My Review of Kick-Ass

So I just got back from seeing the film "Kick-Ass" with my brother. While we definitely had a kick-ass time I unfortunately wasn't able to turn off the little voice that forced its way into my head after hours of studying literary criticism. Such is the curse of the English major.

Don't get me wrong; Kick-ass is a lot of fun and I did get a lot of enjoyment out of it, but sadly the movie may have shoved its own foot a little too far up its own behind.

One of the biggest criticism that one could levy against Kick-Ass is that of having conflicting themes. The movie starts out and mostly follows the point of view of our stereotypical "relatable geek" protagonist, Dave Lizewski. Dave has all of the problems of your everyday high-school comic loving geek; He's socially awkward, can't talk to girls, gets picked on by bullies, and uses comic books as a means of escapism from everyday life. Of course I'll shamelessly admit to being a geek myself (after all what kind of dork takes the time to write about a movie when he doesn't have to?)and I'll even say that yes, in spite of the fact that Dave is about as "by-the-book-geek" as they come, I did find myself able to relate to him. And of course every "geek" has at some point fantasized about somehow being able to "rise above" or escape from his mundane life, either through super powers, fighting hordes of zombies, traveling through time and space, etc. Yet Dave Lizewski decides to take things a step further and ask "why?" Why hasn't anyone ever actually tried being a superhero? After disregarding his friends' mocking of him when he asks them the question, he decides to go and find out himself by buying a scuba outfit and wearing it to go challenge the muggers who've been heckling him throughout his life. The answer, he finds out after being stabbed in the gut and then hit by a car, is that it's pretty damn stupid.

Unfortunately this is where the movie starts to run in to trouble as it begins to suffer from what I'm going to call "Peter Parker Syndrome." The movies theme up until this point is partially that of pointing out the problems with vigilantism. Not only is it illegal, but it's also a pretty sure-fire way to get yourself killed almost instantly unless you have some sort of special training and equipment, none of which Dave, now the masked hero Kick-Ass, has, aside from a scuba suit and two nightsticks that he bought on Ebay. Or, of course, you somehow fantastically acquire superpowers, yet in the real world you can't buy those on Ebay, last I checked. But the movie takes away from any real-world relatability when Kick-Ass effectively DOES get superpowers; after surviving BOTH a stabbing and being hit by a speeding car, Dave/Kick-Ass survives and ends up having a large amount of metal plating put into his body to help stabilize his bones as well as having extensive damage to his nerves so that he doesn't feel pain nearly to the degree he used to before he was injured. Again, this is where I start to have a problem with the movie; at the beginning the movie seems to be telling us NOT to suspend disbelief and shows the consequences and danger of vigilantism as well as the REASON no one tries to be a superhero, which largely is because no one has superpowers. Then the movie turns this theme on its head when it effectively GIVES superpowers to the protagonist. Now he's still the awkward geek but because of his superpowers (or "super-resistance ability") he's set above normal people and is able to live the life of a superhero. Hence the term "Peter-Parker syndrome."

Now don't get me wrong, this flipping of themes didn't make me hate the movie by any stretch, but it definitely bothered me as it seemed to jump from realism to fantasy almost instantly. The other thing that takes away from Kick-Ass' relatability and realism is his extremely good luck. Considering that he not only survived being stabbed and hit by a speeding car and then afterwards not only wasn't paralyzed or horribly injured but somehow had his nerves damaged JUST SO that he has an extremely high tolerance for pain seems beyond mere luck. Not to mention the fact that none of the criminals he directly fights after gaining powers has a gun and simply shoots him. In other words the character who initially was so relatable and well-established becomes little more then an extremely lucky moron.

The other major thing that bothered me about this film was the underplaying of tragically significant events. For a movie that initially seems to have a message of wanting to be taken seriously, every time something tragic is occurring or starts to occur, light classical or wacky music starts kicking in the background in order to minimize the shock or horror of what's happening on-screen (ala A Clockwork Orange). While some directors (like Quentin Tarantino) pull this film style off exceptionally well, here it removes any sort of significant attachment the viewer may develop for the characters. Basically any time that something harsh or tragic is occurring, it's instantly followed by either a joke or mood-lightening background music. This would work just fine if the movie set itself up as more of a satire, which I believe was the writer/director's intent, but the fact that everything is so underplayed really just distances the audience from the characters and robs the film of having any significant impact.

A few other minor complaints relate mostly to a large amount of stereotyping with villains (they're all largely either black "gangsta thugs" or Italian Mafioso types aside from Red Mist, who at first can't seem to decide if he admires Kick-Ass or just wants to impress his father) as well as a wavering plot. That's not to say that the plot was bad, in fact it was fairly decent, but while the first two acts of the film were mostly well written, the 3rd act becomes a sort of predictable revenge flick that seems vaguely reminiscent of KillBill. I'm not sure if this was intended as a homage to KillBill or not, and it didn't bother me a whole lot, but the end as a whole didn't really hold any surprises.

The movie's highpoint however is not the plot or the themes, but what it manages to accomplish in terms of originality with two particular characters, Big Daddy and Hit Girl. Nicholas Cage does a fantastic job at portraying a character who's so focused on getting his revenge on the main antagonist that he effectively robs his daughter of a childhood in order to turn her and himself into ruthlessly efficient masked avengers. He subtly portrays his character as having endured immense psychological trauma that has him so scarred he's willing to teach and encourage his 11 year old daughter to kill the people responsible for ruining his life. And killing is what his daughter, "Hit Girl," does best. In fact she does it so well that she takes out more people in the film then all of the other heroes (including her father) and villains combined. While I'm not saying this is a laudable thing, and while the believability of an 11 year old girl taking out hordes of armed mafia members seems questionable and even far-fetched (in a movie that again initially seems to be trying to be realistic), it reinforces her character as being not just a daughter to her father (which, arguably is the great tragedy of her character), but a living weapon. Hit-Girl and Big Daddy are by far the most interesting and original characters in the film and I believe that if the film had focused more on their development and characters instead of Kick-Ass's, it would've been one of the best movies ever made in the comic book-movie genre. As it stands they already steal the show for the most part and the movie really should have probably been called "Hit-Girl" instead, but then I suppose we wouldn't have the "controversial" title.

Overall, Kickass is a half-original, half-cliched film that suffers from conflicting themes and from focusing on the stereotypical characters over the original and more interesting ones. While it's definitely worth seeing so long as you aren't easily offended by an 11 year old girl spouting "offensive" language while slaughtering dozens of criminals (remember boys and girls, it's just a movie) and are a fan of comic-book/superhero films, Kickass is an enjoyable romp in the genre that offers enough to please any mature viewer so long as they don't over-think it. I give it 3 and a half foulmouthed-ninja-superhero-tweenage girls out of 5.

"Kick-Ass" and all related characters and images are owned by Plan B Studios, Unversal Studios and Lionsgate entertainment, all rights reserved.

Doctor Who: The 11th Hour - My Thoughts

After over a year of having no regular series and only specials, Doctor Who has finally returned. There's been so much anticipation, hype, speculation and even a bit of concern building up to this moment among the fan base of the longest running SciFi series in television history, far more so then there would be for a regular season. Everything is new; new doctor, new companion, new TARDIS, new show runner, new tone for the series, even a new Sonic Screwdriver! So what's the verdict? Change can be both a very good thing, or a very bad thing, and the fans have certainly reflected concerns over all these changes over the past year during the series break. Has Steven Moffat lived up to the challenge? Or is the show now a load of nonsensical tripe? Let's find out.

First off, there's a reason that a show like Doctor Who can survive as long as it has. There's a reason that it's always been a cultural phenomenon. Many SciFi shows fall victim to finding a formula that works initially, then sticking with that formula until it wears into a rut that the show can't get out of. Scripts become recycled and characters get boring because they get predictable. Stargate Atlantis is probably one of the best examples of this type failure. The series started out great and showed great promise of breaking away from the storyline of the previous series, but then fell victim to said recycled plot lines and stale characters who were ripped off from Star Wars to begin with. Essentially, the show never changed. It even started to become a poor rehash of the show it was a spinoff of of. Therefore it died a slow, lingering and arduously BORING death.

Doctor Who has never had that problem. Sure the show has had plenty of ups and downs over the years, the biggest being of course its cancellation in 1989, but the cancellation had little to do with a lack of change (or it could be argued that the show made some of the wrong changes), and the series continued in audio and on film until its television revival in 2005. Now it's more popular then it ever has been before and doesn't show signs of slowing. Why has Doctor Who succeeded where other shows have failed? Because the show DOES change and because it's never afraid to take risks. Sometimes these changes end up turning out badly, but overall, they are the REASON for Doctor Who's success. As long as Doctor Who can change, Doctor Who can be the greatest SciFi series ever conceived. And in my opinion, The 11th Hour and the changes that Steven Moffat has brought to the series are no exception.

So, as fans have been wondering since it was announced 27 year old Matt Smith would play the Doctor, is he too young an actor to fill the part? Absolutely not. Yes, I shared the same trepidation as many other fans when I heard how young the actor to portray the new Doctor would be, but any fears or concerns about his inability to fit into the Doctors' big shoes were instantly blown away the moment he started dipping fish sticks into custard for a midnight snack. Matt Smith has an energy and vitality to him that no actor, not even David Tennant, has been able to bring to the show before. Yet at the same time, he has a certain air of wisdom and experience about him that makes him feel far older then 27. Wisdom and whimsy have always been a part of the Doctors' character, but Matt takes it to new levels in this, his debut episode. He's engaging, wondrous, fun, smart and incredibly eccentric, all of the things the Doctor should be. A minor criticism of his character would be that initially he seems a bit like David Tennants' Doctor, but this could certainly be attributed to his just having regenerated from that Doctor and could be interpreted as one of the many subtle changes that are part of the regeneration process. As the episode progresses the 11th Doctor continually finds his footing and by the end, with the donning of his bow-tie and tweed suit, seems to have firmly established his identity as the new Doctor.

Amy (Amelia) Pond ("like a name in a fairy-tale"), the Doctors' new companion, has definitely had the most unique companion introduction to date. Her initially meeting the Doctor as a little girl has a profound effect on her throughout her life, and when the Doctor meets her again in her late teens, we're shown that she's been fantasizing about "the man with the box" as she's grown up, a fantasy that she's shared with the other people living in the town to the point where even they recognize the Doctor (not recognizing him so much as "The Doctor" but more "Amy's Doctor) in spite of the fact he's just regenerated; a great twist for a post-regeneration story that results in an amusingly initially baffled Doctor. While the acting ability of little the girl who plays young Amy at first is a bit wavy, she ends up being quite charming and establishes good continuity with the older version of Amy, who's headstrong, quick-thinking, and a lot of fun. One of the most interesting aspects of Amy's character is her having to cope with the Doctors' absence in her life as she's grown up; she's tried to suppress her childish fantasies by choosing to become someone who gives "kissograms," a person who delivers a message with a kiss, thereby retaining some of her innocence (as she isn't nearly as much of and adult entertainer as a stripper) while at the same time struggling to find her place in a grown-up world. This subtle handing of Amy's development as a character is another example of Steven Moffats' brilliant writing ability.

A character rarely talked about in all of the hype building up to the new series is that of Amy's boyfriend, Rory Williams. Rory initially was a cause for concern for me, as I feared we had on our hands another "Mickey-like" character, a character who pines and bends over backward for the companion character in spite of her running off with The Doctor, in same the way that Mickey obsessed over Rose. Rory, however, seems far more competent as a character than Mickey; he does his fair share of helping the Doctor in the beginning and also seems to be a much more established part of Amy's life, seeing as she's going to marry (I would assume) him until the moment the Doctor returns and offers to take her with him. Of course she makes sure that The Doctor can bring her back right to the time before she left, presumably because in spite of her fascination with The Doctor she still wants to marry Rory, giving the viewer the impression that she is a far more grounded character than Rose. This is however partial speculation and we'll have to see how the relationship between Rory and Amy plays out over the course of the story in spite of The Doctors' influence.

As for the tone of the new series and the first episode itself, fans will understand what I mean say when I say it's all very "Moffat." The tone is darker and the monsters and themes more mature and frightening, but not to the point where it degrades from the whimsy and enjoyability of the series. In fact, it adds to it. Though the first story isn't flawless, it follows past themes of Moffats' writing with the making of simple, everyday things into terrifying ones (this time its' a crack in the wall actually being a crack to another dimension where a giant eyeball stares from the other side) and is overall quite good and enjoyable. Of course a "mediocre" story by Moffat standards is light years better then any other current show-writers' best episodes, but this one is far better than mediocre to begin with. This episode, and the series return as a whole, has been nothing but flipping fantastic.

Doctor Who at long last has returned, and its return has been far better then I could have hoped.


Amy - "It's just...there's a whole world in here just like you said. It's all true. I thought, well I was starting to think that you were just a madman with a box."

Doctor - "Amy Pond, there's something you'd better understand about me because it's important and one day, your life may depend on it. I am definitely a mad man with a box!"

Doctor Who and all related characters, terms and media are owned by the BBC. All rights reserved.D

My take on the new Conan the Barbarian Film

For those of you who may not know, there is a new Conan The Barbarian film in the works. As a huge Conan the Barbarian fan I'm definitely stoked for this movie but at the same time I'm also a bit concerned:

What little information there is available on it states that it'll be released in 2011. The directer of the film is one Marcus Nispel; known mostly for his work in advertising and music videos. The few films he has done haven't been considered all that great. He directed the weak remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the "historical fiction" film called The Pathfinder which is about a Viking boy who is left behind after the Vikings raided a Native American village (he grows up raised by the Indians and ends up fighting the very Vikings who left him there to defend his new home; it was critically panned but I enjoyed it on a pure "action-fest" level), and also the most recent Friday the 13th movie. While all of these films have a certain flair to them when it comes to action sadly none of them have been very good. Of course I'd expect a Conan The Barbarian film to be action oriented but that doesn't mean it can't have a good story.

As for the actor casted to play Conan, enter Jason Momoa. You might know him for his recent role as the stoic "Rhonin" on Stargate Atlantis. While I definitely think he has the right skin tone to play Conan, I'm worried he's a bit lanky to play the bulky barbarian, who's essentially a mass of muscles. When Arnold played the character in the 1980s films he was a former champion weight lifter, so I'm wondering how Momoa could possibly stack up. While the 1982 Conan film diverged a great deal from the Robert E. Howard stories (some of the best Sword and Sorcery fantasy ever written by the way), the film also used a lot of the same themes that Howard employed and did at least exemplify the Sword and Sorcery genre.

Again, while I'm excited about the possibilities of a new Conan film, I'm concerned that it'll simply end up being another shabby remake in an age where film studios seem desperate to capture anything remotely nostalgic and crap it out on film in order to make a quick buck. I really want this movie to be good as Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian character and pre-historic setting are to me just as influential on the genre of fantasy (influencing everything from Thundarr to Masters of the Universe) as The Lord of the Rings trilogy is. It's also equally influential to me as a writer of SciFi and Fantasy, so I'd really rather not see Hollywood screw it up.

I guess we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed.