It was a good movie, the characters were well developed and solidly developed. The first scene with Hit-Girl and Big Daddy had me rolling. Was probably the only movie this year that I have not walked out of disappointed.
Very solid movie. go see.
Good movie. Maybe not as good as Sin City, but if you like Sin City I would definitely say go see this! Nicholas Cage and Hit Girl were awesome
Kickass was awesome…but I think im being bias. Got a handjob halfway through the movie.
Btw,Mclovin fucking sucked. That dude should have never gotten that part. Superbad is probally the only movie he’ll be ever be good for.
ONE LAST THING;I was thinking of Lyndsy Fonseca (Katie or Kickass girlfriend) when fucking the cumdumpster after teh movie. DEM EYES/TITS
That movie ROCKED AZZ. It was Hard. No joke it earned that R-rating.
Man this movie was awesome and much funnier than I thought it’d be. Hopefully id does well enough to warrant a sequel.
[quote]drewh wrote:
Man this movie was awesome and much funnier than I thought it’d be. Hopefully id does well enough to warrant a sequel.[/quote]
This really deserves to do well if only for the fact that it isn’t a studio movie, even though it appears to be. Matthew Vaughan pitched it to all the major studios, but they turned it down flat because of the controversial subject matter (‘controversial’ here meaning ‘not-excessively-dumbed-down-to-appeal-to-the-teenage-demographic’).
He actually put up most of the budget himself, so it’s basically an unusually expensive indie film with all the benefits of a big-budget movie, but none of the disadvantages. Vaughan said he was in the unique position of being able to call his own shots, with absolutely no studio interference (which is usually why most blockbusters turn out so badly…except for George Lucas. He only has himself to blame - too much money, too much control).
Here’s hoping that more directors will follow Matthew Vaughan’s example. The only way that’s going to happen is if Kick-Ass does good business. It can only mean a better standard of mainstream movie.
Not as funny as I thought it would be.
Ok movie, nothing great.
Hit Girl was pretty cool though.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Not as funny as I thought it would be.
Ok movie, nothing great.
Hit Girl was pretty cool though.
[/quote]
Hit Girl was the reason Hollywood wouldn’t touch the script in the first place. It’s just not ‘proper’ for a character like that to appear in a mainstream movie (too many people would ‘object’ by not buying tickets).
The character worked so well because you didn’t expect her to act that way, and that’s the whole premise of the graphic novel - to invert comic book conventions and find superheroes in the unlikeliest of places. In the end, the fact that Hollywood wouldn’t touch it worked to the movie’s advantage because Hit Girl appeared to be in a Hollywood movie and we expected her to act accordingly, which made her even more memorable when she did the opposite of what we expected her to do.
Some changes were made from the graphic novel, but tonally it’s one of the more faithful adaptations out there.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]drewh wrote:
Man this movie was awesome and much funnier than I thought it’d be. Hopefully id does well enough to warrant a sequel.[/quote]
This really deserves to do well if only for the fact that it isn’t a studio movie, even though it appears to be. Matthew Vaughan pitched it to all the major studios, but they turned it down flat because of the controversial subject matter (‘controversial’ here meaning ‘not-excessively-dumbed-down-to-appeal-to-the-teenage-demographic’).
He actually put up most of the budget himself, so it’s basically an unusually expensive indie film with all the benefits of a big-budget movie, but none of the disadvantages. Vaughan said he was in the unique position of being able to call his own shots, with absolutely no studio interference (which is usually why most blockbusters turn out so badly…except for George Lucas. He only has himself to blame - too much money, too much control).
Here’s hoping that more directors will follow Matthew Vaughan’s example. The only way that’s going to happen is if Kick-Ass does good business. It can only mean a better standard of mainstream movie.[/quote]
It was picked up by Brad Pitt’s company.
Yeah I know Brad Pitt produced it, but the majority of the 50 million dollar budget came from Matthew Vaughan’s own pocket (he said that he had no other choice if he wanted to make it). Mark Millar said that there were maybe two or three other investors involved. There was no studio backing, which is a huge risk for a superhero movie…and a pretty big deal for Matthew Vaughan if Kick-Ass flopped…
I saw this movie last week and really enjoyed it.
Just saw it and Gawd Damn that movie earned its R rating! It is refreshing to see an action flick and actually cheer during the action scenes instead of yawn or have a serious GTFOH response. The last 30 minutes were an action Orgy the likes of which I have not seen in some time. This guy seriously knows how to direct an action sequence. I would actually pay to see it again it was that good.
Won’t read all the comments in this thread but I must say Kick-ass was a LOT better than i expected. much more gory (it wasnt really but still) and badass than i thought it would be. check it out. it was also pretty funny too
I loved it. I have new respect for Nicholas Cage.
Went to see this with the bird.
She thought it was stupid but me? Loved it.
Particularly Cage playing his role exactly like Adam Wests Batman. Pretty fucking inpsired if you ask me.
How come the baddest superhero in superhero movies the last 5 years is a 10 year old girl? She killed more people then spiderman, Xmen and the hulk movies.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
How come the baddest superhero in superhero movies the last 5 years is a 10 year old girl? She killed more people then spiderman, Xmen and the hulk movies.[/quote]
Well spiderman doesn’t kill people anyways… hulk really has no excuse… Xmen aren’t gonna do much killing either