'Kick-Ass' Review By T. King (Red Camera Man)
Should Have Called Him "'Dumb'-Ass" Instead.
STORY: (This contains major spoilers!) Even if this movie is from a comic book, I wasn't interested and I didn't care that much about the plot. I've never read the book, but I bet it has the same plot like the movie has. It's just about teenagers dressing up like superheroes and fighting crime without any powers, and stopping this drug lord (Mark Strong) from taking over the place and whatever. I thought the plot was stupid because the first hour of this film was overrated, but the last 40 minutes saved the movie from being horrible. The first hour focused on retarded characters and overrated stupidity (more like the comedy act of the movie), but the last 40 minutes were better because it got more serious and it focused on the so-called plot after the character Hit-Girl teams up with Kick-Ass and they fight against the drug lord, his traitor son Red Mist, and their minions so that she can avenge her father's death who is Big Daddy. The movie finally gets better from that point.
The reason why I thought the first hour was stupid and overrated was because of this: After recovering from a serious injury after his first fight against a bunch of gangsters as Kick-Ass, Dave returns to school and finds out that the girl of his dreams is now interested in him but only because she thinks he is GAY! She thinks that because she thought he was attacked without having any clothes on by rapists, and Dave goes with that since he doesn't want anyone to know he was Kick-Ass and trying to fight crime. I just shook my head by how stupid that was as Dave keeps spending time with his dreamgirl and trying to get help on what to say from his dumb friends (one of them is Clark Duke from another stupid movie called "Hot Tub Time Machine" by the way). That's what kept going during the first hour along with Kick-Ass trying to fight crime and the drug lord's arguement with this one guy he and his minions captured. They kept interrogating him about who was the one that stole the bottle of coke, and I was so annoyed because that part went on and on. That was another problem I had with the first hour.
ACTING: I don't actually see Aaron Johnson as a good actor. He kept stumbling and being nervous a bunch of times while fighting crime as Kick-Ass and trying to be with the girl of his dreams during the first hour, and yet people think that's how great acting is. Why? It also reminded me of Dustin Hoffman's terrible acting in the 1967 film "The Graduate." Nothing like Tobey Maguire's outstanding award-worthy performance in the amazing movie "Brothers," because he wasn't acting really serious or extremely pissed off while fighting against those gangsters and being noticed for the first time outside that store; but since he acted retarded along with some of his dialogue while defending a beaten-up guy on the ground, the gangsters now think he's just crazy, high on drugs, and they ran away avoiding him! And yet he becomes famous and the most popular video on YouTube after that! That is also one of the stupidest scenes I've ever seen in a movie, but Aaron Johnson's acting got better after he teams up with Hit-Girl towards the end.
I've also been wondering why Nicolas Cage was in this movie. He's a good actor, but his performance in this movie I didn't like much, especially when he was playing a crazy immature father. I also found his screaming towards the end pointless and annoying. The scene when he was on fire while being tied to a chair...and when he and Kick-Ass were being held captive by the drug lord's minions? Yeah, that's the one I'm talking about. Was his screaming trying to be funny or was it trying to make me puke? I think it was trying to make me puke because I was so damn annoyed! His acting was a lot better in the "National Treasure" movies instead, and even "Ghost Rider" despite what other people think.
Christopher Mintz-Plasse, the guy with the 'I am McLovin' line from "Superbad," stars in this. I didn't care that much about his performance either. Nothing special from him. Chloe Moretz, who played Hit-Girl, was a crazy, foul-mouth, killing machine, but I had no problems with her acting whatsoever. The only performance I liked was from Mark Strong who is always good playing the evil villain like in "Sherlock Holmes" and "Robin Hood." He and Chloe Moretz were the only performances that kept me from giving the acting a lower score, but I wished the overall acting could have been better though. "Clash Of The Titans" had better acting than this.
DIRECTING: Matthew Vaughn, eh, I didn't care that much about his directing. Many people are praising him for what he did with this movie, but I don't give a sh*t about him really. I had no problems with the camera work, editing, and some of the music, but I thought he should have done better with the plot and some of the acting. I don't see him like what Zack Snyder did with "Watchmen," another movie based on a comic book that I liked a lot better than "Kick-Ass." I thought Matthew Vaughn's directing to the film was just average since this movie is mostly a comedy and that's not my type, just like Steven Spielberg's on the mediocre film "The Terminal."
VISUALS: The visuals in this movie? Blah. There was blood during the action sequences, but I thought they were actually stupid. I don't mind blood like in a horror movie, but the blood in this movie was just fake and over-the-top, and I laughed by how lame they were in a couple of scenes, especially when that one guy's body just suddenly exploded while being stuck inside that stove or whatever the hell it was in that one scene. This movie may have pretty colors, but "Spider-Man 3" had WAY better visuals than this!
OVERALL: So, was this movie worth my time? No, it actually wasn't...except for the last 40 minutes which I liked better than the entire 2hr movie. Even though I think this movie is only mediocre, I also think it's absolutely a lot better than the horrible "Superbad!" This movie doesn't have gross stuff like dick drawings or any of that crap! This movie was also better than "Shutter Island" which is already the worst movie of the year so far. But with the stupid plot, not-so-good acting, average directing, and over-the-top visuals aside, "Kick-Ass" doesn't focus on pervert trash like out-of-control, close-up, camera angles and shots of naked women's boobs like in the horsesh*t film "Gamer" and I'm glad it didn't, but this movie was still not awesome in my book.
I think it WAS good that I didn't see this movie in the theater because I would have walked out before the first hour was even over, but I just kept watching it after renting the DVD, hoping that it might get better...and I'm surprised it did with its last 40 minutes as I said again and again. And because of that, I gave this movie a mediocre rating; but since it was not awesome, I will NOT buy the DVD despite the pretty colors on the cover. This movie was worth the cost of a DVD rental instead of a ticket price for me.
And as many people are saying that this movie lives up to its title, I didn't think it did. I didn't feel like I got my ass kicked while watching this. I just see it as an average movie that shouldn't get much credit. So that's why, in response to my main quote above, I think this movie and the main character himself should have been called "'Dumb'-Ass" instead, and that would have been funnier in my book.
One Final Word: This movie also leaves room open for a sequel which I don't care about either. I heard it was going to be called "Balls To The Wall" and I think that's a dumb title for a sequel. It looks like they might have something like those gross dick drawings from "Superbad" because I can tell by the sequel's title. Same thing like this one, I will not see the sequel after it's released in theaters sometime in the future, I will just wait for the DVD. And if Matthew Vaughn directs the sequel, then I won't care since I'm not a fan of his anyway. He could have done a better job with this movie...but, oh, well. At least there's Zack Snyder's "Watchmen."