Though the main focus of the Cannes Film Festival is on feature-length films, it would not be right to ignore the short films that are screened within the Short Film Corner. Some films that I have seen have been decent at best in terms of production value and story, so like many others; I found it easier to ignore the short films. But one that stuck out to me was a film called Ashes to Ashes: A Batman Fan Film. Now, the main reason that it stuck out to me was due to the fact that it was portraying my favorite superhero and I was admittedly excited to see a French director’s rendition of the caped-crusader. So being a Batman fan, I only felt right to comment on this Batman fan film.
To start, the storyline, as it is summarized in its description, was set in 1938 during a depression in Gotham City. Eddy, Charles and Sergio, three petty criminals, decide to break into the mansion that overhangs their city to steal whatever may be valuable. Upon breaking in, they stumble upon Alfred the Butler who, realizing their motives, tries to stop them from stealing from the Manor. As a result, he is stabbed by one of the men and left to die as they run off into the night. A scream of agony is heard when Bruce Wayne finds his butler dead on the floor. The result is a hunt for the criminals that murdered his friend.
The film’s style is an explicit reference to that of Frank Miller. The same colors and negatives are used to create a dark picture of Gotham and the characters themselves. The city sky is bright red and blinding white lights seem to engulf every scene, creating deep shadows. As a result, there is a comic book, Film Noir feel to the production as a whole. Which, in a certain manner, achieves the look that the directors Julien Mokrani and Samuel Bodin seek to create. In terms of effectiveness, I believe that although the style is not original, the use of it for a Batman mini-film works well. The most powerful shot to me was of Batman’s ominous figure overshadowing everything in a cathedral. It created a cool darkness for Batman, looming over the criminal like the angel of Death.
But where some shots worked really well for the film, others tended to go too far with the use of negatives and overexposure. I know the overexposure was done in post editing to create the luminous feel to the film, but it makes the film look a bit too grainy. Some of the shots were really great, but the glittering lights diminished the composition of the frame. It would have been beneficial to keep that Film Noir look with deep shadow and harsh light, without going overboard.
In terms of the literature behind Batman, the film plays off of a more recent interpretation of the Dark Knight as a more sinister character who is trying to find a balance between justice and revenge. Thus, when the film depicts Batman choking a criminal in a cathedral, though not canon literature, the interpretation can still be considered valid.
The film watches much like a comic book would read. There is an omniscient narrator who tells the story of these three criminals as each one is taken out by either Batman or one of Batman’s arch nemeses. There is a bit of weakness in having this narration because it seeks to try and make everything dark and deep. But the narrator’s lines come off a bit too over inflated with unnecessary comparisons like, “Guilt is like a bad diarrhea.” I couldn’t help but laugh hysterically.
The scenes themselves do not edit together perfectly, which is also reminiscent of comic book story frames. Each miniature scene goes in a logical order, but without the context of the narrator, you wouldn’t be able to follow the narrative. That being said, I did like the way that the editors jumped from character to character. Each character is revealed at the expense of another. For example, in the end, the Joker has kidnapped and tortured one of the three criminals in an effort to lure Batman into a trap. This instance is the first time that we see the Joker and it shifts our attention from Eddy, who is near death.
But I was also a bit confused by the narrative once I got past a certain point in the film. I understood why Batman was hunting the men down, but I did not get why the Joker showed up for any reason. The Joker talks about how he wants Batman’s attention because he likes “playing” with him. But the was never any real stake that this foe had in the killing of Alfred or in dealing with Batman for this film. I felt like the goal was to get some type of enemy from the actual Batman series into the film in order to maintain an actual Batman story. But this addition wasn’t put into the film with the most fluid transition.
I would like to point out, however, that despite some of these narrative issues, it was not at all like the film didn’t make sense. It made a great deal of sense and I was able to follow it for the most part from beginning to end. I could tell who was who and identify certain characters based upon character traits set up by the writers and directors. This aspect is truly awesome for a film that was a little shorter than a half-hour. I was also really impressed by two directors overall, because the production value was so high. It was ten times better than some of the stuff that I saw in the Short Film corner. But most of all, the best part about this film was that it was entertaining. I went away from the film a bit excited. For a fan fiction film it did a great job at portraying Batman and I felt that if given the chance, these two men have a lot of potential to make some other great shorts. I would recommend at least checking it out if anyone gets the chance to see it on their website or in the Short Film Corner.
