Entry#197: Burn After Reading

Trailer

Back when I first got into film, I used to idolize the Coen brothers. They were the epitome of cinema, to me, and could do virtually no wrong. It wasn't until later, when I became familiar with great directors like Kubrick or Bergman, that I realized that the Coens weren't exactly fantastic. They've made plenty of great films, but they've also made their share of mediocre to average stuff. Burn After Reading would have to fall under the category of their lesser films. It's still pretty decent, thanks to the Coens' masterful writing skills, but the characters are only viewed from a cold distance.

The film follows an ensemble cast of middle-aged morons that all come from completely different backgrounds. Some are womanizers, some are shallow fitness trainers, and some are ex-government agents. Under normal circumstances, these people would have never met each other. However, as this a film, a MacGuffin arrives to unite our cast - the former agent's encoded memoir. When the disc containing this memoir is found in a local gym, trainers Lynn and Chad believe that the disc contains classified government secrets. The two decide to use the disc as blackmail while Cox, the former agent, can only wonder what's going on. There are plenty of other plot threads as well, such as Mrs. Cox's affair with a bumbling treasurer and Lynn's plans to re-invent her body through several expensive cosmetic surgeries.

The film's best feature is its well-written screenplay. The Coens have always been known to write fascinating characters and sharp dialogue, and this film is no exception. The dialogue is clever in its humor and showcases the personality of each character. Not only that, but the dialogue is also very realistic and gives a sense of depth to the film. Each cast member certainly has a vibrant persona and the Coens know how to display that with their well-crafted and eccentric dialogue.

Now, while the characters are original and fascinating, we don't really get to connect with any of them. The film views its characters and plot very coldly. So coldly, in fact, that it feels like the entire film is trying to be distant from the audience. We see these characters interact with each other and their environment, but it's the equivalent of watching bizarre strangers at the airport. They look and sound interesting, but we don't know them at all.

The cinematography makes up for it (a little bit). The camerawork is smooth and transitional, as a good film should be, and the Coens' typical talent can be seen quite clearly. The image looks nice as well, though I'm unsure how I feel about the use of the RedEye camera. The quality is very high, yes, but it seems to lack a colorful lifeness to it. This could've come in handy in a film that feels as distant as this one. Regardless, the cinematography is impressive and is visually-pleasing.

It should be noted, however, that the film might be the Coens' smuggest movie to date. They came off as slightly smug in films like Raising Arizona and Fargo (to an extent), but this film takes the cake. It took me a few days to realize this, but it's obvious when you give the matter a bit of thought. According to the film, everyone is an idiot. That's the basic premise and theme of the movie. Government officials, fitness gurus, middle-class citizens - you name it. The Coens are capable of poking fun at everybody except themselves. Women are only focused on physical beauty, apparently, but the intellectual isn't ever wrong? I call shenanigans. The film's smugness is off-putting and really dampers the film. It doesn't make much sense to me either, as the Coens' succeeding film - A Serious Man - is very emotionally raw and thought-provoking.

There are some good elements in Burn After Reading - clever writing, good cinematography, fascinating characters, etc. However, the film's lack of warmth and smugness really hurts the overall film and it lowers the film's quality to a status of "decent".

Entry#196: The Other Guys

Trailer

2010 hasn't been a good year for movies. We've gotten a few gems (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Toy Story 3, etc.), but the majority of the films that have been released this year have ranged from poor to absolutely terrible. The constant barrage of terrible comedies has been even worse; I can't tell you how many times I've heard people talk about the latest star-driven comedy and then forget about it in the next month or so. It's irritating that terrible and forgettable comedies can make so much money while original and creative films, such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, are left to virtually bomb at the box-office. I could spew a list of the worst offenders, but I'm not that angsty and I know that there are some good sleeper hits out there. The Hangover and Date Night, for instance, would be two great examples of a sleeper-hit comedy (or a comedy that's better than it's made out to be). The Other Guys, directed by the man who brought us Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, however, lies in-between the forgettable and the sleeper-hit. While it's not a *terrible* movie, The Other Guys is still a pretty lame and formulaic comedy.

The film follows two paper-pushers in the NYPD, Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz, that have completely opposite personalities. Whereas Gamble's content and satisfied with his small work as an "other guy", Hoitz has bigger dreams of becoming a great 'action cop' like his superiors, Danson and Highsmith. However, due to an incident during the 2003 World Series, it's not likely that Hoitz will be getting any action anytime soon. Instead, the partners are constantly ridiculed and pranked by their co-workers and neither of their opinions are taken that seriously. Just when things seem hopeless for the duo, they stumble upon a mysterious conspiracy involving a prominent multi-billionaire and a variety of large-scale criminals. As nobody in the NYPD believes their story, it's up to the clumsy duo to take matters into their own hands.

It's an interesting take on the 'buddy-cop' genre, but the writing's just too poor to carry the subject matter. The humor, like in many of Ferrell's films, feels very forced. Nothing feels natural or clever - the film shoves its jokes down its audience's throats. "Get it? Peacocks can't really fly!" That was just embarrassing to watch. Not ALL of the jokes are bad, but most of them are either forgettable or just bland. It's like watching the class-clown play around with jokes until he finds something funny to work with. Maybe I'm just biased against Will Ferrell, but the humor in this film is very hit-and-miss and the misses happen quite frequently.

Don't even bother expecting characterization. The characters are just huge caricatures of the various roles of the 'buddy-cop' genre and only serve to crank out as many jokes as possible. They're shallow, bland, forgettable, and are completely overshadowed by the the actors that portray them. I'm not saying that comedies should put characterization at the top of their priorities, but films like The Big Lebowski and Duck Soup have proven that character-driven comedies can be quite great. Even the smaller roles in those films added to the overall quality (Donny in The Big Lebowski or Mrs. Teasdale in Duck Soup). Sadly, though, most comedies these days only seem concerned with making money and cranking out lowbrow humor for the masses.

Still, I suppose this isn't a *terrible* film. While most of the humor's either forced or bland, there are some humorous sequences or running jokes within the film. The running joke with TLC songs/lyrics, for instance, had me chuckling in amusement. There were a few other funny lines in the film as well, but none of them were uproariously hilarious. Just mildly amusing. Not only that, but the production values in the film look pretty nice. The cinematography looks slick, the costume design is decent, and some of the action sequences in the film look pretty tight. The shootout at the business meeting, for instance, looked really sharp on the big screen.

There isn't too much else to say about The Other Guys. It's got some funny moments in it, but it's still a subpar comedy with bland characters and forgettable jokes.

Entry#195: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Trailer

Shane Black probably isn't a name that most movie-goers know about. His most well-known script, Lethal Weapon, however, is a gemstone in any "macho guy"'s movie-watching. While Lethal Weapon brought a lot of attention to Black, along with his script for the cult classic Monster Squad, his later films would prove to be quite poor, both critically and financially. As Black slipped into obscurity, he continued to pour out various screenplays in hopes of achieving his previous success. After multiple turndowns, though, it looked like things wouldn't ever turn up for him. It was when Black was pitching for his latest script, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, that he was able to get the attention of producer Joel Silver. Ironically enough, Silver was the producer who gave the thumbs-up for Black's earlier success, Lethal Weapon. This time around, however, Black was allowed to direct his own screenplay. The result? A hilarious and fun film that balances both an interesting narrative and a clever satire of the noir genre.

The film follow a petty thief, Harry Lockhart, who's just escaped the scene of his latest robbery. On the run from the police, Harry ducks into a movie audition for a hardboiled crime film and, quite humorously, ends up impressing the film producers. The producers hire him as the lead and fly him to Hollywood to shadow Detective Perry van Shrike, a gay private investigator who's been enlisted to help Harry prepare for his role. Things get complicated, however, once Harry meets up with his highschool sweetheart, Harmony Lane, and accidentally becomes involved in a conspiracy of murder and kidnapping. As the events of the film twist and interweave, Harry, Perry, and Harmony team up to investigate the hidden conspiracy.

First off, the film definitely has a wicked sense of humor. The jokes are clever, the dialogue's very witty, and the film seems to be nothing but non-stop hilarity. The writing's top-notch and boosts the hilarious interactions between the main characters of the film, Harry and Perry. It's hard to really describe the humor behind the relationship, as most of it derives from situational comedy, but I can guarantee that it's a treat. It's so fast-paced and electric that, at points, it's difficult to fully appreciate how rich the humor is. Not only that, but the film perfectly balances an interesting narrative while subverting the cliches within its' narrative's genre. The film pokes fun at the 'typical mystery' story and isn't afraid to point out the sillier aspects of mystery stories. For instance, why would a lone henchman shove a gun at someone's back when that person, usually the protagonist, could turn around and whip away the gun? Or, why does a main character always seem to survive a shootout? The film doesn't mess around with any gags or cheap laughs - it's completely fresh and the characters are so well-written that it only enhances the humor.

Speaking of which, the characters are really well-rounded in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. They're interesting, likable, and we're given plenty of time to get to know their quirks, styles of humor, etc. While the film is concerned with story, its characters are the true focal point of the film. Harry, for instance, is the lovable (yet bumbling) rogue and constantly screws up Perry's investigation by trying to act like the 'cool guy'. Accidentally shooting people in the face, claiming to be a real-life detective, and urinating on corpses are all examples of Harry's hilarious actions. I could talk about the other characters, but the film exists for a reason. The point is, though, that the characters are the highlight of the film.

In terms of cinematography, the film looks really nice. The camerawork's aesthetically pleasing and definitely captures that noir/neo-noir feel that the film's going for. Not too much else to say about this aspect. It looks great and the use of lighting is particularly stylish - what more could you ask for?

If I had any problems with the film, though, they'd lie with the film's opening. It was a nice introduction, but it seemed to be a bit clumsy in its execution. Perhaps if the narration wasn't so heavy-handed then I might have liked the opening of the film a bit more.

Still, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a hilarious film. It's got great characters, a sharp sense of humor, and plenty of memorable moments. A very fun film for both noir-fans and people who just like entertainment.

Entry#194: I Sell the Dead

Trailer

Ya know, I've always found comedies to be pretty difficult to write about. Unlike most films, which usually require some form of analysis and thought, comedies are very simple and very easy-to-read. In other words, there isn't usually too much to say about comedies other than "that was funny" or "that wasn't funny". Even then, everyone has a different style or taste in humor, so you're very rarely going to find a comedic movie that everyone loves or that everyone loathes. Not only that, but it's even more difficult to write about the background of a film that contains very little background to begin with. The only interesting thing that I can think of is that the film's the directorial debut of Glenn McQuaid, who previously worked as a production specialist on Ti West's indie-horror flicks. Still, I'll try my best to write about this unique horror-comedy, I Sell the Dead, that blends together a wry sense of humor with gothic-horror imagery.

The film follows the lovable scoundrel and local "ghoul", Arthur Blake, as he's awaiting his impending death sentence at the guillotine. With only a few hours to spare before his execution, Blake recounts his life story to an inquiring mind, Father Francis Duffy. Beginning with his start in graverobbing and ending with how he became sentenced, the film follows Blake and his fellow "ghoul", Willie, as they encounter various supernatural creatures in 19th century Ireland.

As a fan of old-fashioned horror, I really enjoyed the creativity and nods toward the old gothic-horror stories that I love. Unfortunately, we don't really see too many filmmakers exploring this kind of horror anymore as it, sadly, sells quite poorly. Instead, we're given nothing but terrible remakes, choppy sequels, and films that rely solely on either the gore factor or the "jump" factor. Though the film's far from perfect, I was impressed with how the filmmakers were able to blend a wry sense of humor with the dark and forboding lore of gothic-horror. I don't wish to spoil any of the humor, but I will say that the sequence involving the vampire was a treat to a horror aficionado such as myself. It's a very creative film and it should definitely please any fans of old-school horror.

As far as characters go, the film's pretty good. Though the supporting cast contains nothing but flat characters, our leading characters - Blake and Willie - are a likable pair of protagonists. They're the deepest or the most well-rounded characters, but I've found that comedies deserve a bit of slack in this department. I'm not excusing poor writing, mind you, but a creative and a funny film doesn't necessarily need "great" characters. Either way, Blake and Willie are pretty well-written and they're definitely very fun characters. Whether they're fighting over alien corpses or making a few subtle jokes, the main characters are interesting and provide a source of  entertainment and fun.

My major gripes with the film, however, lie with the ending. The last twenty minutes of the film, to me, just go completely downhill. It's nowhere near the level of humor and creativity as the film's first act and it seems the screenwriter had no idea how to finish his concept. I slightly blame the poor ending on the introduction of a useless romantic interest, but I digress.  The ending's gimmicky and just plain unenjoyable when compared with the rest of the film.

Also, though the cinematography looks pretty good for the most part, there are some instances that just kill the verisimilitude  of the film. A cinematographer's job is to 'be invisible' or to make everything onscreen look natural. However, there are literally moments in the film where *anyone* could point out the green screen or the CGI - it's that obvious.Overall, it's a bit iffy. It looks good at some points, but it looks downright awful at others...

All in all, though, I Sell the Dead is a fun little film. If you can overlook the bad ending and skecthy visuals, you'll find yourself with a quirky and creative comedy that successfully combines the macabre with the humorous. It's not a great film, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in order to be a fun film.

Entry#193: Letters from Iwo Jima

Trailer

Though the film, along with its companion piece, Flags of Our Fathers, was released waaaayyyy before I was into film, I certainly remember the amount of hype surrounding the release of Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. The film became acclaimed and popular for a variety of reasons, one of which was the fact that it was one of the few films to portray WWII-era Japanese soldiers in a sympathetic light. Beforehand, most films either downplayed or demonized the Japanese during World War II due to events such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor and, frankly, because it was an age that most people would like to forget. Especially when considering Japan's current friendly relationship with the United States. Regardless, Clint Eastwood surprised audiences everywhere when he released two films that showcased both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima. Flags of Our Fathers, which showcased the American side, only got mixed-to-average reviews while the fresh Letters from Iwo Jima, which showcased the Japanese side, got glorifying reviews. Does this mean that Letters from Iwo Jima is truly a fantastic film? Or, did most critics praise it simply for the fact that it showed a new side of World War II? I'd say it's probably a mixture of both. While it's not great, Letters from Iwo Jima proves to be a really good film with a great sense of atmosphere and cinematography.

The film follows two Japanese officers, Lt. General Kuribayashi and Private First Class Saigo,  as they prepare for a virtually impossible battle against the Americans at the island of Iwo Jima. Without naval or air support, morale is low among the soldiers and many believe that the battle will end up being a suicide mission. Regardless, though, Lt. General Kuribayashi is determined to fight to the death in order to protect the innocent lives of Japan for as long as possible. During the 'silence before the storm', we follow the Lt. General and Saigo, a simple baker enlisted into the army, as they mentally prepare themselves for the upcoming violence by thinking and writing to their respective families. Once the Americans arrive, however, the film becomes much darker, bleaker, and filled with a sense of futility and despair.

First off, the cinematography looks great. The film has a nice sepia-like tone, giving it a historic feel to it while simultaneously not diluting the emotions of the characters and the mood of the film. It's not *exactly* sepia, but it's a sort of mixture between dark green-lenses and brown-lenses. That's not important, though, as it's the look of the film that really matters. It's got smooth camerawork and, as an aspiring filmmaker, it was cool to notice the techniques that Eastwood used when shooting the film. They're standard issue, more or less, but they're effective when used correctly. The multiple suicide sequence, for instance, was really heavy-hitting thanks to the dark subject matter of that scene and the use of cinematography. Overall, it's definitely a sharp-looking film.

As for atmosphere, the film's just as good. Due to the use of dark colors and landscape, the film gives off a feeling of isolation and entrapment as we watch characters run through caves, brush, and other enclosed spaces to fight a 'faceless' enemy. It's definitely suspenseful and really adds to that feeling of hopelessness, especially when we see the American freighters closing in on the island of Iwo Jima. To add to the suspense of the incoming danger, we're subjected to witnessing many Japanese soldiers commit suicide out of a misguided sense of honor. It's some pretty intense stuff, and the first time we see it may be the most haunting moment in the entire film. Though the film's not perfect, I can say that I relished in the film's dark and tense atmosphere.

It's the characterization, though, that proves to be the film's major flaw. Though the characters are relatable and emotionally-investable, we're detached from their overall existence. We see the characters' actions, yes, but we never really get to know any of the characters on a deeper level. They exist for the sole purpose of showcasing the story of Iwo Jima and the historical events that connected it with the results of World War II. Saigo, for instance, was a likable lead, but I can honestly say that he didn't really have any outstanding character traits. He was just...there. He's decent enough to keep me interested, but he's an otherwise fairly forgettable character. The same can be said of virtually the entire cast. The dialogue's pretty well-written, though, and the script is able to churn out a few heartfelt speeches from the Japanese officers. However, the overall characterization is only "decent" at best.

Though some parts of the film are a mixed bag, such as the characters and the stagnant ending, Letters from Iwo Jima is still a really good movie. The visuals, atmosphere, and historic connections definitely make it worth watching at least once.

Entry#192: Breathless

Trailer

Man, people aren't kidding when they talk about the greatness of Jean-Luc Goddard's Breathless (or A bout de souffle in its original French). I'm only just becoming familiar with French New Wave, having previously seen François Truffaut's Jules et Jim, but I'm always intrigued and fascinated by the style whenever I watch films of this nature. There's a definite sense of realism and humanity behind these films but, at the same time, the "unreality" and "magic" of cinema is just as important to the themes and characters. Realism and "cinematic magic" are, somehow, able to co-exist and mingle together very well in these stylish and well-made films. So far, I haven't seen a French New Wave film that I haven't loved. Jules et Jim was a great film and Breathless was, frankly, a tremendous film. Not only that, but many of these types of films (especially Breathless) helped pave the way for filmmaking as we know it. This film, for instance, introduced "jump-cutting" into film editing and reinvigorated a sense of humanity and emotion in mainstream films. The list of influences and those who were influenced is countless. To this day, the films still ring with a creative sense of style and a reverberating method of storytelling.
  
Breathless certainly doesn't waste any time with introduction. From the get-go, we're thrown into the lives of Michel Poiccard, a petty young criminal and Humphrey Bogart wanna-be, and his American girlfriend, Patricia Franchini. Both individuals are amoral, self-seeking, and bohemian figures in a degrading society that has a very low opinion on...well, virtually everything. They exist to steal, trick, and simply enjoy their lives. They're both hedonistic yet charming, in a scoundrel-like sort of way, characters. Their usual on-again-off-again relationship is affected, however, once Michel kills a police officer that was trailing him. With the authorities hot on his trail, Michel spends the rest of the film trying to convince Patricia to run away with him to Italy while attempting to collect on a large amount of money that'll allow the characters to flee the country.

If anything can be said of the film, it's that it's got a great sense of character and style. The characters and the script in the film are just fantastic. Despite the lack of an introduction, we get to know the main characters of this film very well thanks to the many sequences we spend with them. Whether they're hiding from the police or just talking about overly-dramatic facial expressions, these are two characters that seem like real people. At the same time, though, they still have the surreality and charm that most great fictional characters have. Michel may be a petty criminal, but he's definitely not without a sense of class. Capped with a fedora and always accompanied with a cigarette, Michel evokes the nature of the characters of the noir films he loves so much. The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, They Both Fell Together, Casablanca, etc - all are Humphrey Bogart films that are slyly referenced to in the film, and their recollection allows us to connect these mysterious detective/criminal types with Michel's character. At the same time, though, the film's so deep that it's hinted that this "badboy" persona is just a facade. That, in actuality, Michel is just a frightened youth in Paris that uses the style of his hero to make himself feel secure. Whether or not you believe that, though, depends on how you view this incredible and entertaining film. Patricia's just as deadly, if not more so, than her French boyfriend. She uses her co-workers and bosses to gain a higher place in her work, admits to sleeping around with plenty of men, and isn't afraid to take dangerous risks with her life and her relationships. Not only that, but she does all of these things in the guise of a "sweet, little American girl". Again, whether or not she's evil or confused solely depends on the viewer. Either way, though, the script and characters are so fantastic that it's simply fun to delve into and evaluate the characters.

Moving on, though, the film has an excellent sense of style and cinematography. It’s ironic as well, as Jean-Luc Goddard actually didn’t intend for these visual cues and styles to become popular or innovative. The fluid and fast-moving camera, for instance, is actually a result of the fact that the crew couldn’t afford a film dolly. Because of this, Goddard instead used a wheelchair to maneuver the camera and cameraman around during shooting. It looks great, though, as the camera still looks slick to this day and the framing looks wonderful. As for the jump-cuts, those weren’t intended to be experimental either. Because the film went over the time it was allotted, Goddard was asked to cut the film down a bit. Instead of cutting whole sequences, however, Goddard cut bits and pieces to create shots that “jumped” from place to place. This was a great decision on Goddard’s part as cutting out a sequence of this film would be the equivalent of sin. The jump-cuts add to the experience and the look of the film. Speaking of looks, I’m convinced that the film was going for a sort of neo-noir style. It didn’t use the dark shadows or silhouettes that previous film noirs were known for, but the character types and themes are all there. The cynical outlook on life, the femme fatale, the focus on crime and the police, the style of clothing – it fits the bill of a noir film.

The film’s nearly perfect as it’s so artistic yet entertaining at the same time. Sadly, though, it’s not as perfect as I’d hoped it been. The one flaw that deters this film for me – the *one* flaw – is Patricia’s involvement in setting up the very ending of the film. I understood and appreciated how the film ended down to the last frame, but how it got there was kinda iffy. I won’t reveal spoilers, but it just seems like a cop-out as Patricia’s actions never suggest what she’s going to do that moment. Her explanation, if it is a cry of confusion, just felt uneven to me. Still, that’s nitpicking when compared to the rest of the film.

Breathless is a simple yet superb film. Its great characters, wonderful sense of style, and terrific writing make it a fantastic landmark in cinematic history.

Entry#191: Kick-Ass

Trailer

I'll admit that, when the trailer was first released, I was pretty interested in seeing Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust)'s adaptation of Frank Miller's Kick-Ass. Though I wasn't familiar with the comics at all, I'd heard that the series was meant to be a satire of Generation Y and our current love for the "realistic" superhero genre. It's an interesting concept, that's granted, so I had planned on seeing it once it was released in theaters. For many reasons, though, I never got around to watching it in theaters. I mostly blame my loads of schoolwork and plans, but I digress as it didn't really bother me that I missed the film. Now that it's out on DVD, though, I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this 'satire'. Based on my controlled sense of hype for the film, it's only ironic that I actually ended up disliking Kick-Ass.

The film follows a comic book geek, Dave Lizewski, who wonders why nobody's ever tried becoming a "real-life superhero". Deciding to give a shot at it, Dave dons a green leotard and calls himself "Kick-Ass", a crimefighter-for-hire who takes "requests" through his Myspace profile. His first attempt proves to be bittersweet, though, as Dave gets completely beaten up by two local thugs but, after being hospitalized, is provided with enough metal in his skeleton that he can barely feel pain. With his new endurance, Kick-Ass soon becomes an internet phenomenon that catches the attention of both crime lords and the older "real superheroes", Big Daddy and Hit-Girl. The rest of the film follows Dave as he's pulled into a convoluted tale of vengeance and violence.

The concept's pretty interesting so it's a real shame that the characters are so poorly developed and written. Because of the poor dialogue and screenwriting, we barely get to know any of these characters on a deeper level and, thusly, they become very predictable and flat characters. Dave's geekiness is displayed as part of his character, yes, but that's only a character *trait*. What separates him from the likes of other geeky characters in fiction? Virtually nothing. He's flat and generic, and those are words that shouldn't be describing main characters. Heck, the entire cast is pretty flat. They're entertaining to watch, I suppose, but we only get to know people like Chris (Red Mist) or Damon (Big Daddy) on a shallow level. In fact, the only decently-written character in this whole movie is Hit-Girl. I won't give away any spoilers, but her character is intricately complex when compared to the likes of the rest of the cast. Not only that, but the actress that portrays her (Chloe Moretz) arguably gives the best performance of the film. It's kinda sad that a child would be the driving force behind a film that's as adult as Kick-Ass.

The cinematography is decent at best. When the camera's focused on the action, the camerawork is pretty tight. The editing's quick and flashy, the gunplay and violence is nicely stylized, and it really gets the aderaline pumping in terms of balls-to-the-wall action. When the camera's *not* focused on the action, though, the camerawork seems pretty lost at points. It doesn't know what to focus on and continously skips from shot to shot in a seeminlgy desperate attempt to find something to focus on. It still gets the story across but anyone who knows the basics of editing should understand that the film's only doing the minimum amount of work in this department.

I promose to give as few spoilers as possible - the ending to this film is simply awful. Not only does the film end with the most ridicoulous death scene I've ever seen, but the message of the film seems to glorify nihilism and vigilante justice. I understand that one doesn't need to agree with a film in order for the film to be good - just look at Birth of a Nation - but Kick-Ass is just deplorable. According to the film's themes (implicit and explicit), violence is the only effective means and that killing a person means absolutely nothing if it gets the job done. These "superheros" often brutally murder henchman and criminals without remorse. I've heard various arguments that state this is merely a "warning" against these sorts of behaviour, but with Joan Jett songs and Ennio Morricone music playing during these violent seqeunces, I can't help but wodner if this film actually believed that viglante justice and murder were sweet.

The soundtrack's iffy for me. While the film contains a generic and uninspired score, the soundtrack is pretty enjoyable for what it is. I'ts got some good songs in it and the inclusion of music by the likes of Ennio Morricone are a nice throwback to the violent films of Sergio Leone.

All in all, Kick-Ass is a poor film. It's got a nice concept and some impressive action sequences and camerawork, but the characters are flat and badly written and the overall message promotes some very controversial subject matter.