It had great action scenes and was pretty funny. There were some changes from the comic, but overall it was quite good. Hit-girl was quite awesome. I prefer the comic, but the movie had some pretty excellent action scenes which comics just can't do as well.
So you guys should all go and watch it.
Once the Agony is through with though, it's a good movie. I give it a Rent or Buy on DVD rating. (And to be fair that's how I rate Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 1)
But then I've always liked my heroes to not be Meek Douches.
This is one that should be seen in theaters.
Ive heard alot of people talking about this one, but from the previews i was thinking it was just a kids movie, but its really that good? And i didnt even know it was a comic, im really falling behind on such things. I used to be up on all the comics turned into movies. I was the one who had to tell all my friends that Watchmen was based of a comic.
This is hardly a kids' movie. It is very, very violent.
I was the one who had to tell all my friends that Watchmen was based of a comic.
That says little about you but much about your friends.
This is hardly a kids' movie. It is very, very violent.
Seconded. There are a number of places in the film where it approaches Tarantino-esque levels of excess...
Overall, I thought it was rather amusing and funny. And yeah, it did start off a bit slow and lost a bit of steam in a couple places - some better editing choices could have been made.
I went in with the opinion that it was going to be intentionally corny, cheesy, and mildly obnoxious, and it was. It was also highly entertaining.
I don't feel I wasted my money by seeing it in a theater.
"I idolize both Kick Ass and Hit Girl, because I think that's exactly how the world needs to be dealt with (okay, not exactly, costumes are not necessary, nor is the excessive artillery), the ideals of Kick Ass and the approach of Hit Girl."
"I will definitely say, some of it hurt to watch... Like seeing someone take a nut shot hurts... Probably because they are excessively violent, but in a way that is not necessarily absurd. You can actually empathize that everyone is just human in this, and there are no super powers, no magic, no chi/ki/chakra abilities, no super extraordinary humans and near misses. The fights (and the parts that are decidedly not fights) are brutal."
Ive heard alot of people talking about this one, but from the previews i was thinking it was just a kids movie, but its really that good? And i didnt even know it was a comic, im really falling behind on such things. I used to be up on all the comics turned into movies. I was the one who had to tell all my friends that Watchmen was based of a comic.
Its a pretty hard R. It has lots of violence and Hit-Girl curses like a sailor (although not much nudity). Its definitely not a kid's movie. Go and see it!
I will warn you guys in advance as the dissinting opinion, 1/4 of that movie was totally unnecessary. There are scenes in that movie that drag on forever and ever, and only the sprinklings of Big Daddy and Hit Girl will get you through the movie. I damn near walked out of that movie.
Once the Agony is through with though, it's a good movie. I give it a Rent or Buy on DVD rating. (And to be fair that's how I rate Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 1)
But then I've always liked my heroes to not be Meek Douches.
I didn't feel that at all. I really enjoyed it, but reading the comic, I knew that it would start without lots of action.
And the movie actually changed Kick-ass to be more competant in his heroism and personal life (if you can believe it). In the comic, he's a much bigger loser both as a hero and in dating. I actually think it makes him feel more heroic since he can't do anything, but keeps trying in the comic. And its funnier how he sucks and gets rejected in the comic.
But I'm a big fan of Mark Millar. I think you expressed hatred towards him so different tastes and all that jazz.
As he was I have only met ONE person in my life so far that I'd describe as pathetic as Kick Ass was in the movie (actually more pathetic than Kick Ass, because he can't even get a girl). I couldn't imagine how bumblingly stupid he was in the comic, which would definitely put it on my Not Read list. For reference Peter Parker in the Spiderman movies is about as Meek Douche as I will accept and even that rankles me. I will say though that by the end of the movie Kick Ass isn't nearly as Meek Douche as Peter Parker remained throughought the Spiderman films. Clark Kent and Superman both in Superman Returns far surpassed my acceptable Douche Limit.
ZB: actually Cage did a pretty good job in this movie. I've not read the comic yet, but I felt his character was fairly believable due to his acting. (But I also liked him in Ghost Rider) It just seemed to work well for me.
ZB: actually Cage did a pretty good job in this movie.
Impossible. Unless he killed himself or something. Then again, I bet that'd be over the top, awful and done with an inexplicable accent that really isn't an accent at all.
I've not read the comic yet, but I felt his character was fairly believable due to his acting. (But I also liked him in Ghost Rider) It just seemed to work well for me.
Ghost Rider? Ghost Rider? That was just crap. I finally saw it one day when they put it on the TV and there wasn't anything else on to watch. That was one of the most douche chill filled 'films' ever made. Ever! I do have to admit that Cage was somehow better than the main bad guy was. That, of course, was only because the main bad guy's acting skills are about on par with the main bad guy from the D&D movie. Really. So Cage sucked somewhat less than him, but still at typical Cage suck levels. Which are really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really high.
Didn't know about the comic, but then I don't read any comics and they aren't easy to get here. Might have to see if I can buy it somewhere...
I think you also expressed hatred towards Mark Millar since you stated how much you hated the Marvel Civil War and the Ultimate universe. I'm not as plugged into comics anymore, but isn't that his two biggest things?
And I think you overestimate how crappy teenagers are. If you actually look back to high school through an objective view, you'll realize that most teenagers (especially outcasty ones) aren't that much worse than the characters in the movie. Honestly, the only thing that was not natural was pretending he was gay. But I'm sure plenty of loser boys would do that to spend "quality" time with a girl they lust after. And in the comic, he doesn't get the girl; it's actually pretty funny.
And how could you like "Ghost Rider"? That movie was pretty awful. Me and my wife make fun of it all the time. Like that part where the past Ghost Rider says he has to use his last bit of power to join him and all he does is ride and then goes away. I was like "what? that's it? why even waste his power?" This is pretty crazy, so I'll ask before I attack: Did you like "Ghost Rider" more than the "Spider-man" franchise?
the first time I saw Ghost Rider I didn't like it. The second time though, it wasn't nearly as bad. Cage's character is supposed to be awkward and on the "WTF is going on here" side of things. Which is about Cage's only range I'll admit. (other than his role in Kick Ass)
What a piece of crap on a stick. Minus the stick, of course.Damnit I can't say anything about that first part. Curse you Spoilers.
Heh. If this is about that 'kill himself' thing, I wasn't talking about in character. ;)
To be fair, the old GR did give the new GR a shotgun or something.
I guess. And I remember he did look cool riding a flaming horse or something, right?
I guess. And I remember he did look cool riding a flaming horse or something, right?
Yeah. And he's a pretty good actor himself (We Were Soldiers, Thank You for Smoking - and more!). Why he stooped to this low I just can't imagine. Maybe he went to the same financial school Cage did ... hmm ...
I think you also expressed hatred towards Mark Millar since you stated how much you hated the Marvel Civil War and the Ultimate universe. I'm not as plugged into comics anymore, but isn't that his two biggest things?
And I think you overestimate how crappy teenagers are. If you actually look back to high school through an objective view, you'll realize that most teenagers (especially outcasty ones) aren't that much worse than the characters in the movie. Honestly, the only thing that was not natural was pretending he was gay. But I'm sure plenty of loser boys would do that to spend "quality" time with a girl they lust after. And in the comic, he doesn't get the girl; it's actually pretty funny.
And how could you like "Ghost Rider"? That movie was pretty awful. Me and my wife make fun of it all the time. Like that part where the past Ghost Rider says he has to use his last bit of power to join him and all he does is ride and then goes away. I was like "what? that's it? why even waste his power?" This is pretty crazy, so I'll ask before I attack: Did you like "Ghost Rider" more than the "Spider-man" franchise?
Oh he did that pile? Okay yeah he's on my Hit List. Though I don't think I can blame just him, because he's far from the only one responsible for that pile of Trash. There are other writers and other artists to put down the Pike before him really, and at the end of the day he did have to follow what the Overseer told him to do.
No that's about right really, I kind of floated between the various social circles or maybe I was lucky in that my highschool didn't have Glorified Mouth Breathers as the norm.
Well in that particular scene, the previous Rider didn't have in him to finish the job in the past. He just couldn't do it. (lacked the courage) He had used up almost all of his power staying alive that long. remember in that scene he says "I have enough left for one last ride" not fight, Ride. Meaning that he could now go rest in peace because he knew that Cage's character was going to go Finish what he started. It's a Passing The Torch scene.
Depends, are we talking Movie Franchise or not. If we are, then yeah I like Ghost Rider more. Because it doesn't have Toby playing up his already Douchey Mc Douche alot body language and butchering the character even more with his Utterly Bad Acting. (Especially when he's wearing the costume ***** I hate it when he put on the spiderman costume!) Comics though I also like Ghost Rider more, on pure aesthetics alone. There was a tv show of Ghost Rider for a little while which I thought was pretty cool when I was a kid. But I liked the Spiderman show more. (and still do) When I think of Spiderman, I think of that cartoon almost everytime. And then I think of the Comics, and the Novel by Diane Duane.
The Comic chain in question Spidey and Parker aren't nerdy wanna be Mouth Breathing Losers. Same with the book. It's after he's gotten the girl, and after he's become successful and seems to actually be living a Normal Life (sorta) outside of the mask.
Spiderman and superheroes for me are at their worst in appeal when they are on the SubNormal level.
At least to me, teenagers are losery and annoying. My wife and I are actually rewatching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There have been points where I thought "I don't remember Buffy and Xander being so annoying". But they're teenagers; they're not supposed to be well adjusted or not annoying. So its hard to have realistic seeming teenagers without them being annoying at times.
And I'm surprised that you rail against mouth-breathers so much. Don't you like Megan Fox?
(I make fun of mouth breathers, but I hate her. She's just so unbelievably stupid and talentless. Like seriously, there's enough hot actresses which actual talent that you don't need someone as useless as her. But that's a different story.)
Toby's parker is more like the creepy guy you find drooling on himself at the age of 40 when someone pretty walks by and mouthbreathing as he talks.
The teen from Kick Ass at least manages to start becoming more like an adult by the end of the first film. He's supposed to be the 'average teen' but why is it that I don't know of any teens that are as Losered as he was in the first parts of the movie? Heck not even current teenagers are as much of a Loser as he was in the first part. I'd say him by the end of the first film is more typical of what I've seen out of teens more so than the first part.
Megan Fox: we could have a thread all about her, but I'll sum up my feelings on Ms Fox with this. Don't judge her based on the Crapformers franchise. Do you judge Shia Lebouffe just from that franchise? Hell, what about the guy that played the guy from Section 8? Do you judge him based solely on his "masterful" performance in those movies? Or hell the guy that played the Special Ops squad leader? Let's face it, those movies don't make ANY of the actors look even competent at their jobs. Jennifer's Body, Megan Fox is much much more entertaining with. Could be because you know, the director and producers didn't blow donkey balls with Coke every morning.
And you stated the problem. You like the teens at the end of the film where they start to act more like adults. The teens at the beginning of the film acted like...teenagers.
But I agree with you sentiments towards Kristen Dunst; she kind of sucks and isn't nearly as hot as people like to say.
For Megan Fox, its not just her horrible movies. Look at her glamour shots; she almost always has her mouth gawking like she has some sort mental disorder. And if you read her interviews, they're actually somehow worse! Doesn't she have a tatoo of an ex-boyfriend or something? And I think she said something like "duh, its okay... technology can cover it up... dah, you don't need to think when you get tatooes..." Someone like Olivia Munn is equally as hot, but she's not painfully stupid; she actually seems pretty cool. Or you could have actresses who are hotter and actually can, you know, act like Keira Knightley. Even though I think Megan Fox is hotter than Angelina Jolie, I'd much rather have people talk about Jolie since you know, she actually has talent.
And I actually thought the only good thing about Michael Bay's Transformer was that group of special ops people. They were just completely pointless for the movie.
Will I like the movie?
Kirsten Dunce is more than a little sucky. The girl's acting talent is non existent, her attitude is that of White Trash, and her looks are a Found Her In A Dumpster Special.
I think Olivia Munn's career is just starting. We'll see where it goes (She's supposed to be in something that's coming out. I can't remember for the life of me what it is though)
Jolie does have talent. Really. She's not just a plastic face.
Jolie does have talent. Really. She's not just a plastic face.
Talent at what? Collecting Children?
Talent at what? Collecting Children?
Well yeah, that. And acting. See: Taking Lives, The Bone Collector (if you're thinkin' it's porn, you'll be let down), Hackers and Girl, Interrupted. When Fox does something remotely resembling those, you can say she's got acting chops. As it stands today, she's just a hawt chick that lucked into non x rated film.
Depends what you disliked about the comic. But if I would have to guess, I'd say no. I think conceptually, its worse in story than the comic and more in stereotypical action. Lots of the heroes aren't as pathetic as they are in the comic. It also has stereotypical, boy gets girl and other Hollywood stuff. But if you just want an action movie, there are some pretty good (almost Equilibrium-like) scenes.
Cpt_Micha:
Jolie can actually act. Seriously, she has been in movies which she as done more roles than Miss Fox and her "I'm just dumb eye-candy". Jolie has won Academy Awards and has been in dramatic movies where she was good. She also does random stupid action. I'm actually a fan of her; I just don't think she's super hot (not that she's unattractive).
Yeah, I've seen some picture of Fox where she actually shuts her mouth and she does look better. But I'm just surprised that you can rail against mouth-breathing when Fox is one of the biggest mouth-breathers I can think of (on top of her mental retardedness).
Talent at what? Collecting Children?
Well yeah, that. And acting. See: Taking Lives, The Bone Collector (if you're thinkin' it's porn, you'll be let down), Hackers and Girl, Interrupted. When Fox does something remotely resembling those, you can say she's got acting chops. As it stands today, she's just a hawt chick that lucked into non x rated film.
Agreed.
I hate Girl, Interrupted with the fiery passion of a thousand suns in a galactic sun orgy. When you've known somebody whose been committed against their will for emotional problems, the Hollywood trope of "Madness means that you're just a creative person who's misunderstood" will make your blood boil. (My wife read the book and said that actually in the book they make a point of showing the girls as suffering from actual emotional afflictions, rather than just needing a hug.)
But even I have to admit that Angelina Jolie did a decent job in that movie.
Jolie is definitely an actress. Megan Fox is definitely a person who can memorize a script and repeat the words back. They are not the same thing, and one takes a lot more talent than the other.
How about Tomb Raider, Wanted. That stupid comedy? Yeah Utter Trash Acting.
We've not seen Fox in enough stuff yet to judge her talent or lack there of. I want to see her in more Not Bay movies before I judge her. I mean really if I were to judge actors based off of Bay Films, Bruce Willis is one of the worst actors ever.
Hackers? You mean that horrible butchery of a movie?
How about Tomb Raider, Wanted. That stupid comedy? Yeah Utter Trash Acting.
We've not seen Fox in enough stuff yet to judge her talent or lack there of. I want to see her in more Not Bay movies before I judge her. I mean really if I were to judge actors based off of Bay Films, Bruce Willis is one of the worst actors ever.
Those are campy action movies. See, Jolie does more than that and that's why I mentioned some of the many films she did that go out of that genre. Fox, otoh, has never been tabbed for anything beyond campy crap. I suppose she could be something fantastic, but as of this moment in time, she's just not. Have you seen Taking Lives or The Bone Collector?
Oh, I also will now admit that I kinda like Mr and Mrs Smith. Yeah, I can be pretty lame sometimes.
Looking at her career right now on imbd and wow it's going to be a jamp packed year of her in 2011. Apparently she does some voice work in the pokemon cartoon or has. She's been in some really weird **** apparently though movie wise. Transformers has so far been her most "normal" film.
Well that and Jennifer's Body (which from everyone that's seen it that I know says it's really funny so I'm going to be renting it soon)
I don't recall The Bone Collector at all. I'm sure I've seen it with a name like that but it must have been deleted from my mind possibly as an innocent bystander as I was deleting Horrible Things from my mind cycles.
Maybe I'll que it up on netflix or something (once I get my account started back up), along with Jennifer's Body (yeah thats right I have something against Blockbuster and their Horrible Business Practices)
Yeah, he's really good. Ever seen Man on Fire? He's totally badass in it.
And I thought she was good in Changeling.
actually Cage did a pretty good job in this movie. I've not read the comic yet, but I felt his character was fairly believable due to his acting. (But I also liked him in Ghost Rider)
Ugghh! I
hated that flick, and Cage was a big part of why.When I was a kid Ghost Rider was my fave. Other kids idolized bulky he-men in tights who performed daring feats and rescued bystanders (Superman, Spiderman, Batman et al) but I was into a flaming skeleton in black leather who rode a Harley and punished the wicked. Back in 3rd grade when we were learning how to do that thing where you grid off a picture to copy it large-scale - I did a picture of Ghost Rider.
Apparently Cage is also a Ghost Rider fan. He fought for the part and even has a Ghost Rider tattoo, but he was too old and too flat for the role and simply being a fan of the source material is not enough (as the D&D film proves). I might have bought him as Johnny Blaze's dad, but not Johnny himself.
I'm hoping Hollywood opts for a reboot in a few years like they did with The Hulk (old one was crap, new one was awesome). Ghost Rider is too cool to let fall by the wayside.
Apparently Cage is also a Ghost Rider fan. He fought for the part and even has a Ghost Rider tattoo, but he was too old and too flat for the role and simply being a fan of the source material is not enough (as the D&D film proves). I might have bought him as Johnny Blaze's dad, but not Johnny himself.
The movie surprised me by how good it was. Nothing I would ever watch again, but not a total piece of trash either. But I did find it really odd watching Cage in a role that was obviously written for a much younger man. His behavior and hijinx were appropriate for a twenty-year-old daredevil, not a world-weary fading star in his forties. I don't know what he was thinking taking the part.
While we're on the subject, whose idea was it to make Ben Affleck into Daredevil?
I don't despise Cageor Affleck as much as some others do. I think they have both done well in some of their roles. But those two casting decisions were just awful. If I didn't know that they were both such huge fans of the comics, I would have assumed that the decision was made by somebody with no knowledge of or respect for the source material. Since ignorance isn't available as an excuse, I don't know what to think (Except: "gigantic ego.")
"I idolize both Kick Ass and Hit Girl, because I think that's exactly how the world needs to be dealt with (okay, not exactly, costumes are not necessary, nor is the excessive artillery), the ideals of Kick Ass and the approach of Hit Girl."
Oh tottaly, Guys with bongs and terrified sluts deffinetly deserve to be brutally murdered for sitting on a couch / cowering in a corner.
Well that and Jennifer's Body (which from everyone that's seen it that I know says it's really funny so I'm going to be renting it soon)
Then you havn't been listening well. It's a trap damn you, run for the ****ing hills! It's worse than dragon wars, and if you ahve seen that movie, you know how big an insult that it. 30 minutes into the movie I decided to get tottaly shitfaced, because there was no other way I could have made it to the end. It's not funny, it's not exciting, it's not scarry, or compelling, or even sexy unless you have a shoulder fetish. It's lesbian porn for teenage girls who are not lesbians. There is no reason for it to exist. NONE.
"I idolize both Kick Ass and Hit Girl, because I think that's exactly how the world needs to be dealt with (okay, not exactly, costumes are not necessary, nor is the excessive artillery), the ideals of Kick Ass and the approach of Hit Girl."
Oh tottaly, Guys with bongs and terrified sluts deffinetly deserve to be brutally murdered for sitting on a couch / cowering in a corner.
"Killing the chick at the end of that scene was... a bit over the top, however, probably done because she saw what happened. A casualty of necessity, however, the other guys were all carrying weapons and about to beat the **** out of a kid for coming and asking one of them not to be a douche. If I had the skills and ability to avoid the cops that Hit Girl does, I'd have done much worse."
"If everyone held Kick Ass's ideals, Hit Girl's approach would be unnecessary. Simple as that. However, stupidity is a rampant crime that should be capitally punished. I am a misanthrope, I think humans are the worst kind of irredeemable filth (at least a high majority of them are), and the world would be SO much better without them. We accept stupidity and refuse rationality, as a species, and the thing that comforts me is that we'll probably kill ourselves off pretty soon. I'm just hoping we do it in a way that allows the world to regrow without us sometime thereafter."
I cant believe all the Cage hate goin on here. 2 words for you: Raising Arizona.
I liked him in Face/off.
"I idolize both Kick Ass and Hit Girl, because I think that's exactly how the world needs to be dealt with (okay, not exactly, costumes are not necessary, nor is the excessive artillery), the ideals of Kick Ass and the approach of Hit Girl."
Oh tottaly, Guys with bongs and terrified sluts deffinetly deserve to be brutally murdered for sitting on a couch / cowering in a corner.
"Killing the chick at the end of that scene was... a bit over the top, however, probably done because she saw what happened.
Something tells me you only go that far because it was a 'she'. Some of the people where about to beat the **** out of an armed guy who just threatened one of them in his own home, and some of them where armed. Some of them where stoned and watching the TV with a bong when an 8 year old shoved a stick through their chest.
Just so I understand your position: attacking armed men in your home who threaten your person: bad. Killing people because they where going to attack someone you do not know who threatened them in their home: good. Killing a woman because she witnessed you commit a crime: good. Killing a guy for being stoned: good.
"Also, let's not pretend it's so black and white. Attacking a skinny little kid who was INVITED into your house, regardless of the fact that he was armed, and tells you to leave a helpless girl who is donating her time to people who frankly don't deserve it, alone, is not the same as attacking and armed assailant in your home. Don't pull some crap and pretend its the same thing."
"Killing people because they are about to beat the **** out of a guy who just wants to help people, and is FAR less violent than you are (in Hit Girl's case), yeah, definitely. By the way, to an extreme, if I have a guy poised to kill Osama bin Laden or Stalin or Hitler or Lex Luthor (whatever, someone really screwed up), and the nicest, most philanthropic guy in the world is about to do something to screw that up or harm the 'assassin', I'd kill the philathrope. So, yes, I think it's just fine to slaughter some clearly dangerous people (don't pretend perfectly nice people just hang out in a room with a reinforced door and horde weapons while doing drugs) before they beat the crap out of a person who is willing to take a beating to protect a stranger. Kick Ass is dumb and unprepared, but with some teaching, his ideals can be an extremely powerful tool for helping people."
"Killing guys in a drug den good, killing women in a drug den is unfortunate."
"Killing people to save a philanthropist good, killing a philanthropist to kill people better."
Being a drug addict does not mean you are not a perfectly nice person. Your drug dealer having weapons does not mean you are dangerous.
Pretending an armed person threatening a person in their home is an armed person threatening some dude in their house qualifies as pulling crap?
And actually, the woman was not running away. She smashed a beer bottle and weilded it in a threatening manner (obviously to defend herself, she didnt actually show any signs of going at anyone with it) which is more than the guy with the bong did (Sit there looking stunned and stoned).
Still I find it odd that you think killing the (poorly) armed woman in the drug den, who is obviously closely attached to the armed folks, is somehow worse than killing the stoned guy in the drug den who appears to be nothing more than a drug buyer (who made no move even to defend himself).
"Your argument in return would likely have something to do with them being cops, however, I don't care. Cops are just people given equipment and more authority than they deserve. You'd probably refute that to, but you can't support that argument with anything that isn't societally biased."
"The woman was running away when she was killed, and in the circumstance listed, I'd break a bottle and defend myself, as well. Fact is, she disarmed the woman and she was trying to get away. I would make the same argument for why it was reasonable to kill her as I would anyone who didn't fight back. They were still witnesses, it was simply notable that the woman ran to the door and tried to get out and was killed in retreat."
"I also never said it was worse that that woman was killed, you assumed that because I didn't make mention of the unarmed men. I made a general statement that included all the people in the room, and by the way, selling drugs qualifies you as dangerous. Yes, maybe you are dangerous to stupid people who buy your product, but you're still dangerous. Also, considering how much violent crime results from drug trafficking, it's not a stretch to believe that armed drug dealers are probably dangerous."
"I mean, what if someone came to bust them for drug possession? Is it likely they are going to go pleasantly? What if someone threatens to report them to the police? How far do you think that person is going to get? No, I can't say for sure that's true, but then I just go back to the harassment of a high school girl, which does deserve a good stab through the chest with a double-sided partisan, or whatever that weapon would be considered."
Who knows what those people in there (even the stoned looking one on the couch and the poor woman) were doing the day before. Maybe they were raping some poor little girl, or murdering some guy for his wallet.
It's never explained, so it's hard to make a judgement on it. All you know is that until Kick-Ass showed up, they weren't doing much, that day, and that they were in a drug-hole and apparently criminals. You didn't see a criminal record for any of them, nor the list of things they did that they weren't caught for. They might've been cold-blooded murderers to the last man.
I cant believe all the Cage hate goin on here. 2 words for you: Raising Arizona.
Who said they hated that movie? Cage did one good film and I should excuse his awfulness in everything else he's ever done for it? Nah. 2 words: 8 mm.
EDIT: Here's 2 more: Face Off (sorry to whoever liked it, it was just plain awful). And a couple more: Ghost Rider. Maybe another 2? Con Air. Hmm ... yep, there's 2 more: National Treasure. And that's not even getting into the 3 word category. ;)
I didn't think there was anything wrong with Face/Off, Con Air, or 8 mm. I'm not saying they were good movies or that they weren't bad. I watched them and I was entertained.
I actually like Face/Off, but I'm a fan of dumb action movies, especially John Woo films.
EDIT: Not that I don't like action flicks - I do. Just not Face Off. It was stupid. And bad.
As I said, I'm a fan of John Woo. So I like not just slow motion jumping around with guns, but I also enjoy slow motion walking in the wind.
And there were some fairly comical parts, primarily because of the craziness of the actors/characters.
As I said, I'm a fan of John Woo. So I like not just slow motion jumping around with guns, but I also enjoy slow motion walking in the wind.
I like John Woo too, but that doesn't mean everything he makes is great or that his work should be consumed indiscriminately. Calling Face Off good just cos Woo made it makes his other films seem worse by comparison. It throws off the curve and drags down the average, like a slow kid in an advanced class. Face Off is the Ralph Wiggum of John Woo's filmography.
Edit:
Boraxe, I legimately liked Face/Off before I knew I was a John Woo fan. I watched it when it originally came out and I didn't get into Woo until much later. I don't like it solely because Woo made it. I like it because Woo made it so it has certain aspects I like.
And I think there are worse John Woo films. Didn't he make Blackjack or something where the hero (or villain) was afraid of the color white?
Edit 2:
I just looked up some of the movies John Woo directed. In defense of Blackjack, it was apparently a made for TV movie. But he did Paycheck? That movie is horrible. You have Ben Afflack randomly training with a staff for no reason other than he probably was used to it from Daredevil. And that was extra horrible since I like Philip Dick and John Woo (and I used to not mind Afflack).
Boraxe, I legimately liked Face/Off before I knew I was a John Woo fan. I watched it when it originally came out and I didn't get into Woo until much later. I don't like it solely because Woo made it. I like it because Woo made it so it has certain aspects I like.
Fair enough, but the key point to remember is "I like it" is not the same thing as "it is good". I like the movie Airheads, but it is not a good movie.
But he did Paycheck? That movie is horrible.
Exactly my point. No one should be blind to the complete awfulness of Paycheck just cos Woo made it. Good directors can make
films. I mean Francis Ford Coppola - director of The Godfather and Apocalypse Now - made Jack for Bog's sake!"I like how you misquote me RIGHT UNDER my post. I may use quotation marks differently than others, but I use them to indicate speech. Your use of them indicates you are quoting what I said, only, you have taken them out of context, and beyond that, twisted them to suit your argument.
Thanks. It's kind of my signature style.
You can wallow in your black and white crap, but let me tell you something, if you harass a young girl, and the cops come to your house, you know, with guns (probably in their holsters at first), no one's going to claim that they are 'armed [people] threatening a person in their home...' (A direct quote from you, changing the pluralization to fit, because that's how quoting someone works.)"
And they probably will not say "If you don't I'll come back and break your legs." They will probably issue a restraining order, and tell you if you break it you will be taken to court. Which they can do, because they are police, not a freak in a wetsuit.
"Your argument in return would likely have something to do with them being cops, however, I don't care. Cops are just people given equipment and more authority than they deserve. You'd probably refute that to, but you can't support that argument with anything that isn't societally biased."
Damn. Busted. But again, no threat of physical violence, instead a warning of societally accepted and adminsterd non-violent legality.
"I also never said it was worse that that woman was killed, you assumed that because I didn't make mention of the unarmed men.
You clearly stated that there where no unarmed men. Apparantly a bong is a weapon to you.
the other guys were all carrying weapons
I made a general statement that included all the people in the room, and by the way, selling drugs qualifies you as dangerous. Yes, maybe you are dangerous to stupid people who buy your product, but you're still dangerous. Also, considering how much violent crime results from drug trafficking, it's not a stretch to believe that armed drug dealers are probably dangerous."
Murdering people also qualifies you as a dangerous criminal, whats your point?
"I mean, what if someone came to bust them for drug possession? Is it likely they are going to go pleasantly? What if someone threatens to report them to the police? How far do you think that person is going to get?
Probably further than someone who happens to be around when HitGirl decides to kill someone.
No, I can't say for sure that's true, but then I just go back to the harassment of a high school girl, which does deserve a good stab through the chest with a double-sided partisan, or whatever that weapon would be considered."
There is no reason to suspect that the guy with the bong was selling drugs, or harassing anyone. He seemed pretty caught up in his bong to me.
Oh, and to fill my quota:
"High School shootings are good, if the shooter is a girl."
"High School shootings are good, if the shooter is a girl."
Allow me to refine this point for accuracy.
High School shootings are funny, thus acceptable entertainment, if the shooter is a girl.
It's a mostly unexplored side of the double standard.
