Short Review: Replace "Kick" with "Lame".


I want to open with a few thoughts on the title of the movie. While words like "ass" and "shit" have become normalized in society, you can hear them spouted off in casual, public settings, the words are still crude. The use of the word "ass" in the title of film may not even register for younger folks who don't know of a time when the word was considered out-of-bounds. The use of the word is bad for society, in my opinion. It is just another drop in the bucket.

The premise of the film is simple, a common loser chooses to suit up like a superhero. He gains some fame through his crime fighting and catches the eye of local thugs. During his exploits, the hero, who names himself "Kick Ass" discovers there are others who also dress up - but these others, a father/daughter team (Big Daddy and Hit Girl) are the real deal.

This is a celebration of our emasculated society. The "hero" Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is Peter Parker without the awe-shucks disposition. Dave's narration makes references to Parker's heroic journey and sarcastically contrasts himself with Spider-man. Dave is a hapless nerd and struggles with women. His mother has died suddenly. He has difficulty speaking to the pretty girl at school. He fantasizes about his buxom teacher and masturbates to Internet porn.

The males in his life offer no direction. His emotionless, stagnant father is little more than a human skin tag slumped over a bowl of cereal at the kitchen table. All of Dave's friends are post modern nerds who worship comic books.

Dave begins to transform into a man when he takes on the persona of Kick Ass. He dons a homemade superhero costume and finds the mettle to confront local, low-level criminals. It isn't long before Dave runs into Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).

Big Daddy, as his name implies, is the supreme father-figure in the story. He is everything Dave's father is not - supportive, deeply interested in his child and assertive. Big Daddy has a purpose and acts on it. He openly shows affection for his child.

Big Daddy's purpose is to destroy the criminal empire of Frank D'Amico (Frank Strong). D'Amico has a son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). This father/son duo are the final set of parent/children in the film. Their relationship is one of a father passing his empire to his son. Chris pleads to learn the family business. When Frank begins to suspect it is Kick Ass who is killing his men, Chris follows in Dave's footsteps and dons his own costume and becomes "Red Mist". Another male teen who needs to don a false pretense to become more manly.


The view of manhood in the film is that all men are hollow, unsettled goofs. Even the men who are strong, still are immoral monsters. All of the fathers in the film are all useless. Dave's Dad is a lump. Big Daddy and Frank are involved but lead their children into harm's way and into lives of crime. The only happy men in the film are Dave's geek friends who live vicariously through superheroes, but otherwise do nothing at all. Dave himself is an uncertain, purposeless hack who quickly subordinates himself to the twelve-year-old girl Hit Girl. Even in the final moments, when Dave assumes a heroic stature, he still is a pale threat when compared to his girl colleague.

Hit Girl is the only real heroic character in the story. She is strong willed, has direction and is capable of change. I had a huge issue with her character however. Hit Girl, again a child of 12, is shown slaughtering villains with a cute smile. As she reigns sanguine terror upon a hallway of armed thugs Joan Jett and the Blackhearts' Bad Reputation plays, giving the hyper violent scene a cooled hipness that borders on the psychotic.


There is an amoral approach to the strong violence in the film that is unsettling when considered. It doesn't show a lack of restraint, it shows a lack restraints in the first place. In one scene, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, as a father and daughter, giggle as they watch a thug pleading for mercy as his car is crushed in a junkyard. They have handcuffed the doomed thug to the steering wheel. Director Matthew Vaughn (Stardust) is comfortable with showing this man beg for life until he pops like a full tick inside the car, spraying blood in all directions.

When violence begins it doesn't end until everyone has been brutally put down. In a climatic scene the systematic gunning down of a room full of thugs is shown in first person. Replicating the first-person shooter video games, we go from one bad guy to the next, pulling the trigger and seeing blood splash as they fall. Vaughn revels in the violence and labors to make it as cool and slick as possible, all the while he avoids any moral construct to the gore. Big Daddy's vigilantism is confronted by his former partner, but this moment of morality is washed away by Vaughn's next thrilling display of bloodletting.

The film fails in the final act because of the moral vacuum Vaughn creates. Since none of the characters are moral and none of them hold any useful ideals other than might makes right. There is no depth to the final confrontation. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the villain is stopped because the heroes dispatch him through criminal means. It doesn't matter if Dave becomes a hero, because in the end, he's still not a man - he's just a kid who can take a punch.

The final act of this movie is interesting in how grandly it falls apart. The film goes along its own little amoral path and retains its sense. Suddenly the confrontation looms and everything becomes wildly incomprehensible and severely wanders away from any sense of normality that was at the heart of the first 3/4ths of the story. It is the cinematic equivalent of the screenwriter throwing his computer across the room and screaming "screw it! I'm outta here!"

This is not a good movie. If anything it will take from you - it will take the precious time you spend on it and it will deaden your mind. Avoid this production, it is not worthy of your patronage.




Related Reviews:
Superhero movies
Iron Man 2 (2010)
The Dark Knight (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Rolling Stone
Chicago Metro-Mix



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, film, Mark Strong, movie review, Nicolas Cage, superhero

Kick-Ass? The last thing this looks like it does is that.

If we're lucky this will be so bad that it kills both superhero and graphic novel adaptation movies for a while.






Screenwriter: Jane Goldman (Stardust)
Director: Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake)
Actors: Nicholas Cage (Knowing), Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes), Chloe Mortez (Bolt), Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad) and Xander Berkeley (Year One)

Labels: film, Mark Strong, movie trailer, Nicholas Cage, Xander Berkeley

Short Review: If you can stomach seeing Sherlock Holmes beating up a guy with nunchuck-looking things, hear his British accent fail him at the end of long sentences and seem more like Tony Stark than the classic character, you'll be just fine.


It takes about three seconds for the movie to reveal that this has as much to do with Sherlock Holmes as Austin Powers has to do with James Bond. The new and improved, space-age Sherlock (now with extra zing!) shares a name and some traits with his literary twin, but other than that, leave your knowledge of the old guy at home. He will only serve to get in the way of his newly minted cinematic doppelganger.

Taking the film for what it is, a plump, squishy, nonsense-laden hunk of crap from Hollywood, it is very effective. It offers attractive characters with bouncy dialog and some amusing moments of peril. The film entertains, which is better than I can say for most Hollywood deposits over the past twelve months.

Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is a British version of Tony Stark who is less sexed and has baggier facial expressions. Downey is fantastic at balancing himself on the edge of over-acting without ever crossing over. To me, this is his draw. He is charismatic and often overtakes the other actors around him. But he at least does us the favor of being worth watching while he distracts from everything else.

Downey is a solid actor and is finally delivering on the promise he showed way back when he made Chaplin. He spent a lot of years wandering the back alleys of Hollywood doing very stupid movies and simpleton roles (One Night Stand, Natural Born Killers, Two Girls and a Guy, Only You), but clean and sober, he has finally found his niche - regular stupid movies and relatively stupid roles. Yes, he's still slopping burgers at McDonalds, but the fact is that he is the best kid working the fry machine.

Opposite Downey is Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Other than offering to step in and dispatch of some toothless, dingy minions, we're not clear as to his purpose. He offers Holmes some banter and plays Felix to Holmes Oscar, but otherwise he follows the detective around like some intern assistant.

Law's performance does manage to keep up with Downey's work. The two mix well together and give the production a comfortable and friendly vibe. Law also looks the part of a Englishman. His presence, and steady accent, help to remind audiences this is supposed to be taking place in London, not Lot 13 in Burbank.

The film isn't without its downsides. The casting of Rachel McAdams is a notable fault. She has a pretty smile and near perfect skin. That wraps up the depth of her character Irene. McAdams wilts in comparison to both Downey and Law. She never finds her footing and fades into the background, even when she's the only one on screen. It is as if she was given her lines moments before stepping in front of the cameras, whereas Downey and Law had plenty of rehersal time with ample opportunity to explore their dialog, non-verbals and reactions. The two will have a scene with complex dialog, filled with lively exchange. Downey will then spend time with McAdams and their whole conversation could be reduced to grunts and eyebrow wiggling and little would be lost. In McAdams' defence, Irene is thinly written. Her dialog is far less dramatic and her motivations are clunky.

The other troubling part of the story is the mystery at the heart of the film is no mystery at all. Instead it is a plot that gets quickly unraveled on our behalf by Holmes. The audience has nothing to do with it. The fun of mysteries is for the viewer to attempt to uncover the truth before the hero. We are either outsmarted by the villain, or are as bright as the hero. Here, Holmes deciphers a complex plot and explains his logic in the final moments - a string of logic that would be impossible for any audience member to come to on their own. This drains what could have been, should have been, a great payoff for us. Then again, they had to concentrate on making sure Holmes as like all awesome and stuff.

I recommend the movie but I warn you it is a frosted, high-fructose, McMovie served in a dome-cup.




Related Reviews:
Robert Downey Jr. movies
Iron Man (2008)
Tropic Thunder (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snyder

Labels: Eddie Marsan, film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie review, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

Screenwriters: Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential)
Director: Ridley Scott (Kingdom of Heaven)
Actors: Russell Crowe (American Gangster), Cate Blanchette (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mark Strong (RocknRolla), Matthew Macfadyen (Frost/Nixon), Kevin Durand (Smokin' Aces), William Hurt (History of Violence) and Max von Sydow (The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew)

Labels: Cate Blanchett, film, Kevin Durand, Mark Strong, Matthew Macfadyen, Max von Sydow, movie trailer, Russell Crowe, William Hurt

I haven't read all of Sherlock Holmes, but I fail to remember the one where he's fighting like a ninja and being handcuffed naked to a bed.

So, we're making Sherlock Holmes into Tony Stark with an accent?

Jude Law is Watson.

What part of this isn't freaking idiotic?




Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg (Jumper)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye), Mark Strong (Body of Lies) and Jude Law (Sleuth)

Labels: film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

Ridley Scott is a brilliant director who has a tendency to stumble every once in a while. He’s made impressive, consequential works like Alien, Gladiator and Blade Runner. He’s also responsible for G.I. Jane, Hannibal, Kingdom of Heaven and Black Rain. When he makes a film he goes all out. Sometimes he finds his groove sometimes he doesn’t. When he misses his efforts aren’t abysmal, they’re still loaded with carefully crafted scenes and some good performances. The pieces as a whole are flat and in this case lethargic as if his message isn’t able to get through coherently. Even his most awkward efforts are still better than most films out there.

This particular production fails to give a reason for its being. It happens, we watch and nothing is learned or gained. It’s well organized but ultimately static. The story about isolated CIA agent, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who operates out of Jordan and who is under the whims of his stateside handler Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), is typically cynical and convoluted. The plot unrolls in the expected fashion of a war on terror flick with the conventional relativist conclusions and sneering account of American motives. The problem with moral equivalence and not picking a side is that you end up having no point of view to express. A plague on both your houses argument may seem like a reasonable reaction to modern international politics but in a narrative such as this it is hard to posit without becoming muddled.

The film would have been better with clearer lines drawn. For those who would argue that is not how the real world operates, here’s a clue, this is a movie not the real world. To tell a story you need to make concessions to get a useful point across. I’m looking forward to Scott’s next film, he tends to follow up his fumbles with touchdowns.


Related Reviews:
Leonardo DiCaprio movies
The Aviator (2004)
Catch Me if You Can (2002)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelViews
Critical Culture

Labels: film, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Strong, movie review, Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, terrorism

My one year old daughter will make a face or say something that gets a laugh from her mother and me. Flushed with the attention she receives, she will do the shtick again in hopes of getting the same reaction. Sometimes it works out for her. If so, she will then do a third, fourth and sometimes a fifth time. The longer the trick goes on the less effective it is. Unlike Guy Ritchie, my one year old daughter has the sense to stop her routine when it fails to get results.

This is the same old same old hyper-stylized, popping paced, snap edited "ain't we too cool for the room" dribble we've seen before. When writer/director hit the scene with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels his style was exciting and new. He make a statement and his fresh voice was heard. When he broke and took the next step with his follow up Snatch he seemed like he was a notable rising power in cinema. A film maker with a talent for crime flicks. Like a British Tarantino but without the massive cranium and he didn't come across as someone desperately making up for his missing dad. Then Richie stagnated and hasn't grown one bit. If you have seen his first two films you've seen this one.

The thing that strikes me about this film is how immensely controlled it feels. Every shot is obviously carefully planned, the design work is obvious and the characterizations are calculated. I never felt as if I were doing anything but watching a very elaborate movie. This is not a good quality since it means I was never able to "get lost" in the movie. Ritchie's governing hand is seen the whole time, he may as well be heard yelling out direction in the background of all of his scenes.

The performances by the likes of Tom Wilkinson, Gerald Butler, Mark Strong, Idris Elba and Thandie Newton are passable. They all strut across the screen with appropriate confidence and toughness but it is all hollow. Their lines are contrived and sound like dialog not actual people talking. They may have done admirable jobs delivering their roles but the combined end product is completely soulless. This drains their efforts of any value.

Ritchie opens his film with a fat knot of facts, motivations and plot all delivered in a kinetic package. The opening five minutes is more flashy and distracting that most children's cereal commercials. One would expect the film to settle a bit as it moves forward so the audience can register the ideas presented in the flurry but Ritchie chooses to keep the flashiness up. We're given more characters, all are oh, so cool and posed, more conniving and more deliberate camera work. This continues throughout the film until Ritchie has devised a Rube Goldberg contraption for a plot that all fires off at once only to provide the uninspiring result of a lighter being snapped on. The problem with creating multi-layered, complicated narratives is that you had better make it worth people's time. This film doesn't meet that criterion.


Related Reviews:
Crime movies
Rififi (1955)
Layer Cake (2003)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
Den of Geek

Labels: British Cinema, film, Gerald Butler, Guy Ritchie, Idris Elba, Mark Strong, movie review, Thandie Newton, Tom Wilkinson

"Brutal" is probably the best word for this film. This is not a flick for the light of heart. It is a harsh, violent look at the horrors visited upon P.O.W.s under the control of the Japanese military during World War II. This is also a brilliant look at worldviews in conflict. The bankrupt Japanese belief in honor and ancestry against the Christian view of redemption and forgiveness.

The performances by Keifer Sutherland, Mark Strong and Robert Carlyle are impressive. The script by Brian Godawa threatens to succumb to it's own somber tones but pulls through in the end. This is a depressing film, probably one of the more depressing ones I've ever seen. If you can handle rough content presented in stark terms then this is a film you should consider. Just don't plan on being too upbeat when you're through with it.


Related Reviews:
Prisoner of war movies
The Great Raid (2005)
Rescue Dawn (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
Reel Film Reviews

Labels: Brian Godawa, film, Keifer Sutherland, Mark Strong, movie review, Robert Carlyle