Kick Ass - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 05:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirjonsnow View Post

The guy fighting Hit Girl at the end is not child abuse, it's a fight. That's like saying John McClane taking a few punches while fighting a terrorist is adult abuse. It's not some defenseless kid he abducted off the street, it's a four and a half foot tall homicidal maniac that's trying to kill him.

A "fight" between an adult male and 4.5' girl?
Really?
You're not kidding??
Remember, she doesn't have superpowers....she is human.

John McClane analogy?
Well...OK then!

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
I keep reading post which mention Erbert. Who is Erbert?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #183 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:12 PM
Senior Member
 
SD_GR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I keep reading post which mention Erbert. Who is Erbert?

I actually seriously think that asking who "Ebert" is would have been an equally (in)valid question... With media changing and a decades-long history of hot air, Ebert may be searching for relevance at this stage -- many of the people buying discs, going to theatres or (especially) streaming films may either think he's passed away or have no idea who he is anyway.

A few "loud" reviews, either despite or specifically because they are completely off base, can generate at least a semblance of publicity. After all, even this thread mentions him. In that sense, his review is working...
SD_GR is offline  
post #184 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
So who is Erbert?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #185 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
tranle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

So who is Erbert?

For non American or younger people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert
tranle is offline  
post #186 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranle View Post

For non American or younger people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

Thank you

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #187 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 06:49 PM
Member
 
tw1zt3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: san diego
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

A "fight" between an adult male and 4.5' girl?
Really?
You're not kidding??
Remember, she doesn't have superpowers....she is human.

John McClane analogy?
Well...OK then!

...and in the movie she's a girl who has had more specialized training than any average thug. if the guy had picked up some random kid at a street corner, then yes, the moral outcry could be warranted. take into consideration that this "kid" (while not having super powers) was groomed from infancy to take out thugs, it kind of levels the playing field. plus, it's a movie based on a comic book.
tw1zt3d is offline  
post #188 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

People going to see A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 are HORROR FANS, and not only that, but Nightmare fans as well, and not your average people blindly walking into a movie theater.

I would disagree with that. Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was the first "mainstream" film in that series. It was better budgeted and had much more promotion than the first two films. It was marketed toward a much broader audience than the first two had been. I think that #3 was many people's first exposure to the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. I know that it was certainly mine. I didn't see the first Nightmare until after #5 came out, actually. And I still haven't seen #2.

Further, it's not like there's a great deal of continuity to the movies in that series. Any viewer could easily step into any one of the Nightmare movies blindly and follow the story. The same can't be said of the Matrix sequels, which are much more dependant on continuity from one entry to the next.

Quote:


If Ebert is not a horror fan (which he clearly is not), he shouldn't be reviewing horror movies, period.

So, what you're saying is that only someone who has a predisposition toward liking a movie should be allowed to review that movie? Any other opinion is invalid in your mind?

You obviously don't seem to be aware of this, but not every other person on the planet views movies from the same perspective that you do. And not every movie review needs to be written from your perspective.

Ebert is a man who loves all sorts of movies and goes to see far more than the average person. He's a fan of movies in general, but not necessarily a "fanboy" for any particular franchise. That's where his point of view comes from, and he writes about them from that perspective. I would bet that the vast majority of his audience shares a similar perspective.

Believe me, I don't always agree with Ebert. (I sure don't agree with him about Kick-Ass.) But the man does exactly what a good film critic is supposed to do. He tells you his opinion, and he gives you enough information to understand why he formed that opinion. Whether you choose to agree with that opinion or not is up to you.

That he has a different opinion about any particular movie than you doesn't mean that he's "bad" at his job or "wrong". It just means that you have different taste than he does. That you would take offense at someone not liking a movie that you do is absurd, and frankly a little sad.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #189 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Dream Warriors @ IMDB: 6.2/10 (I'll place a bet that this will rise to 6.5+ within a year) = 62% = GOOD MOVIE (or if you are a fan, awesome movie)
Dream Warriors @ Ebert: 1.5/4 = 37.5% = terrible movie.

If your idea of a good film critic is someone who gives movies the imdb rating, why even bother to read their reviews
42041 is offline  
post #190 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:43 PM
Senior Member
 
SD_GR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"Why bother" is actually quite valid IMO. When Ebert et al. had the monopoly on reviews there were few choices, and like it or not Ebert was on TV carrying on about something or other. Since there are now more venues from which to gather info and opinions, his view has become easier to bypass. His solution seems to be to make his voice louder rather than make his opinions better. Shame... well maybe not; no longer relevant.
SD_GR is offline  
post #191 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 5,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

A "fight" between an adult male and 4.5' girl?
Really?
You're not kidding??
Remember, she doesn't have superpowers....she is human.

To be fair... this girl in the movie has a much higher body count in her favor than any of the bad guys put together.

I'm trying to remember... but did we actually see the bad guys kill more than 3 people the whole movie? Technically I only remember 2 kills on screen, but I assume the first guy was also killed even though they only showed him having a finger amputated.

The point being... while I would hope no one would advocate child abuse... Hit Girl had already killed pretty much every henchman that this bad guy boss had working for him! Big Daddy took out a few and Kick-Ass took out a couple... but Hit Girl killed at least 2 dozen that we know of during the movie... so it's kind of hard to blame the guy for taking advantage of the situation when he had the upper hand.

Also worth mentioning that in the end, Hit Girl survived that beating... and the bad guy boss bit the dust.

I don't think that the news programs should glorify violence, especially against children... but honestly, if we are "going there" in terms of a movie like this... then a whole lot of movies would be higher on my list. At least in Kick-Ass, the good guys win in the end and the bad guy who is guilty of the violence against the kid gets his just-desserts...

In my mind, "glorification" would only be true IF the bad guy gets away with it and is shown in some way to in fact benefit from beating up Hit Girl. Quite the opposite, though, as all his henchmen are taken out AND he himself gets it in the end as well.

There was a time when hollywood never showed violence against kids... even when that was kind of the topic of the movie (like a drama about a child-abuser, for example)... but sometimes that does a disservice to the crime. It's almost like the opposite of de-sensitizing. One could argue two "positives" potentially from showing Hit Girl being beaten up:

1. It shows how truly cruel and twisted the bad guy was, in case you had any sympathy for him left at the end.
2. It also shows how dangerous it is for a kid her age to be out doing what she was doing... and serves the "don't try this at home" kind of disclaimer purposes perhaps.

Yeah baby!  It's Halloween!
HDMe2 is offline  
post #192 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This movie played fine on my 83.
It takes a verrrrrrrrrrrrry long time to load....don't give up on it.

Tried again earlier tonight and the movie loaded fine with no delay, go figure.
Anyway, loved the movie. Liked it much better than The Watchmen. It totally caught me by surprise.

Jose.
Jose is offline  
post #193 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 07:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FendersRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I would disagree with that. Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was the first "mainstream" film in that series. It was better budgeted and had much more promotion than the first two films. It was marketed toward a much broader audience than the first two had been. I think that #3 was many people's first exposure to the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. I know that it was certainly mine. I didn't see the first Nightmare until after #5 came out, actually. And I still haven't seen #2.

You may be correct about that, as I was born in 1985. However, I still must say, that comparing Ebert's review to every aggregated review database site (rottentomatos, imdb, etc) and also comparing it to the countless of horror geeks that I have interacted with (hundreds) that Ebert's review is simply off-beat from the horror norm. He's not off-base for having his own opinion, but he's off-base for reviewing a genre that he doesn't really care about, and also reviewing a sequel without having even seen the prequels. Seriously, a 1.5/4? I'm not claiming ANOES 3 to be a masterpiece (I actually like 4 more), but ANOES 3 is very charming, fun, dark, and it's certainly a SF/X spectacle, and most horror fans that I have talked to will not disagree with that statement. ANOES 3 gets a guaranteed viewing 'round these parts every Halloween, along with 1, 2, and 4 (2 is just for the hell of it). If you were to put Friday the 13th part 2, 3, or 4 in-front of Ebert, he would rate them complete trash. From a horror perspective, they are classics.

Quote:


Further, it's not like there's a great deal of continuity to the movies in that series. Any viewer could easily step into any one of the Nightmare movies blindly and follow the story. The same can't be said of the Matrix sequels, which are much more dependant on continuity from one entry to the next.

Well, being that I have seen all the Nightmare movies roughly 10 times each in the past year (told you I'm a fan ), I would say that there is a great deal of continuity from 1 and 3 actually (not from 2). A much older Nancy returns, her father returns (Saxton), and they also talk about certain events from the first movie and build upon the mythos of Freddy. Watching 3 without seeing 1 will hamper the experience somewhat. Going into the movie not liking it already because it's a horror movie (Ebert says a "teen horror movie") is already going to hamper the experience. I also personally think that watching 3/4 without seeing 2 also hampers the experience as well, but that's not something I would hold against someone. However, you should be aware of the history of a franchise before you rate a movie. You watch ANOES 1, and you are like "wow, that was a masterpiece in it's own right". You watch 2 and you're like "jesus christ, what happened? The Nightmare series is over". You watch 3, and you're like "Holy $hit, Wes Craven got back on board, and it's moving in the right direction again! That was awesome, dark, and hilarious!". You watch 4, and you should get close to the experience as 3 if not better such as in my case. ANOES 5 and 6 will both lead to puking. New Nightmare is a critic favorite (I don't claim it's a bad movie, but it's completely different than the classics). A horror critic takes all of this into consideration. Ebert doesn't.

Quote:


So, what you're saying is that only someone who has a predisposition toward liking a movie should be allowed to review that movie? Any other opinion is invalid in your mind?

Not completely invalid no, but partially invalid yes. He's not just a "reviewer", he's a professional reviewer and people actually do listen to him, and he gets paid for it. Since he's a professional that gets paid, he should research what he's reviewing, and give it a fair chance. Or perhaps, pick certain genres that he only favors. I don't think anyone who watches horror films is going to listen to him though, so what he thinks doesn't bother me. I just think it's funny when blind sheep follow him just because he's Roger Ebert. The fact that someone has said that they read his review AFTER watching the movie baffles me...who cares what others think, especially after the fact?

Quote:


You obviously don't seem to be aware of this, but not every other person on the planet views movies from the same perspective that you do. And not every movie review needs to be written from your perspective.

Why do you and "cubbiechris" keep talking about my opinions? That's not the point I'm trying to make here. The fact is, is that my opinion is shared with MOST horror fans (obviously not in this thread ) is the point I'm trying to make. It is YOUR opinion that isn't shared by the majority. So how am I offbase for thinking ANOES 3 is not only a fantastic sequel, but it's a very entertaining horror movie? All of the aggregated sites agree with that statement. All of the Nightmare fans agree with that statement. Most horror movie fans agree with that statement. Throw up a poll anywhere, and you'll see it for yourself. But wait! Ebert doesn't, so the mainstream horror opinion must not count anymore. Ebert is in the minority if he thinks that ANOES 3 sucks (which is what a 1.5/4 represents....well below average). If he's rating this as a "common movie go-er" such as you say, then whatever, I still say he shouldn't watch movies that he is bound to not like. I don't like heavy drama movies, so I chose to not hold lengthy discussions on them and rate them. It's not my realm.

Quote:


That he has a different opinion about any particular movie than you doesn't mean that he's "bad" at his job or "wrong". It just means that you have different taste than he does. That you would take offense at someone not liking a movie that you do is absurd, and frankly a little sad.

Again, you are acting like I am the only person out there that likes this movie, when it just happens to turn out that it has a huge cult following, and it's noted as the best sequel of the franchise (though I argue 4, but I have my own reasons. THOSE reasons are my own specific opinion though, and those I keep to myself unless ANOES fans would be happy to hear them). Post a poll in the movie section at AVS or perhaps at Blu-ray.com (more traffic) and find out how much people think it deserves a 1.5.

(btw, I love all horror movies, not just the ANOES stuff. The only one that I can fully say that is "trash" and deserves the trashiest of ratings (such as a 1.5/4) is Halloween 2 by Rob Zombie. ANOES 3? No, not a 1.5. It's a funner than hell movie.