Or mabey there is an as yet unstated "Only three non-black-male bystanders per spree killing" addendum or something.
I cant believe all the Cage hate goin on here. 2 words for you: Raising Arizona.
Who said they hated that movie? Cage did one good film and I should excuse his awfulness in everything else he's ever done for it? Nah. 2 words: 8 mm.
EDIT: Here's 2 more: Face Off (sorry to whoever liked it, it was just plain awful). And a couple more: Ghost Rider. Maybe another 2? Con Air. Hmm ... yep, there's 2 more: National Treasure. And that's not even getting into the 3 word category. ;)
No im not saying that you should excuse all the bad films hes done, just because he was in one awesome movie, i just felt like the guy wasnt getting a fair shake, everyone was talking about how bad he is and everything, so i just had to point out that he has done some good. Personaly i dont think hes that bad of an actor, i coud think of much much worse, but he does seem to play the same smart ass type character in every single movie. Ive enjoyed a few of his movies, not sayin theyre grreat but decent flicks to rent and watch with the family. And to be honest i thought the Ghost Rider movie was pretty good.
No im not saying that you should excuse all the bad films hes done, just because he was in one awesome movie, i just felt like the guy wasnt getting a fair shake, everyone was talking about how bad he is and everything, so i just had to point out that he has done some good. Personaly i dont think hes that bad of an actor, i coud think of much much worse, but he does seem to play the same smart ass type character in every single movie. Ive enjoyed a few of his movies, not sayin theyre grreat but decent flicks to rent and watch with the family. And to be honest i thought the Ghost Rider movie was pretty good.
Ah. I see what's going on here. You're batshit.
In some seriousness, who can you name that's a worse actor than Cage? Besides Keanu, who? Costner? Umm ... I'm at a loss ...
Pierce Bronsan, Wayans Brothers, Just about anyone from the Scary Movie franchise and clones of it, the main character from the D&D movie (can't remember the actor's name), Hayden Christensen, Hale Berry, Christina Lokien, Milla Jovavich (sp), Tom Cruise, John Travolta. The list goes on. All of those are worse by far than Cage.
EDIT: Crap. Thought of a worse than Cage actor: Joaquin Phoenix.
For bad actor, do you mean someone who can't actually act or someone who constantly makes bad movies?
'Cuz Arnold Schwarzenegger can't act, but he's the man.
Millia is pretty awful at acting and being in good movies. I don't understand why they let her star in moveis still. But I guess people think she's "hot" or something. So there's the Megan Fox argument all over again, but at least she looks less generic.
I think the Waynes are decent for they are; a comedy act. Sometime they're good; sometimes they suck. I also do not mind Hayden Christensen or Tom Cruise, but I don't think they're good actors.
No im not saying that you should excuse all the bad films hes done, just because he was in one awesome movie, i just felt like the guy wasnt getting a fair shake, everyone was talking about how bad he is and everything, so i just had to point out that he has done some good. Personaly i dont think hes that bad of an actor, i coud think of much much worse, but he does seem to play the same smart ass type character in every single movie. Ive enjoyed a few of his movies, not sayin theyre grreat but decent flicks to rent and watch with the family. And to be honest i thought the Ghost Rider movie was pretty good.
Ah. I see what's going on here. You're batshit.
In some seriousness, who can you name that's a worse actor than Cage? Besides Keanu, who? Costner? Umm ... I'm at a loss ...
What!? I cant use Keanu? No fair! This is probably a bad time to point out that i actually liked the Matrix trilogy. What was that surfer movie Keanu made with whats his name...Patrick Swayze yeah thats it, he was pretty bad, if you wanted everyone to know just how sucky your movie is just make it apoint to mention that hes in it! I dont think hes done one decent movie, and yeah Costner is definitely on the bottum of my list as well. Matt Salinger is another one, bad bad acting. Terence Hill is probably the worst actor ive ever seen. And Christopher Reeve deserves mention as well, I throughly enjoyed the Superman movies as a kid, heck i still do, but remember that scene in Superman 2 were the bad guys are going to throw that bus, and Chris is smiling and laughing "dont do it the people!" oh god that was horibble acting, and really the director should take alot of the blame as well, if i was directing that one i would of been yelling cut! lets try that again, but this time try doing it sad. Well those are the main ones that spring to my mind, i may think of some more worthy candidates for worst actor of all time, after i get good and drunk.
Ok, ok. You win. Nick Cage isn't the worst actor ever. But he does make the 'All World Worst Actors Ever' cast.
If they ever made a movie with that cast, I think I'd have to see it.
"I like how you misquote me RIGHT UNDER my post. I may use quotation marks differently than others, but I use them to indicate speech. Your use of them indicates you are quoting what I said, only, you have taken them out of context, and beyond that, twisted them to suit your argument.
Thanks. It's kind of my signature style.You can wallow in your black and white crap, but let me tell you something, if you harass a young girl, and the cops come to your house, you know, with guns (probably in their holsters at first), no one's going to claim that they are 'armed [people] threatening a person in their home...' (A direct quote from you, changing the pluralization to fit, because that's how quoting someone works.)"
And they probably will not say "If you don't I'll come back and break your legs." They will probably issue a restraining order, and tell you if you break it you will be taken to court. Which they can do, because they are police, not a freak in a wetsuit.
"No, they are arrogant people who think that a badge and a gun makes them anything more than ****s with a badge and a gun."
"Your argument in return would likely have something to do with them being cops, however, I don't care. Cops are just people given equipment and more authority than they deserve. You'd probably refute that to, but you can't support that argument with anything that isn't societally biased."
Damn. Busted. But again, no threat of physical violence, instead a warning of societally accepted and adminsterd non-violent legality.
"Yes, because police are never corrupt, or irresponsible, or brutal for no good reason. Particularly not to black people. Of course, it's okay, because they are cops, so we can overlook it in the name of 'justice'."
"I also never said it was worse that that woman was killed, you assumed that because I didn't make mention of the unarmed men.
You clearly stated that there where no unarmed men. Apparantly a bong is a weapon to you.the other guys were all carrying weapons
"Did I say that? That's not a rhetorical question considering you've misquoted me a lot already. If I did, my bad, sometimes I space when I type long rants. Most of them were carrying weapons (even if not all of them were the caliber of Hit Girl's), corrected."
I made a general statement that included all the people in the room, and by the way, selling drugs qualifies you as dangerous. Yes, maybe you are dangerous to stupid people who buy your product, but you're still dangerous. Also, considering how much violent crime results from drug trafficking, it's not a stretch to believe that armed drug dealers are probably dangerous."
Murdering people also qualifies you as a dangerous criminal, whats your point?
"Murdering dangerous people is cool by me. That's my point. I love people who talk about not 'lowering themselves' to a certain level. Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, you're lowering yourself by threatening to (or actually) killing them for making that threat."
"Here's the thing, you (general you) threatened me for, oh, let's say, trying to help people and being a 'helpless girl'. I, then, threaten (or send someone to) you for threatening me. If you don't see the difference, that's fine, hey, Hit Girl kills you anyway. HAHA!"
"I mean, what if someone came to bust them for drug possession? Is it likely they are going to go pleasantly? What if someone threatens to report them to the police? How far do you think that person is going to get?
Probably further than someone who happens to be around when HitGirl decides to kill someone.
"Of course, the premise of the movie is, 'Hit Girl and her dad arbitrarily choose people to kill by throwing darts at the yellow pages. In the meantime, Kick Ass threatens drug addicts with unnecessary violence, completely unrelated to the harassing of a young girl.'"
No, I can't say for sure that's true, but then I just go back to the harassment of a high school girl, which does deserve a good stab through the chest with a double-sided partisan, or whatever that weapon would be considered."
There is no reason to suspect that the guy with the bong was selling drugs, or harassing anyone. He seemed pretty caught up in his bong to me.
Oh, and to fill my quota:
"High School shootings are good, if the shooter is a girl."
"I didn't say it was a good thing that they killed the bystanders, only that, to carry on doing what they do, they have to not take risks. Therefore, as in my assassin kills a bad person, I kill the philanthropist who screws that up example: witnesses must die. However, since they can't prove the witnesses did anything wrong, they could at least kill them quickly (as she did with bong man) and not toy with them (which she did a little bit with the woman running for the door, you could argue against it, but she had a chance to kill her before the woman hit the door and then turned and freaked out)."
"Also, that last part, is loosely related to, and has no real base in, what I said. I wonder what gives you this weird idea that I'm sexist? Reverse genders (and race, why the hell not) in that scene, nothing changes in my mind. A little black boy, saves a black woman in a screweed up costume from a bunch of white women and a male prostitute, while a huge white guy gets sniped by Black Daddy. That's still one less roomful of stupid druggies and drug dealers, so three cheers. Actually, I'd feel a little worse for the male prostitute, because I've heard some screwed up stories from my male friends who have done stripping, I wouldn't want that to be my last moments."
Ok, ok. You win. Nick Cage isn't the worst actor ever. But he does make the 'All World Worst Actors Ever' cast.
Raising Arizona aside, Cage is pretty weak as an actor. He's not bad to see in some movies (I've heard very good things about him in the new Bad Lieutenant flick) but that's not the same thing as being a good actor. One is not a Master Chef simply cos one can cook some good some meals now and then, and neither is one a good actor simply cos they can turn in the occassional decent performance.
Anyone who doubts exactly how bad Cage can be needs to watch Knowing. That movie was utter garbage and he was pretty much the worst thing in it (apart from the script, of course).
Ok, ok. You win. Nick Cage isn't the worst actor ever. But he does make the 'All World Worst Actors Ever' cast.
Raising Arizona aside, Cage is pretty weak as an actor. He's not bad to see in some movies (I've heard very good things about him in the new Bad Lieutenant flick) but that's not the same thing as being a good actor. One is not a Master Chef simply cos one can cook some good some meals now and then, and neither is one a good actor simply cos they can turn in the occassional decent performance.
Anyone who doubts exactly how bad Cage can be needs to watch Knowing. That movie was utter garbage and he was pretty much the worst thing in it (apart from the script, of course).
Knowing was bad for loads of reasons that had nothing to do with Cage. As was Next.
"Yes, because police are never corrupt, or irresponsible, or brutal for no good reason. Particularly not to black people. Of course, it's okay, because they are cops, so we can overlook it in the name of 'justice'."
Your, um, decrying cops in general because sometimes they abuse their power by hitting suspects more than necessary in the same breath as glorifying the murdering of witnesses.
Where you drinking yesterday too? If your not going to be at all consistent with your moral judgments, it kind of makes it pointless to discuss your moral system, yes? (As its not so much a system as a batshit insane crapshoot. Might as well pull a Two-Face at this point.)
"Murdering dangerous people is cool by me. That's my point. I love people who talk about not 'lowering themselves' to a certain level. Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, you're lowering yourself by threatening to (or actually) killing them for making that threat."
See, again your being inconsistent. Killing innocent people is fine, killing people who might kill innocent people is good, killing people who might kill innocent people makes you a dangerous person and you should die. You just finished saying all the guys in that room where going to kill Kickass, and that is why they needed to die. Kickass is a dangerous person, so killing him should have been perfectly fine by your stated standards. Hit Girl even more so.
"Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, (they want you away from your ex girlfriend) you're lowering yourself by threatening to kill them for making that threat."
Again, your own reasoning suggests that their killing of kickass was perfectly justified.
"Here's the thing, you (general you) threatened me for, oh, let's say, trying to help people and being a 'helpless girl'. I, then, threaten (or send someone to) you for threatening me. If you don't see the difference, that's fine, hey, Hit Girl kills you anyway. HAHA!"
Noone was threatenig her because she was a helpless girl or for trying to help people. She broke up with him, he didn't want the relationship to end and was still pursuing her.
"Of course, the premise of the movie is, 'Hit Girl and her dad arbitrarily choose people to kill by throwing darts at the yellow pages. In the meantime, Kick Ass threatens drug addicts with unnecessary violence, completely unrelated to the harassing of a young girl.'"
So killing innocent people to keep from going to jail is Good, and killing innocent people to keep from going to jail is Evil. Well, as long as your consistently inconsitent...
"I didn't say it was a good thing that they killed the bystanders, only that, to carry on doing what they do, they have to not take risks. Therefore, as in my assassin kills a bad person, I kill the philanthropist who screws that up example: witnesses must die. However, since they can't prove the witnesses did anything wrong, they could at least kill them quickly (as she did with bong man) and not toy with them (which she did a little bit with the woman running for the door, you could argue against it, but she had a chance to kill her before the woman hit the door and then turned and freaked out)."
"Also, that last part, is loosely related to, and has no real base in, what I said. I wonder what gives you this weird idea that I'm sexist? Reverse genders (and race, why the hell not) in that scene, nothing changes in my mind. A little black boy, saves a black woman in a screweed up costume from a bunch of white women and a male prostitute, while a huge white guy gets sniped by Black Daddy. That's still one less roomful of stupid druggies and drug dealers, so three cheers. Actually, I'd feel a little worse for the male prostitute, because I've heard some screwed up stories from my male friends who have done stripping, I wouldn't want that to be my last moments."
Re: School shootings: You did not say it was good, but you said it was not bad, and that the event, as a whole, was good. So as long as one person you shot deserved to die, such as because they where harassing a highschool girl or something, then it dosn't matter who else you kill, the even is still good. So shooting up a school is a good act, acording to the system of morality you are promoting.
Re: Bias: You clearly mentioned that harassing a "Highschool Girl" was a capital offense. You never said highschool student, or anything other than "Highschool Girl" giving the obvious implication that the femaleness of the one harassed was of great importance. You also claimed it was unfortunate to kill the woman, at one point, which further feeds into the implication. As for the racisism, well, that one was mostly unfounded, it just sounded fun so I through it in there. I had to make some atttempt to explain while a set of action carried out by one group is great, while that same set of actions carried out by another group is an attrocity. Race seemed a common distinction between the two groups.
Apparantly there is no explanation, the moral system you are talking about, that you claim Hit-Girl and Kickass are using, does appear to ammont to nothing more than flipping a coin and coming up with justifications after the fact.
Does threatening people make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
Does murdering witnesses make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
Does harassing people make you Bad? Mabey, was the persson you harassed a "Highschool Girl"? If not, Flip a coin.
Does the use of undue force on people you suspect of criminal activity make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
"Yes, because police are never corrupt, or irresponsible, or brutal for no good reason. Particularly not to black people. Of course, it's okay, because they are cops, so we can overlook it in the name of 'justice'."
Your, um, decrying cops in general because sometimes they abuse their power by hitting suspects more than necessary in the same breath as glorifying the murdering of witnesses.
Where you drinking yesterday too? If your not going to be at all consistent with your moral judgments, it kind of makes it pointless to discuss your moral system, yes? (As its not so much a system as a batshit insane crapshoot. Might as well pull a Two-Face at this point.)
"Black, have you met white? I mean, obviously you have, you're the only portions of a very small spectrum."
"Murdering dangerous people is cool by me. That's my point. I love people who talk about not 'lowering themselves' to a certain level. Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, you're lowering yourself by threatening to (or actually) killing them for making that threat."
See, again your being inconsistent. Killing innocent people is fine, killing people who might kill innocent people is good, killing people who might kill innocent people makes you a dangerous person and you should die. You just finished saying all the guys in that room where going to kill Kickass, and that is why they needed to die. Kickass is a dangerous person, so killing him should have been perfectly fine by your stated standards. Hit Girl even more so.
"Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, (they want you away from your ex girlfriend) you're lowering yourself by threatening to kill them for making that threat."
Again, your own reasoning suggests that their killing of kickass was perfectly justified.
"'You just finished saying all the guys in that room where going to kill Kickass', Nope, definitely didn't say that..."
"'Like, if someone threatens to kill you for some stupid reason, (they want you away from your ex girlfriend) you're lowering yourself by threatening to kill them for making that threat.' Or that... As your quotations seem to be indicating... I'll address the rest of the stupidity in that below."
"Here's the thing, you (general you) threatened me for, oh, let's say, trying to help people and being a 'helpless girl'. I, then, threaten (or send someone to) you for threatening me. If you don't see the difference, that's fine, hey, Hit Girl kills you anyway. HAHA!"
Noone was threatenig her because she was a helpless girl or for trying to help people. She broke up with him, he didn't want the relationship to end and was still pursuing her.
"Look Black, it's White again..."
"Of course, she has no right to tell a man to leave her alone. You know, women don't have rights (since we're implying the other is sexist)."
"Of course, the premise of the movie is, 'Hit Girl and her dad arbitrarily choose people to kill by throwing darts at the yellow pages. In the meantime, Kick Ass threatens drug addicts with unnecessary violence, completely unrelated to the harassing of a young girl.'"
So killing innocent people to keep from going to jail is Good, and killing innocent people to keep from going to jail is Evil. Well, as long as your consistently inconsitent...
"How did you get that, from what I said... Did you have your voice box surgically attached to your ass? It seems like it'd be easier that way..."
"I didn't say it was a good thing that they killed the bystanders, only that, to carry on doing what they do, they have to not take risks. Therefore, as in my assassin kills a bad person, I kill the philanthropist who screws that up example: witnesses must die. However, since they can't prove the witnesses did anything wrong, they could at least kill them quickly (as she did with bong man) and not toy with them (which she did a little bit with the woman running for the door, you could argue against it, but she had a chance to kill her before the woman hit the door and then turned and freaked out)."
"Also, that last part, is loosely related to, and has no real base in, what I said. I wonder what gives you this weird idea that I'm sexist? Reverse genders (and race, why the hell not) in that scene, nothing changes in my mind. A little black boy, saves a black woman in a screweed up costume from a bunch of white women and a male prostitute, while a huge white guy gets sniped by Black Daddy. That's still one less roomful of stupid druggies and drug dealers, so three cheers. Actually, I'd feel a little worse for the male prostitute, because I've heard some screwed up stories from my male friends who have done stripping, I wouldn't want that to be my last moments."
Re: School shootings: You did not say it was good, but you said it was not bad, and that the event, as a whole, was good. So as long as one person you shot deserved to die, such as because they where harassing a highschool girl or something, then it dosn't matter who else you kill, the even is still good. So shooting up a school is a good act, acording to the system of morality you are promoting.
"Holy ****, Black, White, we just keep running into each other... DAMN! Have you met logical fallacy... A + B = C, therefore A + D must also = C. Different situations, only vaguely similar ideas. I won't explain it to you, we don't want to tax your brain."
Re: Bias: You clearly mentioned that harassing a "Highschool Girl" was a capital offense. You never said highschool student, or anything other than "Highschool Girl" giving the obvious implication that the femaleness of the one harassed was of great importance. You also claimed it was unfortunate to kill the woman, at one point, which further feeds into the implication. As for the racisism, well, that one was mostly unfounded, it just sounded fun so I through it in there. I had to make some atttempt to explain while a set of action carried out by one group is great, while that same set of actions carried out by another group is an attrocity. Race seemed a common distinction between the two groups.
"Ah yes, because if I DON'T generalize, I am therefore NOT including anything else. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I am not talking about ANYTHING other than the situation depicted in the movie..."
"Seriously, nothing I have said, except my own fabricated examples, of which I remained gender and race neutral, was related to anything other than the people and situations in this movie or some basic beliefs I have that relate to the situation. Also, I simply don't have the time to waste to actually explain how Situation A is not EVERY OTHER SITUATION in the world, and therefore not indicative of my feelings."
"I'll try to summarize... The world, is very large, and your capacity for understanding, is very small (that's not an insult, it's just a truth about humans); and not every situation can be resolved fairly by humans. Therefore, if people are going to be stupid (which they are, not even a question), then it means that other people have to deal with it as best they can. In my belief, that means just getting rid of them, and moving the hell on. Otherwise, relatively smart people (I say relatively, because humans are stupid, 100%, but some people rise above by accepting that and trying to be better), have to waste their time on the people who just choose to remain idiots and ruin the world, life, and the basic rights of people."
"So, my simple rule is, when you violate a person's rights (which are simple and yet complex, it simply requires good judgment, however you have none of that), you forfeit every right you have because of how simple it was for you NOT to violate someone's rights. You have deemed yourself too stupid to make that decision."
"So, in this situation, Non-racial, non-gender indicative person A, is in a relationship with non-racial, non-gender indicative person B. A stops wanting to be in a relationship with B. A's rights here are now NOT to have to put up with that person (there are exceptions, but they are irrelevant to this situation). B is told to leave A alone, any action that B takes that isn't leaving A alone forfeits B's rights."
"Now, unfortunately, in enforcing that outside of the law, the law will get involved. I don't care what right they THINK they have, or what rights people want to pretend they have, they don't. They will exercise their non-existent rights, and I will even comply because it makes my life easier, but that doesn't stop them from being arrogant fools."
"Now, non-gender, non-racial indicative superhero wannabe C, gets involved because he is friends with A, and B has forfeited his rights. C tells B to leave A alone, a warning he doesn't deserve, but he gets it. B gets his friends to kick his ass."
"Okay, now non-gender, non-racial indicative superhero duo D, have been following C's actions, and realize how powerful and how much potential he has, so they decide to protect him. B and his friends are beating the crap out of C, so they've forfeited their rights, unless C said, 'Come on, beat the crap out of me! I want it!' So, duo D kills B and crew, and are forced, to avoid detection, to make a decision. Kill B's non-violent friends, who are still likely not good people (no, druggies are not good people, they're idiots, and so are the people who screw them, probably because they have money); or risk themselves and C, who are doing things to try to make a dent in the idiots in the world. The former is definitely the preferable treatment."
"That's it, I'm not explaining it any further, you can Black and White bull crap all you want. I'm going to finish this post and stop wasting time and thought on you. I am glad to have made my opinion known, but I've done that. If someone else wants to weigh in with an intelligent argument, maybe, I'll talk to them."
Apparantly there is no explanation, the moral system you are talking about, that you claim Hit-Girl and Kickass are using, does appear to ammont to nothing more than flipping a coin and coming up with justifications after the fact.
Does threatening people make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
Does murdering witnesses make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
Does harassing people make you Bad? Mabey, was the persson you harassed a "Highschool Girl"? If not, Flip a coin.
Does the use of undue force on people you suspect of criminal activity make you Bad? Mabey. Flip a coin.
"I'll do a little clean up here."
"Does threatening people make you bad?: Maybe, why are you threatening them? Have they decided that it's okay to threaten or bring harm to people who DID NOT cause them harm or threat? If so, no, it does not make you bad, they forfeited their right."
"Does murdering witnesses make you bad?: Technically, but does letting stupid crap happen when you've got the ability to change it make you worse? Yes."
"Does harassing people make you bad?: See threatening people."
"Does the use of undue force on people you suspect of criminal activity make you bad?: Suspect? Unless the situation has more to it than just suspicion, then yes."
"Are ALL of these situations more than Black and White? Is everything subject to exception, even the idea that everything is subject to exception?: Yes."
"How did you get that, from what I said... Did you have your voice box surgically attached to your ass? It seems like it'd be easier that way..."
Mabey because you flat out said that killing the witnesses was justified (even though they may not have been bad people, even if you know them to be philanthropists), whereas killing the cops would not be (even though cops are bad people).
"So, my simple rule is, when you violate a person's rights (which are simple and yet complex, it simply requires good judgment, however you have none of that), you forfeit every right you have because of how simple it was for you NOT to violate someone's rights. You have deemed yourself too stupid to make that decision."
So, someone who violates anothers rights forfiets theirs. Also, anyone who witnesses you violate the rights of someone who, by all rights no longer has any, also forfiets theirs.
You can accuse me of black and white thinking all you want, but none of this that you have presented can logically explain how it is alright to kill people because they caught you breaking the law.
"Are ALL of these situations more than Black and White? Is everything subject to exception, even the idea that everything is subject to exception?: Yes."
"I am making an exception here (yup, exception, do you know that word? EX-CEP-TION) because I'm not actually explaining anything, just reposting what I already said."
Then again, you don't know whether the woman in the movie was just a witness, or had a criminal record a mile long herself.
I agree mostly with RyukaTana, except for the "killing witnesses" part. If that's all they've done wrong, then you are just an idiot for performing your crap in front of them. They have every right to leave the scene alive and unharmed. (Although a "please don't tell anyone" of course would be somehing you could say)
Then again, you don't know whether the woman in the movie was just a witness, or had a criminal record a mile long herself.
"Once again, I still don't think it's a good way to go. However, I was glossing over that part most of the time (other than the fact that amphibian kept making a big deal about it). I honestly doubt that those two people didn't have it coming for some reason. In fact, probability-wise, point at someone on the street and they probably deserve some crap coming their way."
"The argument was specifically these people and this situation. It's rare to find people who can agree with me. Of course, if they did, the world wouldn't be the giant, capsizing ball of crap that it is."
so giving crap to pleople who deserve crap because they gave crap to other people who probably deserved crap...
...
so giving crap to pleople who deserve crap because they gave crap to other people who probably deserved crap...
TA, on the off chance you're still trying to have a serious debate with this guy, stop. While I commend him on being able to type while admiring his own genius in the mirror constantly, this clearly isn't a debate where reason has a place. For daring to voice a dissenting opinion, you'll probably be the first one purged when his glorious army of not-maniacs ascends to power.
For daring to voice a dissenting opinion, you'll probably be the first one purged when his glorious army of not-maniacs ascends to power.
Negative, machines will overthrow the human powerstructures before this could happen.
As for the film, I intend to observe it within 168 hours.
I have no interest in seeing this movie.
How wonderful for you.
Myself, I saw the trailers, liked what I saw, and watched it. It was pretty good. About what I expected to get, and I got it. Cage did annoy me more than I expected, actually. He usually doesn't bug me too much, but this time he really did make the movie less enjoyable.
Usually when I'm watching a movie I try to take it on its own terms; I try to see what the movie makers were going for and evaluate it on how well they succeeded at what I think they were trying for. I also tend to see things that I like and ignore the things I don't like, so I'm probably not a great movie critic for a lot of people. There were lots of things I liked, and the only thing I didn't was Cage. He was bad enough that I couldn't quite ignore him, but his presence was compensated for by loads of fun stuff. My daughter liked it too.
I have no interest in seeing this movie.How wonderful for you.
I think that is a little on the snarky side. I just let people know I was someone who wasn't interested in the film. You didn't have to attack me like that.
I have no interest in seeing this movie.How wonderful for you.
I think that is a little on the snarky side. I just let people know I was someone who wasn't interested in the film. You didn't have to attack me like that.
..
.
And you don;t have to be all sensitive about it.
Relax chief.
I have no interest in seeing this movie.How wonderful for you.
I think that is a little on the snarky side. I just let people know I was someone who wasn't interested in the film. You didn't have to attack me like that.
Oh, not just a little. Why did I attack your comment? Because it added nothing at all to the thread. Not one single thing except negativity. Sure, I amped it with my comment a little. I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine when people come into a discussion and add nothing at all but a single negative comment without explanation.
What would not have drawn a snarky comment from me is explaining why you have no interest in this movie. What about it makes you think it isn't worth the time to watch? If you had given that kind of information, there would have been something to discuss. Without that info, you have not given anybody here a reason to care about your interest or lack of interest in this movie.
Hence the snark. Really, I actually like what you have to say in other threads. It's not meant as an attack on you, just an attack on coming in and contributing nothing, especially because I know you can do much better.
I have two reasons, and both are entirely subjective. One, Nick Cage is in it. I just can't hate watching him act. Two, I hate the superhero/comic book genre and this looks like a movie for super hero fans.
Cage is only a minor character. His acting in this role was admittedly weird. I honestly have no idea what he was trying to do in his hero persona (he uses a voice that's a cross between William Shatner's captain Kirk and Christopher Walken for no adequetly explored reason), but he was tolerable in his civilian role. Then again, I've never really had a problem with Cage (neither like or dislike his acting especially), so I may not be the best one to judge.
And this is pretty different from your average superhero film. It's almost more about showing why superheroes wouldn't work in real life. It's also very dark, much closer to Watchmen or The Dark Knight than say, Ironman or Spiderman.
I think it's worth a watch even if you're not into superhero films, but if you actively dislike the genre it might not be worth it for you. Just mah two cents!
I have no interest in seeing this movie.
I have no interest in knowing what you are or are not interested in.
Do you see how annoying that is? It's adversarial, and it does nothing to stimulate or continue the discussion in progress.
Your initial post listed no reasons why you were uninterested and it offered nothing to the topic of discussion. I could walk up to a random stranger on the street and tell him "I have no interest in hearing about your life", and it would have had the same relevance to what was going on as your post did to this thread.
I think it's worth a watch even if you're not into superhero films, but if you actively dislike the genre it might not be worth it for you. Just mah two cents!
Thanks for the information there. I think I fall in the actively dislike the genre camp, though.
I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I was just giving my opinion on the movie, because the thread seemed to be about it. I did offer my reasons when asked.
Had you included those reasons with the initial post, you may have avoided some of the negative feedback. We may not share your reasons for liking or disliking something, but it's a lot easier to take the opinion as legitimate (i.e. not trolling/baiting) if you mention reasons you feel that way.
(he uses a voice that's a cross between William Shatner's captain Kirk and Christopher Walken for no adequetly explored reason)
Maybe you've heard of a fellow named Adam West.
I saw it this weekend. The movie really isn't about superheroes. It's about loneliness, and what a feeling of isolation can lead somebody to do (basically: really stupid, crazy things).
I think it suffers because while the heroes are not your typical comic book heroes, the villains ARE your typical comic book villains. They are really flashy and obvious, and totally bad to the bone. They're archetypes of the typical action movie gangster, while the heroes are deliberate subversions of action movie heroes. It's disappointing. They sort of hint at the problems with vigilantism with Nicholas Cage's character, but ultimately they decided that being a superhero is pretty awesome afterall.
The face of American vigilantism is not Batman fighting the Joker. It's lynchmobs. There is a reason we don't want people walking the streets with guns or batons, beating the crap out of whoever they feel deserves it.
There are enough bad people out there that we all agree are bad people that I think they could have still gotten the message across that standing by and doing nothing is shameful, while also showing the potential to go too far when you decide to take the law into your own hands. Even the warping effect that her training had on HitGirl was ultimately treated as awesome and empowering rather than disturbing.
HitGirl was ultimately treated as awesome and empowering rather than disturbing.
I took it as both. Then agian, I have a long history of being a fan of awesome-disturbing things.
HitGirl was ultimately treated as awesome and empowering rather than disturbing.
I took it as both. Then agian, I have a long history of being a fan of awesome-disturbing things.
Yay! It's not just me. Awesome-disturbing FTW . . . and I think Poe is proof of that.
HitGirl was ultimately treated as awesome and empowering rather than disturbing.
I took it as both. Then agian, I have a long history of being a fan of awesome-disturbing things.
That's not what I mean. It's not that it was treated as awesome because she was disturbing. That would have been fine with me. Disturbing-awesome has a long and storied history in movies. The horror genre is practically built on it, and torture-porn has been taking that to extremes lately (lately as in in the past 20 years, of course).
What bothered me was that it was treated as awesome and not disturbing. At the end she is portrayed as just a scrappy kid who can protect herself extra well from bullies, rather than a mass murdering sociopath in the making.
Although that FPS in the dark combat scene was the part of the movie that most effectively aroused true feelings in me. Specifically, it aroused the desire to own that game.
I think lots of the 'crappiness' of being a superhero was taken away from the movie in an attempt to make it more awesome. So it loses some of its gusto from the comic book. I liked how in the comic, Kick-Ass pretty much did nothing right, although he had good intentions. I wasn't a huge fan of how Kick-Ass and Big Daddy were made more competant in the film. Their stories and outcomes were much better in the comic book. And I thought the comic also showed Hit-Girl as more screwed up and stuff.
But the movie is still pretty excellent for what it was. It had great action and it was pretty funny.
As for Hit Girl being disturbing . . . she was, but only while she was in costume. And might I add, it was awesome. I've never seen a supposedly 11 yr old girl drop the C bomb on a group of hood rats before, and I loved it. To me, it makes perfect sense that someone who is a costumed hero would check their civilian personality at the door (as it were) when becoming their alter ego.
I've never read the comic before, but I must admit I'm a bit interested in checking it out now. Also, I went with my 66 year old father, and he really liked the movie too. I think I'm a very bad influence on that man.
Okay. So I just saw the movie about 2 hrs ago. I don't know what people are talking about by saying Cage's acting was bad in this movie. He did affect his voice when he had the costume on, but so does Christian Bale when he's in the Batman costume. The only thing was that he wasn't trying to sound like a "bad ass". If anything, it seemed like he was channeling Adam West's rendition of Batman, which would be appropriate for a superhero wannabe of that given age.
As for Hit Girl being disturbing . . . she was, but only while she was in costume. And might I add, it was awesome. I've never seen a supposedly 11 yr old girl drop the C bomb on a group of hood rats before, and I loved it. To me, it makes perfect sense that someone who is a costumed hero would check their civilian personality at the door (as it were) when becoming their alter ego.
I've never read the comic before, but I must admit I'm a bit interested in checking it out now. Also, I went with my 66 year old father, and he really liked the movie too. I think I'm a very bad influence on that man.
I loved the part where Cage shot her. "It will only hurt a little honey."
My real gripe with Cage's acting in this one was that it was so out-of-sync from the other actors' in terms of style. He was over-the-top; more comic-book than anybody else was. Look at how Red Mist talks to the reporters; he seems like a normal goofy highschool kid who's talking to reporters while wearing a costume. Cage plays Big Daddy like he's a comic book hero. Kick Ass? He also is relatively normal. Even Hit Girl seems like a relatively normal 11-year-old (aside from the potty mouth and martial arts skills). But Big Daddy is more comic-book, both as his normal and super persona.
It seems out of place.
I dunno what it was, but It didn't bother me at all, which means that it was good acting as far as I'm concerned.
I dunno; Big Daddy and his alter-ego both seemed completely lost in a comic book world (I mean, he drew comics of himself) so it kinda makes sense... like he wasn't really all living in this world and lost in his comic book fantasy to the point where he even felt like a comic book character to onlookers.
I dunno what it was, but It didn't bother me at all, which means that it was good acting as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough. I thought that Kick Ass was also lost in the world of comic books, but he was also perhaps slightly less out-of-touch with reality.
I thought about what kind of statement was intended by Cage's acting, but found I was reaching farther than I thought appropriate for the level of the movie.
My real gripe with Cage's acting in this one was that it was so out-of-sync from the other actors' in terms of style. He was over-the-top; more comic-book than anybody else was. Look at how Red Mist talks to the reporters; he seems like a normal goofy highschool kid who's talking to reporters while wearing a costume. Cage plays Big Daddy like he's a comic book hero. Kick Ass? He also is relatively normal. Even Hit Girl seems like a relatively normal 11-year-old (aside from the potty mouth and martial arts skills). But Big Daddy is more comic-book, both as his normal and super persona.
It seems out of place.
It seemed creepy. I agree with plushy (sorry mate, I have no idea what your name is supposed to sound like, but in my head it sounds like "plush'n") that it was intentional.
These being the interwebz, you could just spell my name. I doubt you'd be able to pronounce it anyway, I don't think the Dutch "ui" exists in the English language and it's not a proper word anyway.
I was just mentally pronouncing the "ui" as the "ooey" in the english word "gooey", but I don't know Dutch pronunciation conventions.
Finally got around to seeing Kick Ass last night. Really enjoyed it. Probably a far more accurate protrayal of what would happen if anyone tried to be a real superhero than I've yet seen on film. Also, Big Daddy was pretty much spot-on what Batman would really be like - a walking murder-machine.
I just saw it too. I liked the realism of it all. Except for the…
Would a spolier alert have killed you?
I found the relationship between Big Daddy and Hitgirl disturbing, and not in a good way. There was no optimism in Big Daddy or Hitgirl, and that kind of ruined the whole superhero thing for me. I'm not a big fan of anti-heroes like the Punisher, so that kind of kill-them-all vengence-driven character doesn't appeal to me, and the fact that he basically made a psychopath out of the little girl he loved so much bothered me. It was just an aspect of the movie that stuck in my teeth when watching it.
However, it was still an entertaining movie, and I enjoyed a lot of watching it. The fight scenes were amazing (especially the one in the studio during the kidnap), and there were some funny lines. Very entertaining.
I also wanna a purple T-Shirt saying:"I'm saving myself for Hitgirl!"
Yet, I also wanna be her. Strange contradictary feelings.
As Amber of Shortpacked! once said, your cosplay and your crushes aren't necessarily entangled.
That said, I hope that next year at whatever convention I go to that I see a 6 ft. 4 inch man dressed as Hitgirl.
It was an entertaining movie, but I don't agree with the Batman thing. ;) I found nothing realistic about the movie, except the first fight of Kick Ass in front of the diner (and the resulting actions of the "bad guys").
I agree that it wasn't overly realistic, but compared to other super heroes, its more realistic. They were going for some realism (like that mentioned fight scene), but its still a super hero movie.
And its an insult to Batman to suggest Big Daddy is similar.
I found the relationship between Big Daddy and Hitgirl disturbing, and not in a good way. There was no optimism in Big Daddy or Hitgirl, and that kind of ruined the whole superhero thing for me. I'm not a big fan of anti-heroes like the Punisher, so that kind of kill-them-all vengence-driven character doesn't appeal to me, and the fact that he basically made a psychopath out of the little girl he loved so much bothered me. It was just an aspect of the movie that stuck in my teeth when watching it.
Well, the point of the comic was to show how screwed up super heroes would actually be (f'ed up and crazy). A major theme was the idea that heroes aren't made by some traumatic event, they're just crazy people who got bored. Big Daddy was this in the comic (although he pretended to be what the movie made him be). Also, Hit Girl comes off much less well adjusted than the movie made her. And the Big Daddy/Hit Girl thing is worse in the comic since there was no real reason for Big Daddy to become a hero and make his daughter a hero. Although she's kind of awesome in both.
However, it was still an entertaining movie, and I enjoyed a lot of watching it. The fight scenes were amazing (especially the one in the studio during the kidnap), and there were some funny lines. Very entertaining.
I agree. I do prefer the comic over some changes they made, but the movie had excellent fight scene. The one when Hit Girl attacks the mafia guy's apartment and it was kind of first person was really nice. It kind of reminded me of Equilibrium (which is a great compliment).
And I addressed your post just because my statements could be seen as responses. For the most part, I think I agree with you.
But yeah, it was an entertaining movie.
And I totally wanna see that, EE!
I remember there was one scene in the comic which I thought was quite good which didn't make the movie. It involved Kick-Ass and Red Mist running into a burning building to save someone's child. It shows how determined Kick-Ass was but how helpless he was. Eventually, they both pass out from the smoke and firemen save them and the "child" (which was a cat). But the crowd saw Kick-Ass and Red Mist leaving with the cat and cheered them instead of the firemen.
I think the comic does a better job at conveying the idea that Kick-Ass is basically a crazy kid who has heart, but can't do much. And from conversations from other people (including on this board), I imagine that would have been worse recieved, which is a shame.
It was an entertaining movie, but I don't agree with the Batman thing. ;) I found nothing realistic about the movie, except the first fight of Kick Ass in front of the diner (and the resulting actions of the "bad guys").
I mean realistic as in becoming a gun-toting machine of death rather than a ninja.
It was an entertaining movie, but I don't agree with the Batman thing. ;) I found nothing realistic about the movie, except the first fight of Kick Ass in front of the diner (and the resulting actions of the "bad guys").
I mean realistic as in becoming a gun-toting machine of death rather than a ninja.
Eh, I don't really see one being more realistic/plausible than the other.
Yeah, I was joking about wanting to be her.
C'mon... you know you want to get that purple wig...
Yeah, I was joking about wanting to be her.
C'mon... you know you want to get that purple wig...
Well, honestly, what superhero enthusiast doesn't want to pull on the cosplay (I mean uniform) and kick some ass? The only thing stopping most of us from trying it is that we're horridly out of shape, and going to jail in spandex is probably not a good idea.
I agree mostly with RyukaTana, except for the "killing witnesses" part. If that's all they've done wrong, then you are just an idiot for performing your crap in front of them. They have every right to leave the scene alive and unharmed. (Although a "please don't tell anyone" of course would be somehing you could say)
Then again, you don't know whether the woman in the movie was just a witness, or had a criminal record a mile long herself.
"Once again, I still don't think it's a good way to go. However, I was glossing over that part most of the time (other than the fact that amphibian kept making a big deal about it). I honestly doubt that those two people didn't have it coming for some reason. In fact, probability-wise, point at someone on the street and they probably deserve some crap coming their way."
"The argument was specifically these people and this situation. It's rare to find people who can agree with me. Of course, if they did, the world wouldn't be the giant, capsizing ball of crap that it is."
so you get to decide who desreves to live and who doesnt wow thats arrogant. We have things called laws for a reason. Vigilanteism is bad because it isnt justice its vengance. Everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is for the courts to decide when someone has stepped over the line not individuals. And last time I checked corrupt police get arrested or worse for abuse of power.
Vigilanteism is bad because it isnt justice its vengance.
Not inherently. It really depends on the nature of the thing. There are some things that civilians who are vigiliant can do. If you see drug deals in your neighborhood, you can take pictures of the dealers. You can even follow them and note addresses, and associates. If they attack you while you do this, you are well within your rights to defend yourself and kill if necessary to preserve your life. All of this is quite legal but falls into a kind of Batman-esque vigilanteism where a civilian becomes an unoffical police agent.
Vigilanteism is bad because it isnt justice its vengance.
Not inherently. It really depends on the nature of the thing. There are some things that civilians who are vigiliant can do. If you see drug deals in your neighborhood, you can take pictures of the dealers. You can even follow them and note addresses, and associates. If they attack you while you do this, you are well within your rights to defend yourself and kill if necessary to preserve your life. All of this is quite legal but falls into a kind of Batman-esque vigilanteism where a civilian becomes an unoffical police agent.
Well yeah so long as you give the photos to the police rather than doing something yourself, but actually hurting them for doing something you think is wrong I'm sorry that makes you no better than them. Everyone is entitled to due process no matter what they've done innocent until proven guilty and thats not just proven guilty in your mind thats proven guilty in a court of law.
That said the movie was good but am I the only one that is wondering what the actress who plays hit girl were thinking letting her play that role??
I saw this last week and wasn't impressed.
I guess it's all about context. In Kill Bill, for example, raising one's daughter to be an assassin doesn't seem that bad because the context we get is 'international super assassin land'. Kick Ass works very hard to make its context 'real world if people put on costumes', so the notion of a deranged father using comic books to brainwash his kid so she thinks it's fun to murder people with a glaive comes across as horrific.
The huge disconnect for me was that the hero Kick Ass is very clearly, statedly trying to be a Peter Parker-esque golden age of Marvel type of hero. Then he sees Big Daddy and Hit Girl doing a great impression of Punisher-esque 90's murderfest, and what does he say? 'These heroes are the real deal.' I call shenanigans. A kid with the values he's been trying to emulate would have shat himself and said 'oh god, they're psychopaths who need to be stopped'. My disbelief hit the pavement like that completely gratuitous suicide in the opening sequence.
Speaking of tritely unbelievable (and vice-versa), let's not forget that the way to get straight into a girl's bed is apparently to lie to her for months about who you are and then break into her home so you can brag about being a hero. Betrayal of trust? Nahhh. Finding out your friendship was all a lie gets chicks so wet.
The only thing worthwhile in the whole thing was the sudden shock value of certain moments. I didn't find the fight scenes to be anything special, and watching Mark Strong beat the **** out of an eleven year old just wasn't fun. Neither was watching Cage burn alive as he screamed incoherently. The whole thing was just so half-baked and haphazardly thrown together that I have to hope that the comic lost a lot in the translation to film. Two thumbs down, one star, Do Not Want, etc.
The huge disconnect for me was that the hero Kick Ass is very clearly, statedly trying to be a Peter Parker-esque golden age of Marvel type of hero. Then he sees Big Daddy and Hit Girl doing a great impression of Punisher-esque 90's murderfest, and what does he say? 'These heroes are the real deal.' I call shenanigans. A kid with the values he's been trying to emulate would have shat himself and said 'oh god, they're psychopaths who need to be stopped'. My disbelief hit the pavement like that completely gratuitous suicide in the opening sequence.
Speaking of tritely unbelievable (and vice-versa), let's not forget that the way to get straight into a girl's bed is apparently to lie to her for months about who you are and then break into her home so you can brag about being a hero. Betrayal of trust? Nahhh. Finding out your friendship was all a lie gets chicks so wet.
The only thing worthwhile in the whole thing was the sudden shock value of certain moments. I didn't find the fight scenes to be anything special, and watching Mark Strong beat the **** out of an eleven year old just wasn't fun. Neither was watching Cage burn alive as he screamed incoherently. The whole thing was just so half-baked and haphazardly thrown together that I have to hope that the comic lost a lot in the translation to film. Two thumbs down, one star, Do Not Want, etc.
(I take it he means "the actresses parents")
Pretty much yeah. Who would let an eleven year old girl play a role where she curses like that.
Kids also say all sorts of terrible crap when we're not around. And they also murder people brutally whenever our backs are turned. It's just the nature of the kid/adult relationship. We like their potty mouths and sadistic torture murders out of sight so they remain out of mind. Out of mind they may be, but they still go on.
Yeah but its an 11 year old girl seriously. What kind of message does that send people when they see her swearing like that? And 11 is a little young to be swearing and such at least to me maybe Im naive.
If it's the second, I think your point is moot as the film is rated R. Anyone that's seeing the movie should already know what they're in for and be past the "monkey see, monkey do" stage (not to mention well past that pre-teen age where seeing an 11 year old swear is something to immitate).
If it's the former... meh. The actress is a teenager (13 now, probably 12 or so during filming). I doubt her "innocence" is any more tarnished then it was before filming. Kids are rotten little punks that are full to the brim with evil and malice. I should know. I was one.
(I take it he means "the actresses parents")
Pretty much yeah. Who would let an eleven year old girl play a role where she curses like that.
If you're worried about preserving her innocence, or how she'll be when she grows up, I would personally be more concerned with her being part of entertainment industry as a whole. It's not like child actors have a tendency to turn out as well-adjusted people. Usually, they end up strung out on drugs or seriously emotionally damaged.
Who would let an eleven year old girl play a role where she curses like that.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she kill people? How can swearing even enter your mind as a problem in light of that?
Who would let an eleven year old girl play a role where she curses like that.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she kill people? How can swearing even enter your mind as a problem in light of that?
Well yeah its really not a role I'd cast a kid into. Even in hollywood they should draw some sort of line. Can the people defending the descision honestly tell me that they would have let their kids do that role?
Letting my (theoretical) little girl play the part of a foulmouthed psycho killer is probably one of them.
There's lots of things I probably wouldn't do that I don't think other people should necessarily be stopped from.
Letting my (theoretical) little girl play the part of a foulmouthed psycho killer is probably one of them.
True I dont know just having a kid do all those things still doesnt sit right with me for whatever reason thats all. I cant really explain it better than that.
And what 'bout Macauly Culkin? Far as I've heard/seen, he just looks kinda creepy but hasn't gone weird (just drifted into celebrity limbo).
NPH turned out ok.
Yes he did. The exception that proves the rule, so to speak.
As for the Potter kids EE mentioned, we haven't given them enough time to self-destruct yet. We'll see how it goes once the thing they're famous for has been over for 5-10 years. That is ususally when it seems to hit anyway, after their fame-inducing series has ended.
Who would let an eleven year old girl play a role where she curses like that.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she kill people? How can swearing even enter your mind as a problem in light of that?
Well yeah its really not a role I'd cast a kid into. Even in hollywood they should draw some sort of line. Can the people defending the descision honestly tell me that they would have let their kids do that role?
I plan on letting my kid ****ing say any ****ing thing he or she ****ing wants. Curse words are ****ing great and there is nothing ****ing special about them. It's only because people put ****ing emphasis and taboos on words like **** and **** that people even make a deal about it.
Murder however I would strongly ****ing discourage.
KICKASS is a great ****ing movie.
You're just saying that Radcliff is awesome because he appeared naked in some play.
Actually, I think he might have turned out awesome because he was super nice to a ten year old kid interviewer, made a public donation to an LGBT homeless kid's shelter in New York, and I haven't heard about him being an asshat yet.
The play thing just makes me think he has an interest in being a real actor, and not just a child star.
I'm with Erato, I think it's pretty hilarious that you are more upset with her swearing then with her played a messed up psychotic serial killer.
-Insert your own joke about American values-
NPH turned out ok.
Ditto Jodie Foster, and at age 13 she played a child prostitue in Taxi Driver.
NPH turned out ok.
Ditto Jodie Foster, and at age 13 she played a child prostitue in Taxi Driver.
Turned out ok? They are both gay!
And?
He really is a nice guy. A shame he can't act to save his life.
I wouldn't know. I haven't actually seen the last three or four Harry Potter movies.
Kids also say all sorts of terrible crap when we're not around. And they also murder people brutally whenever our backs are turned. It's just the nature of the kid/adult relationship. We like their potty mouths and sadistic torture murders out of sight so they remain out of mind. Out of mind they may be, but they still go on.
Yeah but its an 11 year old girl seriously. What kind of message does that send people when they see her swearing like that? And 11 is a little young to be swearing and such at least to me maybe Im naive.
You haven't been in a middle school (hell, elementary school) cafeteria at any point you can remember, have you. I've known people when I was that age who cursed for almost every other word. Don't worry about it.