I find it hilarious that they can put out a movie with the word "ass" in the title. That said, I'm not sure who Kick-Ass was made for. Fanboys are a notoriously fickle bunch and internet hype rarely results in box office success. And with an R rating there was no way that Kick-Ass was going to make the kind of money that comic book movies like The Dark Knight or Iron Man have made. It's also hard to ignore that, despite a running time of nearly two hours, the movie feels rushed, constantly glossing over characters and plot points. Not even the violence, which seems to be the major selling point here, is enough to fully redeem this film.Rating: 73%
(Image from iwatchstuff.com)
Posts
5 comments:
I'd never heard of this movie before. Was it better than Watchmen?
Yes. Much better than Watchmen.
still... 73%...?
@ Whatever you're calling yourself this week
I'm not sure if you think 73% is high or low. I find giving an actual percentage rating to be kind of arbitrary, so I don't think too hard when assigning a number. Basically, despite the tone of my review, I liked the movie. I just didn't think it was as good as it could have been.
The movie actually kicked ass when one goes in not expecting much, unlike the crap that is Iron Man 2--"a let-down" doesn't even begin to describe it. Next time, more Black Widow
and less booze-hound Tony Stark and cardboard cut-out bad guy Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). Hell, I would rather have watched J.A.R.V.I.S. for two hours rather than this mish-mash of the worst of whatever recycled "Airwolf" and "Knight Rider" episodes the writer could plunder.
It's great that South Korea gets the new releases even before the U.S., but it sucks even more that my friends can't feel the pain of these catastrophes as early as I do.
Post a Comment