(Movie Review)I hate writing about controversial stuff on this blog.
…Okay, that’s not completely true. If it’s an issue I already have an opinion on, and feel strongly about, I don’t mind it at all. But if it’s an issue I don’t really have a fully formed opinion on, or have strong feelings about, then I’d just assume stay out of it.
I’ve read a bit about the controversy surrounding this movie on Phil’s blog (Phil's post here--and relevant article here). And indeed, it does seem to cross a few lines.
I don’t normally like making common cause with hypocritical Christian media watchdog groups like “Focus on the Family”—(Groups that have made a living complaining about violence in the media, while supporting real life violence in the Iraq War.) And yet, I don’t know, at points watching this movie I couldn’t help but wonder if we had as a culture somehow crossed the line into their worst fears about the fetishization of violence. It was almost like I was watching a satire of what these groups were worried an ultra-violent Hollywood movie would someday look like.
But wait, that’s the point, isn’t it? The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. Does this make everything acceptable because it’s a satire? Well, your judgment call is as good as mine. Like I said, I don’t have any strong opinions.
The film opens with what I thought was a fairly interesting question: given how obsessed our culture is with superheroes, how come you don’t see more people trying to act out these fantasies in real life? Not that it would be successful, but how come you don’t at least see people attempting it?
(Having raised the question, let me give the obvious answer: people, even children, are much better at separating entertainment from reality than media watchdog groups give them credit for.)
The beginning scenes appear to promise a story exploring what would happen if people attempted to live out their super-hero fantasies in reality. But then, very quickly, the film itself becomes just another super-hero fantasy. And since these super-hero movies are a dime-a-dozen lately, I’m not entirely sure what the point of this film is. I mean if I wanted to watch just another super-hero film, I’m more than happy to stick to the standards like Batman and Spider-man.
Especially since we just had “Watchmen” last year, another movie attempting to deconstruct super-heroes just seems kind of redundant. But I guess Hollywood does everything in packs. Maybe now that they’ve got the idea, we can expect a lot more of these movies in the coming years.
As the movie made multiple tonal shifts, I had a hard time deciding what they were going for. Were we watching a satire on action movies, or an action movie? Was this being played for comedy, or pathos? Were these people living in the real world (where the human body is fragile and can be easily injured) or in some type of comic book world?
Ah, but was it entertaining? Did it hold my interest all the way through? That’s another question, the answer to which is largely yes. Love it or hate it, I do have to admit this film kept me entertained. The film was populated by a number of weird, but interesting characters. And, perhaps in part because of the various tone shifts, you never really knew where the film was going with its premise, and that in itself kind of kept you hooked in for curiosity’s sake if nothing else.
The exception was the last half hour or so. By that time you pretty much know where the film’s climax is headed, and all that’s left to see is just the characters battle it out. At this point I guess my interest began to fade.
So, yeah, I guess in conclusion I’m not sure what to make of this film, and didn’t have any real strong opinions. But for the most part it entertained me.
Link of the Day
On the Backgrounds of the Pacific War
3 comments:
I thought Kick Ass got off to a promising start, but had dropped the ball and lost sight of the game completely once the love interest was consummated. At that point the satire was a deflated failure, because the story relied completely on the tropes it was supposed to be, at the very least, calling into question. The director, producers and film editors must have known they were in trouble when they edited Nic Cage's final scene, because they finally had two actors who were completely committed to embodying what they saw in the script. With Cage out of the way, the film was now a complete moral and artistic failure, lapsing into a tedious, last-minute avalanche of cliches.
Re: separating entertainment from reality -- the girls have been adding a running commentary to my efforts at the Batman: Arkham Asylum video game. One of my (admittedly small) frustrations with the game is he has to talk to some of the Arkham security guards in order to further the story, but talking to all the guards is a waste of time, because 95% of the exchanges are rote: "Batman! Thank God! The Joker has a hostage!" "You stay here. I'll handle it." The girls love the fact that the asylum is staffed by gormless idiots, whose job is to stay out of the way so Batman can once again demonstrate his godlike superiority.
I agree with you 100% that the film wnet downhill after Nic Cage's character died. I had thought this was because the script ran out of ideas at this point, and just became very predictable for the last half hour. Upon reflection though, I think you do have a point about the movie also suffering the loss of Cage's dry ironic wit. Also interesting comment regarding the girls. Perhaps kids are getting media savy at a younger and younger age.
Post a Comment