Here's what I know from deductive reasoning: You and "cubbiechris" both think ANOES 3 is a "crappy" movie. Ebert thinks it's a crappy movie. You and "cubbiechris" love Ebert. Everyone else who likes horror thinks its a great movie, especially if they consider themselves fans of the franchise. Infact, this is the first time that I've ever heard it being called "crappy" from acclaimed "horror fans". That's the point I'm making here. It certainly doesn't make you guys look like your forming your own opinions aside from Ebert.

Here's an interesting fact- Users on HIS OWN SITE doubled his rating on Dream Warriors in the "Users review" section....that also says something as well. One thing to also remember (more for my sake) is that his rating is probably from when he went to see it at the theater. Many movies are not highly regarded when they come out (Dark City, Blade Runner, Dune, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, etc) but over the years, times change, and people finally come to realize that they were ahead of their time, and nothing short of masterpieces. So of-coarse, most people are rating this movie "after the fact", but I still think that it was a huge hit back in the day, and it's sad that Ebert alone didn't think it was neat. It was successful enough to spawn ANOES 4 (which held the largest box office revenue).

I talk too much.
FendersRule is offline  
post #194 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 10:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_GR View Post

His solution seems to be to make his voice louder rather than make his opinions better

Is my internet working okay? Did you REALLY just say that seriously?
42041 is offline  
post #195 of 335 Old 08-06-2010, 10:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I keep reading post which mention Erbert. Who is Erbert?

"Erbert" is the sound I make after about 4 beers....


Quote:
Originally Posted by tw1zt3d View Post

...and in the movie she's a girl who has had more specialized training than any average thug. if the guy had picked up some random kid at a street corner, then yes, the moral outcry could be warranted. take into consideration that this "kid" (while not having super powers) was groomed from infancy to take out thugs, it kind of levels the playing field. plus, it's a movie based on a comic book.

Even still, specialized training or not, movie or not, this film SHOWED a little girl being pummeled by an adult until bloodied and non-responsive.
Slice it, dice it, spin it, try to explain it away, but what I just said is a demonstrable FACT.

And, hey, I liked the movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

The point being... while I would hope no one would advocate child abuse... Hit Girl had already killed pretty much every henchman that this bad guy boss had working for him! Big Daddy took out a few and Kick-Ass took out a couple... but Hit Girl killed at least 2 dozen that we know of during the movie... so it's kind of hard to blame the guy for taking advantage of the situation when he had the upper hand.

Also worth mentioning that in the end, Hit Girl survived that beating... and the bad guy boss bit the dust.

One could argue two "positives" potentially from showing Hit Girl being beaten up:

1. It shows how truly cruel and twisted the bad guy was, in case you had any sympathy for him left at the end.
2. It also shows how dangerous it is for a kid her age to be out doing what she was doing... and serves the "don't try this at home" kind of disclaimer purposes perhaps.

Thank you...you have made my point perfectly.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #196 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 08:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Why do you and "cubbiechris" keep talking about my opinions? That's not the point I'm trying to make here. The fact is, is that my opinion is shared with MOST horror fans (obviously not in this thread ) is the point I'm trying to make. It is YOUR opinion that isn't shared by the majority. So how am I offbase for thinking ANOES 3 is not only a fantastic sequel, but it's a very entertaining horror movie? All of the aggregated sites agree with that statement. All of the Nightmare fans agree with that statement. Most horror movie fans agree with that statement. Throw up a poll anywhere, and you'll see it for yourself. But wait! Ebert doesn't, so the mainstream horror opinion must not count anymore. Ebert is in the minority if he thinks that ANOES 3 sucks (which is what a 1.5/4 represents....well below average). If he's rating this as a "common movie go-er" such as you say, then whatever, I still say he shouldn't watch movies that he is bound to not like.

It isn't the film critic's job to write what he thinks other people want to hear, or to kowtow to some aggregate group-think opinion. That's pandering. It's his job to write his opinion of the movie, and be honest about it. If he doesn't like the movie, he should explain why in a way that will let people decide if they're likely to agree with him or not.

If Ebert said that he didn't like Nightmare on Elm Street 3 because he just doesn't like teen horror movies, you can read that and come to the conclusion, "Well I do like teen horror movies, so I'll probably like this one more than him." Then guess what, his review was actually very useful to you.

Back on topic a bit, when he chastises Kick-Ass for featuring scenes with a young girl maiming and killing people, you or I can decide that we wouldn't find that objectionable.

Quote:


Here's what I know from deductive reasoning: You and "cubbiechris" both think ANOES 3 is a "crappy" movie. Ebert thinks it's a crappy movie. You and "cubbiechris" love Ebert. Everyone else who likes horror thinks its a great movie, especially if they consider themselves fans of the franchise. Infact, this is the first time that I've ever heard it being called "crappy" from acclaimed "horror fans". That's the point I'm making here. It certainly doesn't make you guys look like your forming your own opinions aside from Ebert.

Your deductive reasoning is just as flawed as all of your other logic in this thread has been. In fact, I think Nightmare on Elm Street 3 is a fun movie. And I hardly follow Ebert like a sheep. I only find myself agreeing with him roughly 65-70% of the time, and sometimes consider him to be way off-base in his opinions (such as Kick-Ass). Nonetheless, as a critic, Ebert does exactly what he's supposed to do, and I can appreciate his perspective on movies even when I don't share it.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #197 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MEC2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Frisco, TX (D/FW area)
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Watched this with the fam last night, absolute blast - the wife, who REALLY is a hard sell, finally warmed up once Hit Girl hits the scene.

Some have mentioned her use of language - well, I guess there's a few ways to look at that. You can look at it as a demonstration of how precocious she is, mature well beyond her years. Or you can look at it the same way you look at Cartman saying "suck on mah baaaaaaazzz". I go with the former - she is clearly an 11 year old who is *not what seems to be*. That's the point.

And I do agree that the Kick-Ass character was a bit of a drag. I am not sure who to blame more, Tobey Maguire or Michael Cera. Maguire at least has something going for him, Cera is an insufferable vagi-whelp whose continued casting in lead roles reflects the estrogenization of the male film idiom. Honorable mention to the clown in Sorcerer's Apprentice/Out of Your League - another hyper-nerdish toolbag who is driving down the male median quotient in films. You can make these stories with less nerdy douchebags.

They had James Dean, we have Michael Friggin' Cera. Oh, the times we live in...
MEC2 is offline  
post #198 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 10:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Finished watching this film, absolutely fantastic another great blind buy.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #199 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 11:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose View Post

Tried again earlier tonight and the movie loaded fine with no delay, go figure.
Anyway, loved the movie. Liked it much better than The Watchmen. It totally caught me by surprise.

I liked Watchmen, too, but agree that Kick-Ass is a far better film. It is much funnier, more stylish, and just plain more fun from beginning to end than Watchmen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Finished watching this film, absolutely fantastic another great blind buy.

I am delighted but not surprised that you loved it, too. Kick-Ass is a blast, isn't it? Who would have thought that an 11 year old girl, brilliantly trained in the lethal arts, could be the source of so much bloodthirsty fun? You don't want to mess with Hit Girl,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
especially if you killed her daddy.
gwsat is offline  
post #200 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 11:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

you don't want to mess with hit girl,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
especially if you killed her daddy.

LOL.
Especially!

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #201 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 06:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post



I am delighted but not surprised that you loved it, too. Kick-Ass is a blast, isn't it? Who would have thought that an 11 year old girl, brilliantly trained in the lethal arts, could be the source of so much bloodthirsty fun? You don't want to mess with Hit Girl, especially if you killed her daddy.

I agree gwsat definitely a blast. Hit girl definitely stole the show

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #202 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 07:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MattGuyOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Loved the movie. It played fine on my Oppo 83. But I noticed at different times throughout the movie the audio being slightly out of sync with the video. Yet sometimes it matched perfectly. Anyone else notice this?
MattGuyOR is offline  
post #203 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 07:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I liked Watchmen, too, but agree that Kick-Ass is a far better film. It is much funnier, more stylish, and just plain more fun from beginning to end than Watchmen.

K-A is 10x a better film.

IMO, M. Vaughn did a darn near perfect job of bringing the material to the screen and getting so much from his players.
Looking at the results, I get the feeling it wasn't easy to pull off.

You mentioned the black humor....and there is a ton.
I just re-watched Zombieland and I believe there is even more black humor than Kick-Ass.
I lost count of how many times I had to hit PAUSE.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #204 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 07:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGuyOR View Post

Loved the movie. It played fine on my Oppo 83. But I noticed at different times throughout the movie the audio being slightly out of sync with the video. Yet sometimes it matched perfectly. Anyone else notice this?

I didn't notice.
But, to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention.

My audio/video chain:
Oppo 83/Onkyo Pro 885/Mits. 73835 DLP
Emotiva amp: MPS-1 (7channel)

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #205 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Schils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Just finished viewing it, loved it, a great, fresh movie, glad I added the disc to the collection, the replay value is really strong. Not being a Cage fan I have to admit he was great here - hell, I even felt myself getting mad when

Loaded and played without a single hitch on my Panny BD30.

My Setup | Night

 

Latest Blu-Rays Bought: Brubaker, Big Bang Season 6, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, Iron Man 3, Halloween 35th, This is The End, The Conjuring, The World's End, You're Next, Thor 2, Gravity

Schils is offline  
post #206 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 09:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 167
My Denon 2010 had problems but my Denon 2500btci had no problems.

I agree strong replay value

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #207 of 335 Old 08-07-2010, 09:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Samfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Kick Ass was a blind buy for me, but I didn't go too far out on a limb because I'm a fan of Millar, Romita, Jr. and Vaughn. While I enjoyed Watchmen, Kick Ass succeeds in a different way. It's a hoot; a good-time Saturday night popcorn flick. Hit Girl steals the show. If you like the genre, it's worthy entertainment.
Samfield is offline  
post #208 of 335 Old 08-08-2010, 12:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schils View Post

Not being a Cage fan I have to admit he was great here - hell, I even felt myself getting mad when

Yeah, I know what you mean.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #209 of 335 Old 08-08-2010, 09:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I agree strong replay value

I may ultimately buy a copy of the Kick-Ass BD for my library. For the moment, though, I will probably keep getting it from my neighborhood BB, where I have an in store exchange subscription. BB got a bunch of copies of the BD but, surprisingly to me at least, they had a bunch of copies on their shelves every time I came in last week. All of this makes me wonder why this terrific film is such a largely undiscovered jewel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

K-A is 10x a better film [than Watchmen].

IMO, M. Vaughn did a darn near perfect job of bringing the material to the screen and getting so much from his players.
Looking at the results, I get the feeling it wasn't easy to pull off.

You mentioned the black humor....and there is a ton.
I just re-watched Zombieland and I believe there is even more black humor than Kick-Ass.
I lost count of how many times I had to hit PAUSE.

I liked Kick-Ass far better than I liked Watchmen, too, but then I liked it better than about anything I have seen in the last year but Inglourious Basterds. I am hard pressed to pick between Kick-Ass and Inglourious Basterds.

I liked Zombieland, too. It is the slyest send up of the zombie horror movie genre I can recall. Haven't seen many of the old grade B zombie flicks but if I had, I probably would have liked Zombieland even more.
gwsat is offline  
post #210 of 335 Old 08-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Senior Member
 
ToEhrIsHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NorCal
Posts: 426
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I may ultimately buy a copy of the Kick-Ass BD for my library. For the moment, though, I will probably keep getting it from my neighborhood BB, where I have an in store exchange subscription. BB got a bunch of copies of the BD but, surprisingly to me at least, they had a bunch of copies on their shelves every time I came in last week. All of this makes me wonder why this terrific film is such a largely undiscovered jewel?

Interesting, as when I picked up my copy at BB on Thursday nite the checkout clerk was surprised I had found a copy...apparently they had sold out of their initial shipment and had just gotten another one in.
ToEhrIsHuman is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off