Wednesday, April 14, 2010

I still love you Roger!

It looks like Roger Ebert doesn't like Kick-Ass.
Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let's say you're a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the move does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.
In my own review of Kick-Ass, I anticipated that some viewers my have problems with the depiction of Hit-Girl. While Kick-Ass isn't the deepest of movies, I feel that the movie effectively satirizes many super-hero cliches including the kid sidekick.

Since Dick Grayson teamed up with Bruce Wayne, the kid sidekick has been one of the most absurd elements in a genre filled with absurdity. For more than sixty years children dressed in colorful costumes have been depicted taking down hordes of evildoers with a minimum of bloodshed. I have enjoyed many of these tales, but I can still appreciate the irony of the concept taken to its extreme.

In addition, just because the movie features an 11-year old protagonist doesn't mean its intended for 11-year olds. My hope is that parents would exercise the same discretion about letting their kids view Kick-Ass as they would any other film with a high body count.

I still greatly admire Roger Ebert and he will remain my favorite movie critic. One of the great things about his reviews is that he shares the reasons why he likes or dislikes a film so clearly that the reader can almost anticipate if they will share Ebert's verdict.

In the case of Kick-Ass, Ebert sees little merit in the depiction of Hit-Girl while I do.

No comments: