« Festive | Main | Personal to Albert Stern »

April 16, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

bill

I take issue with Darghis saying that the criticism of Moretz's character is "perhaps" based more on the profanity than the violence. I've read no criticism of the film that claims to be more bothered by the swearing. It goes along with that old bit of received wisdom that people are more offended by sex than by violence. That was probably true at one time, but I don't really think it's the case anymore. What with all the SAWs and HOSTELs and what have you.

Glenn Kenny

Having not yet seen "Kick-Ass," I don't know whether I agree with MD on this point or not. I just happen to think this is a near-exemplary review—lively, well-informed, unpretentious.

Craig Kennedy

She mounts a solid criticism of it without sounding out of touch, which will probably be the first line of defense from those who love the movie.

bill

It is a good review, overall -- that theory just bugs me. And I don't really have much interest in KICK-ASS beyond an idle curiosity.

Craig, from what I've gathered that "out of touch" defense is already happening.

S. Porath


I think that her theory is reasonable. She was talking about the casting process. I think it's probably true that people who need to okay things will be more daunted by the idea of an 11 year old cursing than an 11 year old killing. The cursing is more troubling in terms of the actress because it's real -this is actually an 11 year old girl saying one of the few profanities that can still pack a punch. That cannot be said about the violence. That being said, I would agree that in terms of the final product, the gleeful violence takes the cake in the 'disturbing' category.

I'm always amazed at how much salient information and opinion Dargis manages to get through in a single piece. And certainly the lack of the 'out of touch' sense will hopefully help it get through to more people, not tagging it in the 'old kill-joy' section of fanboy opposition. Though after reading Harry Knowles response to Ebert's 1 star review, I thank the lord that I'm out of touch. It is one of the most shockingly and bluntly stupid things that's ever come out of that place.

lipranzer

"It goes along with that old bit of received wisdom that people are more offended by sex than by violence. That was probably true at one time, but I don't really think it's the case anymore."

All due respect, but I would disagree. I remember when "The Sopranos" was at its height, and on the television forums I'd post on, people would complain when there wasn't enough violence on the show, and yet be squicked out by the sex. Granted, it was the stuff involving Joe Pantoliano's character, which I agree was pretty weird, but still, I found that curious. And yes, that was a few years ago, but while the SAW and HOSTEL movies may have turned people off violence to some degree, I don't see a lot of frank or adult looks at sex on-screen either.

John M

What lipranzer said.

Fuzzy Bastard

Yeah, Dargis is, as always, terrifyingly perfect. Her ability to finger-wag without sounding haughty, and her knack for packing one joke after another into her sentences without ever becoming flip, is humbling.

John M

A.O. Scott, regarding Bill's concerns (though not siding with Bill, exactly):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/movies/18scott.html?hpw

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

Categories