOW to defend the film, the inevitable one star Chris Tookey review etc. But it does seem not to have caused the same kind of stir over here it seems to have in the US, and I suspect one reason for this is the "C-Bomb" is not considered anywhere near as heinous as it is in the US, without any connotation of harsh misogyny. For the record though, this film is nowhere near as profane as people are making out (less so than your average teen comedy I would have thought) and certainly no fuss would have been made about the level of language in the film if that word had been taken out.

I guess it comes down to this; action films (as well as comic books and cartoons) stop working when you take them literally or view what happens to them with a perspective with a very close proximity to the real world. In real life, much of what happens in the James Bond films would not be "cool" or "fun" at all, but because it's not real it can be. Obviously sometimes action films cross a line where you can't simply see them as escapism anymore and as a result can't enjoy what's on screen. Some film have certainly crossed that line for me but KICK- isn't one of them, for others it seems it is.

[marktmurphy]

You make a fair point; you're quite right in your point about Bond films.
Certainly, yes: I don't remember wall-to-wall swearing in this and it's far from the most violent film I've seen. It's notable for a pretty realistic view of violence in a lot of points: Kick generally gets his kicked in all of his fights and the bit where he gets stabbed straight away by some street youths shows just how dangerous a game he's playing, whereas the more stylised bits of violence are far less violent than your average Tarantino.

[marktmurphy]

Shows how little you know before you think you're qualified to comment though, doesn't it?

Where do your arguments come from? I'm not commenting upon whether the film was any good. If that were the case, then yes, it would have helped had I seen the movie; kind of hard to complain about the quality of a movie without having actually seen it. However, I'm not arguing about whether the movie is worth the price of admission or is a quality film; I'm talking about the impact that a film like this might have on on society, particularly among teens and pre-teens, too young and inexperienced to be able to understand and process the themes in the film.

If you haven't seen it, how can you possibly know what impact it might have? You don't know what's in it. A trailer ain't enough to judge from. If you're talking about the impact of the trailer: fair enough, but it seems a little pointless to be complaining about a trailer when there's a whole film out there.

I genuinely think the world is a poorer place for all these people complaining about something they haven't experienced:

So I need to experience each and every thing in life before being able to comment upon whether it is good or not?

Well yes: obviously. How can you possibly say something is bad or has a bad effect without understanding the effect or what it is comprised of? I know what being hit by a car is comprised of and the exact effects so I can say that it's a bad thing without having to experience it: I don't however know what's in a book or a film without experiencing it, and I wouldn't dare to comment on the effects from a position of zero knowledge: that would make me look stupid.

Perhaps it's a cultural thing: maybe it's more of a British sense of humour. For example I saw one those American Comedy Roasts things the other day (the Shatner one) and, although I enjoy bad taste comedy, it seemed entirely without wit and was actually homophobic and racist,

I've never "experienced" homophobia or racism. How can I be sure that they are wrong? I should probably withhold judgement, complaining, and criticism about homophobia and racism until I've actually perpetrated it or been the victim of it.

That's a really pathetic argument. If you really have no idea of the difference between one simple concept i.e. discrimination; and a work of art full of a multitude of different concepts, all presented in a variety of ways which themselves affect the value of those concepts, then this debate is even more pointless than I first thought.
If you can show me a film reviewer who makes a living on judging the films by watching the trailers alone then perhaps I might see your point of view. Until then your argument and criticism of the film is worthless.

I really can't believe I'm debating the merits of a movie with someone who hasn't seen it. Utterly bizarre.

[JimmyBond]

I wish you would have responded to my post. While I'm not going to argue about how you feel about the film (hey, not everyone is going to embrace everything), I do think I made a good point about the character of Hit-Girl, I think your comment about the film saying it's ok for her to do what she does is wrong. The film does present her as a tragic character, one who had her childhood taken away from her by her father who turned her into a weapon for his crusade against the people he felt ultimately lead to his wife's death.

[JimmyBond]

I was responding to you, since your post was the last one before mine I didn't feel quoting was necessary.

[dodge]

I doubt I'll ever see the film, not because it's bad--how can I possibly know that?...but because I simply am not interested in any comic-action fantasy about a bunch of kids, foul-mouthed or otherwise. Particularly one that stars an actor who's burned me now too many times. I'll be interested in following this film's financial fortunes, but I believe they've misjudged the market for this. We'll see. It's always an education when we're proven wrong.

[JimmyBond]

If it's any consolation Nicholas Cage gives one of his best performances in the last ten years. Though I realize that's not saying much

[JimmyBond]

One point I made, and continue to make, is that the basic essence of the plot is something that could have been made without having to resort to all the things that made the film R-rated. It wouldn't have been "selling out" or sacrificing artistic freedom.

Tell that to the fans of the comic. In fact they cut out a lot of things to tone the content down for the movie. For example, in the comic, before a major scene near the end Hit-Girl snorts cocaine (her father told her it was a super secret compound made my scientists). I'm sure if they left that part in, the movie would be enjoying even more controversy.

[marktmurphy]

We'll never agree on this. I see your car accident analogy and simply extrapolate it to its logical conclusion. If you don't need to be hit by a car to KNOW that you don't want to be hit by a car because of the effects, then the same *SHOULD* hold true for books, films, music, etc...

You can extrapolate beyond logic. I've pointed out the difference between those two concepts. Car accidents rarely have context or subtext, authorial intent or irony. They are a simple matter of physics. It's quite hard to rationalise art in a scientific way, but well done for trying.

I've answered every question of yours, so please do me the same courtesy: Have you read Mein Kampf?

I'll answer my own question: No, I have not. Don't need to. Don't need to expose myself to the thinking of Adolf Hitler. It's not a judgement as to whether the penmanship was any good, or the writing had a lyrical quality about it. It's a value judgement, of which there really is almost no defense that you can come back at me with, not because you are not a worthy opponent, but because there really doesn't exist such an argument. It's not an argument made from quantifiable facts or mathematical equations. It's a philosophical/moral/value judgement.

People read Mein Kampf to learn about an important period of history: to challenge themselves; to make themselves better people. If you don't expose yourself to challenging material then you'll never really know who you are.

Is this that Godwin's Law thing?

I don't read Mein Kampf because I think it is poison, just as I don't listen to gangster rap, or hard-core metal (the gangster rap of my era: the 1980's), or watch films like SAW or HOSTEL.

Do you not trust yourself not to be seduced by it, then? Surely you know of the holocaust? A terrible, hideous occurrence: but you can't deny it happened or ignore it just because you disagree with it. Finding out about it and discovering your responses to it is an important part of being a human being.
I haven't seen Saw either because it doesn't appeal; but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume a strong moral viewpoint against it. I don't have the ground on which to stand to take that moral stand because I haven't seen it.

My worst vices are probably James Bond, South Park, and Strangers With Candy. And, I get the irony of criticizing KICK- when I'm a huge 007 fan. Had the Internet been around in 1962, who knows what my position would have been at the time? Maybe I would have criticized that James Bond fellow for brutal and shocking acts of violence and explicit sex. But cultural rot has to start somewhere, and we've gone from Pussy Galore to 11 year old girls calling other people c***s. We've gone from Elvis shaking his pelvis to people having actual sex on stage at concerts.

Do you read the Daily Mail?

[marktmurphy]

I wish you would have responded to my post. While I'm not going to argue about how you feel about the film (hey, not everyone is going to embrace everything), I do think I made a good point about the character of Hit-Girl, I think your comment about the film saying it's ok for her to do what she does is wrong. The film does present her as a tragic character, one who had her childhood taken away from her by her father who turned her into a weapon for his crusade against the people he felt ultimately lead to his wife's death.

Perhaps, but then that is an argument only for an adult, as a child would clearly be too young and unsophisticated to pick up on the subtleties and nuance of such a highly intelligent script.

One point I made, and continue to make, is that the basic essence of the plot is something that could have been made without having to resort to all the things that made the film R-rated. It wouldn't have been "selling out" or sacrificing artistic freedom.

So you complain that it's R rated (thus children are excluded), yet you complain that it's a subject matter kids will not understand. Hmm.

I'm a grown-up. I want to watch films for grown-ups. I don't care if the subject matter crosses over with one kids might like; I'm ultimately a big kid anyway and every reasonable barrier to stop those seeing it who shouldn't is in place. I don't want my choices restricted because prudes get offended on behalf of a bunch of people they've never met over a film they've never seen. That's cultural rot for you right there: our choices and artistic freedom being eroded by people who think they should have the power to censor things they think they might dislike.