Credits
Run Time: 23 minutes
Director: Julien Mokrani, Samuel Bodin
Producer: Samuel Bodin
Writer: Samuel Bodin
Cast: Julien Honore, Arnaud Bichon, Bylvain Elie
Gargoyle Films
Ashes to Ashes is a non-profit film being made for private use, and is not intended for sales. BATMAN copyright DC Comics Warner Bros, All Rights Reserved
Check out Ashes to Ashes at www.ASHESTOASHES-THEMOVIE.com
Saturday, May 22, 2010
OUTRAGE
Expensive cars, business suits, and guns, everything a mafia movie needs. From the beginning of the film it is evident who the big Yakuza boss is, who the underlings are, and the type of operation that the Japanese mafia is running. Within fifteen minutes of the opening of the film someone has already “disrespected” the big boss, and as a result some dirty dealings have to be done. But in a film that relies on betrayal and revenge, shouldn’t you be rooting for at least one of the characters? I mean, there has to be someone that I want to win in the end, right? Maybe someone like the Yakuza boss? Or even one of the underbosses? I’m just not sure that in this film you are ever hoping that one of these gangsters will achieve something.
This film’s focus seems to meander around a group of people, never really deciding which man it is going to truly focus on. But overall, the main plot centers on the inner workings of the Ikemoto family, a small family within the Yakuza mob circle who are seeking to expand their crime empire. Ikemoto, the leader has been dealing drugs with an up and coming crime boss, Murase, who Ikemoto seeks to bump off and take over the turf. He sets up a dispute between his crime ring and that of his co-conspirator in order to create a miniature war that will force his friend’s retirement.
But the backstabbing doesn’t stop there. Otomo, who is the man that does the dirty work, (and who I think may be the main character if there is one) seeks to help his boss force Ikemoto to retire at the same time in order to rise in the gang’s ranks of leadership. Yet, this action does not actually occur until close to the end of the film. Otomo spends the main part of the film performing various violent acts on behalf of the Ikemoto family.
The Yakuza boss who seems to be orchestrating everything has some grand scheme to get rid of Ikemoto, Murase, and establish his right-hand man as the new Ikemoto boss. He does so by making promises with the other gangsters like Otomo, saying if his boss dies, then he will be assured a higher position. But then, he goes around on his word and promises it to someone else. Ultimately, his efforts destroy the Ikemoto family, which must have been his goal, but then he is ironically killed by his own right-hand man who then takes over the Yakuza Empire. Thus, we are left with very few people to follow after we’ve watched them for almost two hours.
Though Outrage or Autoreiji has the hopes of being a great modern mobster film, the convoluted plot really takes away from the film as a whole. This confusion likely comes out of the fact that I didn’t know who to follow. I wanted someone who had some redeeming qualities to have reason for killing off these other “bad guys.” But it seems that no one in the actual film has an attachment to one another. The film portrays all of the underbosses and grunts that perform the day-to-day illegal operations as completely opportunistic, waiting for their chance to shoot the boss and take over. If there is no loyalty or redemption, then the director may be showing us that within this criminal hierarchy, there is no real structure, and the end result is just a constant bloodbath.
But then what is the goal of the film? Who are we rooting for? If there is no structure, then what does it matter that this family is being killed off and this other man is taking control? Is the goal simply to show how the Yakuza operates? Or is it just a plot based around ideas for killing people? Shouldn’t the deaths of these men mean something to the audience?
Kitano, as writer and director, really did his job well in exemplifying the brutality of these gangsters. The amount of times that I had to look away from the screen really speaks to how visual these murders and tortures were. But shock-value doesn’t speak for how good a film is. There should have been some allegiance created with these characters so that when they were shot or hung, I would feel sorrow for them. But, this film depicts the lives of these people as meaningless.
In terms of cinematography, I did think that it was well done. The opening sequence of men standing outside of a row of cars waiting for their bosses emphasizes the intricacy and expanse of the Yakuza crime ring.
One scene that really stood out to me is when Otomo enters a steam room where Murase is relaxing with his other gangster friends. The camera pans over to Murase and two others sitting in the corner and then back to Otomo who draws his gun. We see Otomo fire six shots, lower his weapon, and walk slowly out of the shower doors all in one take. It then reveals the result of his shooting: the men lying in the corner as the showers continue to run as normal. The framing of the shot is a great representation of good filmmaking, and one that I will remember.
Even though the ending is clever, and the cinematography is great, the film can’t be held together by these things alone. The plot just was not tight enough to allow for the audience to identify with and follow the life of even one character. In the end I just didn’t care that there was a new boss. To me it didn’t matter that Otomo is stabbed in prison and the Ikemoto family was wiped away from their turf. I believe the film is worth watching, and maybe someone will get a different perspective. But, ultimately I didn’t leave the cinema satisfied with the film.
Credits
Run time: 1 hr 49 min.
Director: Takeshi Kitano
Writer: Takeshi Kitano
Actors: Takeshi Kitano, Ryo Kase, Jun Kunimura, Kippei Shiina
Producers: Masayuki Mori, Takio Yoshida
Cinematography: Katsumi Yanagijima
Rated R for violence, language and brief sexuality
Bandai Visual Company
This film’s focus seems to meander around a group of people, never really deciding which man it is going to truly focus on. But overall, the main plot centers on the inner workings of the Ikemoto family, a small family within the Yakuza mob circle who are seeking to expand their crime empire. Ikemoto, the leader has been dealing drugs with an up and coming crime boss, Murase, who Ikemoto seeks to bump off and take over the turf. He sets up a dispute between his crime ring and that of his co-conspirator in order to create a miniature war that will force his friend’s retirement.
But the backstabbing doesn’t stop there. Otomo, who is the man that does the dirty work, (and who I think may be the main character if there is one) seeks to help his boss force Ikemoto to retire at the same time in order to rise in the gang’s ranks of leadership. Yet, this action does not actually occur until close to the end of the film. Otomo spends the main part of the film performing various violent acts on behalf of the Ikemoto family.
The Yakuza boss who seems to be orchestrating everything has some grand scheme to get rid of Ikemoto, Murase, and establish his right-hand man as the new Ikemoto boss. He does so by making promises with the other gangsters like Otomo, saying if his boss dies, then he will be assured a higher position. But then, he goes around on his word and promises it to someone else. Ultimately, his efforts destroy the Ikemoto family, which must have been his goal, but then he is ironically killed by his own right-hand man who then takes over the Yakuza Empire. Thus, we are left with very few people to follow after we’ve watched them for almost two hours.
Though Outrage or Autoreiji has the hopes of being a great modern mobster film, the convoluted plot really takes away from the film as a whole. This confusion likely comes out of the fact that I didn’t know who to follow. I wanted someone who had some redeeming qualities to have reason for killing off these other “bad guys.” But it seems that no one in the actual film has an attachment to one another. The film portrays all of the underbosses and grunts that perform the day-to-day illegal operations as completely opportunistic, waiting for their chance to shoot the boss and take over. If there is no loyalty or redemption, then the director may be showing us that within this criminal hierarchy, there is no real structure, and the end result is just a constant bloodbath.
But then what is the goal of the film? Who are we rooting for? If there is no structure, then what does it matter that this family is being killed off and this other man is taking control? Is the goal simply to show how the Yakuza operates? Or is it just a plot based around ideas for killing people? Shouldn’t the deaths of these men mean something to the audience?
Kitano, as writer and director, really did his job well in exemplifying the brutality of these gangsters. The amount of times that I had to look away from the screen really speaks to how visual these murders and tortures were. But shock-value doesn’t speak for how good a film is. There should have been some allegiance created with these characters so that when they were shot or hung, I would feel sorrow for them. But, this film depicts the lives of these people as meaningless.
In terms of cinematography, I did think that it was well done. The opening sequence of men standing outside of a row of cars waiting for their bosses emphasizes the intricacy and expanse of the Yakuza crime ring.
One scene that really stood out to me is when Otomo enters a steam room where Murase is relaxing with his other gangster friends. The camera pans over to Murase and two others sitting in the corner and then back to Otomo who draws his gun. We see Otomo fire six shots, lower his weapon, and walk slowly out of the shower doors all in one take. It then reveals the result of his shooting: the men lying in the corner as the showers continue to run as normal. The framing of the shot is a great representation of good filmmaking, and one that I will remember.
Even though the ending is clever, and the cinematography is great, the film can’t be held together by these things alone. The plot just was not tight enough to allow for the audience to identify with and follow the life of even one character. In the end I just didn’t care that there was a new boss. To me it didn’t matter that Otomo is stabbed in prison and the Ikemoto family was wiped away from their turf. I believe the film is worth watching, and maybe someone will get a different perspective. But, ultimately I didn’t leave the cinema satisfied with the film.
Credits
Run time: 1 hr 49 min.
Director: Takeshi Kitano
Writer: Takeshi Kitano
Actors: Takeshi Kitano, Ryo Kase, Jun Kunimura, Kippei Shiina
Producers: Masayuki Mori, Takio Yoshida
Cinematography: Katsumi Yanagijima
Rated R for violence, language and brief sexuality
Bandai Visual Company
Monday, May 17, 2010
GASLAND
Though slightly overlooked in terms of attention at the actual festival, GasLand is a film that truly deserves whatever hype, if any, that it is given. Josh Fox, writer and director of this seemingly amateur documentary, delves into the lives of those fooled by the nation’s biggest natural gas corporations. The film beautifully and shockingly portrays the negative affects that are associated with what our nation has been pushing as the cleanest and most efficient alternative energy for Americans to use. We see the advertisements everywhere for natural gas and its possibilities, but this film shatters the illusion that it is an all-benefits resource.
When I entered the screening, I must admit that I was a bit nervous about the documentary itself. I thought maybe that this film would be much like “An Inconvenient Truth,” which despite its information, I didn’t much enjoy. But as the film opened with Fox’s raspy and soothing voice over discontinuous shots of nature, I knew I was onto something different.
Fox begins the film with a simple phrase of, “ let’s start here” and a picture of Dick Cheney. This immediately tells us that it is political in nature, but then he quickly withdraws, as if his mind is changing along with the audience’s. He then says, “wait, no, we’ll begin here,” with a picture of his home that resides next to a stream that flows into the Delaware River. He shows beautiful serene landscape filled with sounds of chirping birds and flowing waters. You feel as if you are staring back in time as there is no development around his home and he gratefully says “this is a place to get away from it all.” But this all was about to change with the arrival of a document on his doorstep. It is from a natural gas corporation that wanted to offer him a lucrative deal by signing over the rights to build a natural gas well on his land. He resides in a part of the country that sits on top of what he called, “a vast ocean,” or, “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” We feel his personal curiosity and see with our eyes the meaning that this country home has to him. Thus, we begin this investigative work at his doorstep. It seems almost as if he got the letter and immediately picked up his camera to study what the result of his personal decision would be. Thus, as he further invests time in searching for answers, we invest allegiance to Fox and the people that he is serving.
By far, the driving force of the documentary is his contact with other people. Unlike a Michael Moore documentary where it is evident that we get the opinion that suits the director’s point the best, Fox seems to have no control over what the people will say. He approaches the interview as ignorant as the audience is about the affects of natural gas drilling, as if he is just learning about the problems himself. The result is pure honesty that shine’s through with each person’s story. Though the director takes an obvious stand and seeks to have you side with him in the end, he does not beat you over the head with the idea, but slowly and surely draws you into it so that you feel just as wronged as those who have been hurt by the chemical process of “fracking.”
“Fracking,” as Fox explains, is the process of hydraulic fracturing, which is a drilling process that uses a cocktail of volatile chemicals as lubricants in order to reach and release natural gas depositories hundreds of feet below the surface. Pressurized gas is then sent through this hole causing the pressure below ground to build and burst so that it releases this natural gas for tapping. However, with the rise of this gas and use of these chemicals, the ground water around the site becomes heavily contaminated. The majority of our drinking water comes from ground water, and the chemicals that resurface in this water are extremely dangerous to ingest or be around in general. Fox creates an exhausting list of known carcinogens and poisons that are used in the fracking process. And we see the effects of these chemicals on the people around these wellheads. Health problems ranging from phantom pains, to serious migraines, to brain damage are sited over and over again as he interviews person after person from Arkansas to Arizona. But this is nothing compared to the spectacle that is discovered early on in the film, which is combusting tap water. Fox turns the flaming water into an amusing trick with the use of montage and cheerful banjo music. But as soon as the music drops, and the faces of the families change to confusion and distress, we realize the impact that this spectacle has. No water in their home is safe to drink or even bathe in. We see this with family after family. The only downside to this repetition is that the shock value tends to decrease as the film goes on, and as a result the film drags a bit. But this in and of itself makes Fox’s point clearer. The sheer number of people that “fracking” has hurt only credits the documentary so much more. And as the documentary goes on, all it makes you think is how are the corporations allowed to do this?
The impact resounds when Fox talks about the legislature that was introduced during the Bush-Cheney era when Cheney signed legislation that exempted Natural Gas drilling from the Clean Water Act, allowing these corporations to use hydraulic fracturing without reporting what chemicals are used during the actual process. The documentary finishes with a press conference between politicians and company representatives on the subject of a bill proposal that seeks to make companies report chemicals for fracking. The camera closes in and the representatives speak, “there have been no findings linking these problems to hydraulic fracturing.”
Though it entertains, the power of this film is in its informative nature. Having never heard about hydraulic fracturing or its negative effects, I felt overwhelmed by the situation, yet appreciative of the director for sharing this story. Fox infuses his emotions, sarcasm, and fears into his commentary and interactions with these people. Overall, he inspires a reason to be concerned, be aware, and take action. I definitely see this film gaining a lot of attention when it gets a larger distribution.
Cast & Credits
Josh Fox, writer, director, editor
International WOW Company
Run Time: 107 minutes
When I entered the screening, I must admit that I was a bit nervous about the documentary itself. I thought maybe that this film would be much like “An Inconvenient Truth,” which despite its information, I didn’t much enjoy. But as the film opened with Fox’s raspy and soothing voice over discontinuous shots of nature, I knew I was onto something different.
Fox begins the film with a simple phrase of, “ let’s start here” and a picture of Dick Cheney. This immediately tells us that it is political in nature, but then he quickly withdraws, as if his mind is changing along with the audience’s. He then says, “wait, no, we’ll begin here,” with a picture of his home that resides next to a stream that flows into the Delaware River. He shows beautiful serene landscape filled with sounds of chirping birds and flowing waters. You feel as if you are staring back in time as there is no development around his home and he gratefully says “this is a place to get away from it all.” But this all was about to change with the arrival of a document on his doorstep. It is from a natural gas corporation that wanted to offer him a lucrative deal by signing over the rights to build a natural gas well on his land. He resides in a part of the country that sits on top of what he called, “a vast ocean,” or, “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” We feel his personal curiosity and see with our eyes the meaning that this country home has to him. Thus, we begin this investigative work at his doorstep. It seems almost as if he got the letter and immediately picked up his camera to study what the result of his personal decision would be. Thus, as he further invests time in searching for answers, we invest allegiance to Fox and the people that he is serving.
By far, the driving force of the documentary is his contact with other people. Unlike a Michael Moore documentary where it is evident that we get the opinion that suits the director’s point the best, Fox seems to have no control over what the people will say. He approaches the interview as ignorant as the audience is about the affects of natural gas drilling, as if he is just learning about the problems himself. The result is pure honesty that shine’s through with each person’s story. Though the director takes an obvious stand and seeks to have you side with him in the end, he does not beat you over the head with the idea, but slowly and surely draws you into it so that you feel just as wronged as those who have been hurt by the chemical process of “fracking.”
“Fracking,” as Fox explains, is the process of hydraulic fracturing, which is a drilling process that uses a cocktail of volatile chemicals as lubricants in order to reach and release natural gas depositories hundreds of feet below the surface. Pressurized gas is then sent through this hole causing the pressure below ground to build and burst so that it releases this natural gas for tapping. However, with the rise of this gas and use of these chemicals, the ground water around the site becomes heavily contaminated. The majority of our drinking water comes from ground water, and the chemicals that resurface in this water are extremely dangerous to ingest or be around in general. Fox creates an exhausting list of known carcinogens and poisons that are used in the fracking process. And we see the effects of these chemicals on the people around these wellheads. Health problems ranging from phantom pains, to serious migraines, to brain damage are sited over and over again as he interviews person after person from Arkansas to Arizona. But this is nothing compared to the spectacle that is discovered early on in the film, which is combusting tap water. Fox turns the flaming water into an amusing trick with the use of montage and cheerful banjo music. But as soon as the music drops, and the faces of the families change to confusion and distress, we realize the impact that this spectacle has. No water in their home is safe to drink or even bathe in. We see this with family after family. The only downside to this repetition is that the shock value tends to decrease as the film goes on, and as a result the film drags a bit. But this in and of itself makes Fox’s point clearer. The sheer number of people that “fracking” has hurt only credits the documentary so much more. And as the documentary goes on, all it makes you think is how are the corporations allowed to do this?
The impact resounds when Fox talks about the legislature that was introduced during the Bush-Cheney era when Cheney signed legislation that exempted Natural Gas drilling from the Clean Water Act, allowing these corporations to use hydraulic fracturing without reporting what chemicals are used during the actual process. The documentary finishes with a press conference between politicians and company representatives on the subject of a bill proposal that seeks to make companies report chemicals for fracking. The camera closes in and the representatives speak, “there have been no findings linking these problems to hydraulic fracturing.”
Though it entertains, the power of this film is in its informative nature. Having never heard about hydraulic fracturing or its negative effects, I felt overwhelmed by the situation, yet appreciative of the director for sharing this story. Fox infuses his emotions, sarcasm, and fears into his commentary and interactions with these people. Overall, he inspires a reason to be concerned, be aware, and take action. I definitely see this film gaining a lot of attention when it gets a larger distribution.
Cast & Credits
Josh Fox, writer, director, editor
International WOW Company
Run Time: 107 minutes
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
KICK ASS
Kick Ass: Your average everyday comic book hero with super-strength, agility, and laser-vision—Oh wait! Kick-Ass?! Okay, different story. It’s your not so average everyday comic book hero story. Kick-Ass is the tale of Dave Lizewski, a nerdy teenager who is awkward with girls, doesn’t really fit in at his high school, and has an obsession with comic books. Sounds like the story of Spider-Man right? Only this story totally lacks any super powers. That’s right, no web slinging. But we still get the taste of caped-crusading when Dave decides to create his alternate personality Kick-Ass by donning a bright green wetsuit.
The feature that truly sets this film apart from other superhero classics is the mere violence and realism that the film portrays. Instead of saving the day, Dave consistently gets thwarted by bad guy after bad guy, beaten to a pulp by even the most miniscule criminals. His fallibility is what makes his character so relatable and drives the film’s plot as a whole. The violence grows exponentially as Dave’s story collides with that of two other superheroes, Hit Girl and Big Daddy, who seek to take revenge on the local crime lord Frank D’Amico. Its dark vengeful tone combined with an ironically colorful mis-en-scene make for hilarious, over-the-top action sequences that are reminiscent of Kill Bill or The Killer. However, the violent material has also caused Kick-Ass to receive quite a bit of flack. An Australian website Sydney Confidential reported that “the rating has outraged Australian family groups…the language is offensive and the values inappropriate—without the saving grace of the bloodless victory of traditional superheroes.”
The violence, though excessive, is a commentary on other films of the superhero genre. Films like Watchmen and The Dark Knight are shifting the style of these films in a darker direction. Though Kick-Ass is not a movie that would likely win awards for stunning cinematography or flawless acting, it is a great example of an emerging theme among present films. It is very reflective of the times. During harsh periods of uncertainty, which many people would consider our current economic situation, people look to a macabre depiction of life. The important message of this film is that in a world where crime and sadness are all too present, there is justice, it is just up to us to take it into our hands.
"Family Outrage at Film Kick Ass Violence and Swearing | The Daily Telegraph." The Daily Telegraph | Breaking News, Videos and Pictures from Sydney, NSW, Australia and the World | DailyTelegraph. Web. 05 May 2010..
VIDEO: Kick Ass - Hit Girl trailer
The feature that truly sets this film apart from other superhero classics is the mere violence and realism that the film portrays. Instead of saving the day, Dave consistently gets thwarted by bad guy after bad guy, beaten to a pulp by even the most miniscule criminals. His fallibility is what makes his character so relatable and drives the film’s plot as a whole. The violence grows exponentially as Dave’s story collides with that of two other superheroes, Hit Girl and Big Daddy, who seek to take revenge on the local crime lord Frank D’Amico. Its dark vengeful tone combined with an ironically colorful mis-en-scene make for hilarious, over-the-top action sequences that are reminiscent of Kill Bill or The Killer. However, the violent material has also caused Kick-Ass to receive quite a bit of flack. An Australian website Sydney Confidential reported that “the rating has outraged Australian family groups…the language is offensive and the values inappropriate—without the saving grace of the bloodless victory of traditional superheroes.”
The violence, though excessive, is a commentary on other films of the superhero genre. Films like Watchmen and The Dark Knight are shifting the style of these films in a darker direction. Though Kick-Ass is not a movie that would likely win awards for stunning cinematography or flawless acting, it is a great example of an emerging theme among present films. It is very reflective of the times. During harsh periods of uncertainty, which many people would consider our current economic situation, people look to a macabre depiction of life. The important message of this film is that in a world where crime and sadness are all too present, there is justice, it is just up to us to take it into our hands.
"Family Outrage at Film Kick Ass Violence and Swearing | The Daily Telegraph." The Daily Telegraph | Breaking News, Videos and Pictures from Sydney, NSW, Australia and the World | DailyTelegraph. Web. 05 May 2010.
VIDEO: Kick Ass - Hit Girl trailer
Start Blogging
All right, because of finals I have not yet done my film review, but I will have it up tonight. I will be writing about the new movie "KICK ASS."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)