Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Nicholas Cage, Chloe Moretz, Mark Strong, Lyndsy Fonseca, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Clark Duke, Michael Rispoli, Dexter Fletcher, Jason Flemming and Xander Berkely
The third film from the (2 for 2) Director Matthew Vaughn tells the story of a young, out of touch high-school kid who decides to become a superhero despite a total lack of power or skills. Its a pretty standard premise, something South Park did about a year ago in a hilarious way. As far as standard goes, the film starts off that way. The film is narrated (often poorly) by Aaron Johnson in a role clearly meant for Jesse Eisenberg. Luckily when Johnson is on screen he is a little bit better, though he has little to no chemistry with his two friends, especially Clark Duke who is turning out to be one of the funniest young actors in Hollywood. But Johnson works just well enough to get by in the role. Lucky for him, he is flanked on all sides by far more talented actors who lend this film credibility in a way that Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Mads Mikkelsen couldn't lend to Clash of the Titans. This film isn't quite as ridiculous as COT, despite some concerted efforts to get there. The beginning is standard fare, the exposition is funny, but not great yet. Then the film makes a huge turn and suddenly becomes serious. I think this is part of what turned some people in the theater off of the film. I've always defended Shaun of the Dead against complaints that the ending got too serious, but this ending is what helped make that a great film, its a real film, not just a toss-away Zombie spoof. This has a somewhat similar effect, but still remains pretty damn funny.
Despite a strong cast, the film is really dominated by two characters; Hit Girl (Moretz) and Frank D'Amico (Strong), they give the two best performances and are the two most interesting characters of the film. Someone forgot to tell Mark Strong that he's in a comedy for one thing, he is his usual 100% believable, and slightly terrifying self. But the reason he is so good is because he plays his role straight, something Matthew Vaughn forgot to tell Nicholas Cage in the beginning. Though his work gets increasingly better his relationship and the way he talks to his daughter is creepy and weird. He eventually comes back down to reality as we learn about his back-story. Cage's oddness isn't the worst thing about the film however; it is easily the low-rent CGI. I know that Matthew Vaughn had to make this film independently, but he relies far too much on video-gamish CGI. Most of it is passable, but there are a few moments (one scene involving fire which is something CGI will never properly master (like mouths) and some gunshots) that just aren't the least bit believable, and when you make the decision to go lazy with CGI you take a risk of knocking the viewer out of reality. Another complaint is that the film is too violent. I know this might sound stupid, but it is. I am all for violence, but the problem is there is too much of it here, so much that it becomes watered down and has no effect. Rather than being in real dangerous situations, we just see the characters in video game worlds with a bunch of targets to shoot and have fake looking bullet wounds appear. That was a mistake by Vaughn, they needed to show less violence, or have a lot of it be less graphic so that when it is, it will matter. But clearly this film isn't going for that, the movie is going for "awesome"s and "sweet"s, not effective serious filmaking. (you can see that near the end in the Deus Ex Machina you can see from ten miles away) On that level, it works.
But after seeing the potential, I wanted more, this film could have had real teeth, it could have mattered. Some are saying this is satire, this satirizes nothing. The film gets so caught up within its own realm of snarky coolness that it stops it from reaching its potential, the film is way too self aware. Its pander to comic book fans rather than a seriously good film. I liked it, it is undeniably entertaining, but it is not nearly as good as it could have been, or looking at the actor and director, should have been. This is not at all in the league of Stardust and especially not Layer Cake. It does touch on some complexities and some real world consequences, but in never explores them realistically. Then-again I shouldn't be rating it for what it really should have been, but for what it is. That is a funny, brainless, action packed, cool comic book movie with some of those great musical sequences that Vaughn absolutely dominates, that is one of the things he brought from Layer Cake. This film is not great, it could have been but isn't. But for what it is, its entertaining fluff.
Rating: 7/10
Death at a Funeral
Directed by: Neil LabuteStarring: Chris Rock, Regina Hall, Martin Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, James Marsden, Ron Glass, Columbus Short, Tracy Morgan, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson with Keith David, Loretta Devine and Danny Glover
Death at a Funeral is a remake of a British film of the same name (and in Dinklage the same cast) about a funeral for a family patriarch where everything goes wrong. The American version does exactly what an American re-make would do, it goes from the more reserved British style to American slapstick, luckily this turns out great. Getting an all-star cast to come out for the film really helps. Through the film Chris Rock is solid enough as the straight man of the group, though some of his lines start to come off as, well, lines. They play more like punchlines from his stand-up than actual jokes, that's because Rock isn't an actor, he's a comedian. There are other problems as well; Martin Lawrence starts out as his usual annoying unlikeable self (works for the character) and actually is able to carry that through most of the film despite some unbelievable awful lines ("she's in 12th grade but that ass is in grad school"; I can't believe that got laughs) and through most of the film Tracy Morgan is pretty weak, but when things start to hit the fan, he starts to shine. Tracy Jordan can't play the straight man, that is one lesson learned. Another is that usually serious actors like James Marsden, Columbus Short (I guess he counts) and Peter Dinklage are great comedians too. They are all outstanding in their roles and help to take over the film. There's great stuff from Luke Wilson, Danny Glover and Saldana too. The film is pulled off very well with only a few jokes falling flat. I didn't laugh a lot in the beginning, because I was still in the comparative stage, but I wasn't bored either. The American version keeps the brisk pace of the original film and so when the inevitable comedy of errors begins, it rolls and its quite hilarious. I liked the original a lot but I would almost rate this one better, despite some obnoxiously bad lines (see quoted above) its actually a really solid and really funny movie. All of this considering I went in expecting an absolute desecration of the original film, I was pleasantly surprised.
Rating: 7/10
There are just a few more things I wanted to comment on but didn't want to spoil the film. One of them is a huge missed opportunity. There is a level of complexity that this film touches on in the story of Big Daddy and hit girl. Marcus the cop who shows up to reveal their back-story brings it up. It is the fact that an insane, revenge-driven father has turned his young daughter into a cold-blooded mass murderess. There is never any mention of the fact she kills without wincing. Roger Ebert brought this up and was horrified by that. Before I read the review I laughed off his declaration of the film being morally reprehensible, but there is some truth in that. Nicholas Cage's character is a bad person, a sick and deranged man and he has destroyed his daughter. In the end we see her go to school as if somehow she could have a normal life. That isn't even remotely possible. That is why Hit Girl should have died. Kick-Ass could have still killed D'Amico, but we really needed to see Hit Girl die a dramatic death, and join, as D'Amico says; "The Family Reunion", because her living is just sad. There are really two paths for her; she never matures enough because of her father stunting her mental growth to realize what it means to take a life (leading to all kinds of trouble) or she will eventually reach emotional maturity and come to terms with the fact that her father trained and manipulated her into killing dozens of people on a personal vendetta. Some will argue that this is a comedy, a comic book movie so going that far in is ridiculous, but is it really? For one the film is supposed to be about Superheroes in the real world. (something that Hit Girl defies because she seems super-powered) So imagining real world consequences for their actions isn't out of the question, like on Law & Order, the defendant brought it up so its admissible. Second the film does go on a serious tangent, putting the principles in serious danger. So there is a sense of seriousness, especially when we see characters react to death and violence realistically. Kick-Ass' father when he is stabbed and run-over, Kick-Ass when he sees Hit Girl kill all those people, and even Hit Girl when her father dies. (and I still don't know if the scene where Cage speaks to his daughter with his lips burned off is supposed to be funny, I found it sad, but people laughed at his speech without lips. That was a mistake either way, either in that it shouldn't have been funny or that they shouldn't have had his lips burned off, I mean realism is realism but considering she put out a kerosene fire with a little blanket in a split second, I don't think its that important to ruin a dramatic scene.) But that raises another question, would it have made more sense that Hit Girl sees her father die and is filled with a sense of purpose to kill D'Amico? Or would it make more sense for her to watch her father die and finally be shaken out of that deranged manipulation her father used. She finally experienced a death of someone close to her, so wouldn't she feel different about killing others now? Or is she so far-gone that not even that would phase her? What happens when an innocent crosses her later in life? If she can take life without batting an eye, or a having a second thought, what happens later in life?
That is why Hit Girl needed to die at the end of the film, she could have gone away and any concern about that character's future would be gone. She would have accomplished her revenge and the family reunion (in which I can only guess would be hell, between suicide, wrath and murder they've got a solid rap sheet) would be complete. Would she have been better off dying with her father? Or living on with someone else, never being able to function in society and being a danger to every person she comes into contact with? At least if she were an adult, there would be a maturity, a sense of right and wrong, but she's been trained since she was a kid that life is disposable. Unfortunately the film gets caught up in setting up a sequel and that takes away from the immediate film. It is unfortunate, but luckily the film still works as an action comedy.
[LATE EDIT] This article from the Huffington Post does a decent job (from what I read/skimmed) arguing against the anti-hitgirl push from critics, and though I don't agree with him that Kick-Ass covered the darkness and refused to ignore it (I think it glossed over it quick and easy) he does a great job of debunking the rest of the arguments that she is a bad role model, and that somehow the beating at the end is bad. (I never had a problem with Hit Girl as a character in the movie, I just thought it played out wrong. She needed to die.) But his arguments about the double-standard and sexist view of Hit Girl is dead on. Why can't girls see her as a role model? Boys see James Bond (killer), Tony Stark (Killer), Batman (Inadvertent Killer) as heroes. No younger girls are going to see this movie and start shooting up mobsters. And the beating at the end? What was the problem with that? Its rough, but its just one more reason to hate Cage's character, for putting his daughter there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment