Kick-Ass 2

Dustin: 2 of 5 stars Nick: 2 of 5 stars Average: 2 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Nick: In Kick-Ass 2, Aaron Taylor-Johnson shares top billing with Chloë Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Hit Girl is trying to assimilate to normal teen life, while Kick-Ass is trying to become as “kick ass” as Hit Girl. What did you think, Dustin?

Dustin: I didn't dislike it as much as some other critics, who are basically suggesting if you like this movie you’re a bad person. While, I understand why people are put off by these movies, I found the first one appealing. However, this one felt like a thin bookend to the first.

What about you?

Nick: The focus was narrower in this film, which is something the first film should have done.  Kick-Ass’s girlfriend was one of the most pointless characters in film history, and thankfully she was cast aside quickly (though from something moronic). In a way, Kick-Ass 2 is as enjoyable as its predecessor, maybe because there wasn't a 12-year-old girl maliciously murdering “innocent” hookers with a spear through the abdomen.

Dustin: I’m not sure they should have been so quick to get rid of Kick-Ass’s girlfriend knowing now they were setting up something of a romance angle between Kick-Ass and Hit Girl. She is creepily young for him. Too young to be set up as a romantic interest in a movie. Which also raises the question of these movies’ timelines. In the first movie, she looks 11 or so, and Kick-Ass was 17. In this movie, she seems to have aged by three or four years, but Kick-Ass has apparently only aged by one year. (Edit: In Kick-Ass, Taylor-Johnson was 19, and Moretz was 13. In Kick-Ass 2, Taylor-Johnson is 23, and Moretz is 16. Both were probably younger when filming began.)

Nick: Fun Fact: Aaron Taylor-Johnson is married to a woman twice his age and he has two kids with her. So he goes for cougars in real life but likes kittens in films.

True, his girlfriend had only one line and after all the pointless screen time she received in the first one, I would have figured they'd give her more lines and a better reason to get off screen.

Dustin: Another problem I had with this film is the superheroes are supposed to be real, and they try to establish this is set in the real world by saying things like, “This isn't a comic, it’s real life.” But the action is so over the top, and Hit Girl’s stunts are especially unrealistic, so it becomes hard to suspend disbelief. The same could reasonably be said about the first film, but I didn't have this problem when I watched that one, because I thought the first movie established its tone and style better.

Nick: Hit Girl and Big Daddy’s chemistry in the first one is surely missing here. The way the characters played off each other and the creepiness of both are what convinced me that this might be set in the real world. Though Kick-Ass, on the other hand, is what really gets to me at times. Smart, good looking, funny, caring and genuine, but he gets played off as a loser who only has two friends in a gigantic high school. This archetype has and will always drive me a little insane.  How about we don't play him off as a loser, just a shut-in that everyone ignores because he is shy and doesn't care to talk to anyone? But no, he gets bullied by jocks and the hot girl thinks he’s gay.

Dustin: I thought the comic bits where she thinks he’s gay were fine. I thought he was more relatable in the first movie. I liked that he was the lovable awkward boy. Here, he is more of a cardboard cutout of a character. I also preferred Hit Girl more when we didn't know as much about her personal life and feelings. Her inner thoughts only came out in revealing bits of dialogue in the first film, and I would have preferred it stay that way.

Nick: Hit Girl is way more of an interesting character, but I agree that they failed to do much with it, and the vomit/diarrhea scene was pointless.

Dustin: That scene might be appealing if you like fart jokes. I liked her idea of humiliating those girls, and the scene could have done better with the material. But the sound effects were more like something out of a dumb kids’ movie than a superhero movie set in the real world. The scene could have been effective if it had been scaled back.

Nick: Kick-Ass was better from a technical standpoint, but I actually enjoyed this story more. It might be because Zombieland came out right before Kick-Ass, and the main characters of both are annoying archetypes where they make the main character a loser and make all the characters around that cardboard character way more interesting ala Tennessee (Woody Harrelson). While in this film Kick Ass was transforming from his “loser” character into something that doesn't even have an archetype, which I love because simply defining people by names will never work for me. Just calling someone a "loser" doesn't make them a loser, just like putting the word “Amazing” in the title of The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't make it amazing. It’s a way to put the idea that it is what they want you to think it is without ever really developing the character.

Dustin: I thought the first one was better, not just stylistically. I liked the origin story. And I thought Kick-Ass was more relatable. For example, in the scene where he and Red Mist are driving around and dancing like goofy dweebs to Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy” they both come off as more human, and you understand the dynamic between the two characters without one word of dialogue.

Dustin: Both these movies got some very passionate negative reviews. What do you think of the reactions?

Nick: Before I saw the first Kick-Ass (while very excitedly waiting for it), I did something that was uncommon for me and read a review because of how negative it was. It was Roger Ebert’s review. While I disagreed with him about half the time (maybe more) on whether a film was good, he tore into the film for the uber-violence stemming from a 12-year-old, and I rolled my eyes because he had the same reaction towards Leon: The Professional, where a young Natalie Portman trained to be an assassin, and the film is actually quite brilliant. So I went into the theater, and while I laughed a ton and was annoyed by its complete lack of focus, the thing that disturbed me was the killings being enjoyed by a 12-YEAR-OLD FUCKING GIRL. She and her father might be heroes, but they are also nuts. I might have been more comfortable if the film agreed they were nuts. The song playing in the scene where she is ruthlessly murdering everyone in the pimp’s apartment is a children’s song sped up, and we see too many close ups of her face gleefully enjoying what she is doing. I found it all very disturbing, but at the same time, a film that is well made with intentions of entertaining and makes you feel to the point where you have to tell someone is what I believe art should always be. So I don’t think it is wrong to like this film. Maybe Transformers 2 or Pearl Harbor, but this film isn't pointless, just disturbing.

Dustin: One reviewer, Ali Arikan, criticised the movie for its so-called subtext about a white male protecting a blond “Aryan” girl. He seemed to think there was some sexist and racial purity themes at work. I was thinking, “Please limit your hatred to things that were actually in the film.”

Nick: People really like to create their own subtext to match their own subconscious. That little Aryan girl attacked a couple white girls and a black girl and made them all vomit and shit everywhere. If that doesn't define equality, then I’m not sure what does.

This film wasn't as funny or as violent in terms of number of deaths and CGI blood, which is less fun compared to fake blood on an actual set. Jim Carrey was brilliant as Colonel Stars and Stripes, and I’m really happy they didn't give him the same fate he had in the comic books. Pretty fucked up!