"I WANTED TO PORTRAY VERY, VERY DARK SUBJECT MATTER..."

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

Cont'd "...and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colors and simplest 

lines possible to leave the readers reeling"

Mark Milar

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

Again, I'm hardly on the cutting edge of culture, but since when as that ever stopped me having my say?

Don't worry, this is only a short article.

The man himself, Mark Millar.

Recently, off the back of us talking about the Captain America film of the same name, a good friend lent me the Marvel Civil War graphic novel. I read it, and as much as I enjoyed it (and I did enjoy it) something about it I found troubling. Not that it cost me any sleep, but in some way that's hard to explain I felt like there was something unpleasant starting me in the face. It got me to thinking about the book's writer, Mark Millar, whose work has had astounding influence over the modern comic industry, and whose works have inspired a number of blockbuster superhero films- including the soon to be released Logan, Kickass, Kingsman, and Wanted.

So here's the thing. While many writers and artists may have had a hand in bringing realistic sensibilities into mainstream comics (and I stress the distinction of mainstream), including the divisive Frank Miller and Alan Moore, it is Millar whose bought in the unease of contemporary American politics. That in itself isn't a problem, but unlike his peers, Millar seems less interested in exploring the issues he pulls into frame, or offering any sort of insight, than he is simply dredging some serious real-world issues, simply for the thrill of bringing his characters into conflict. 

I hear the make-up sex is fantastic.

Take Civil War as the prime example; it's a story born from the still glowing ashes of 9/11, yet it offers no real condemnation, it simply acts as a means for bringing heroes against heroes. It feels wrong to invoke something real like 9/11 simply as a plot device, and on top of that it paints it's major cast (with perhaps the exception of Spiderman) as pretty unsympathetic- everybody makes their own personal 'deal with the devil'. And, if indeed that was the point Millar was making, which I doubt, at best it's nihilistic and at its worse, ignorant. Hell, it's saying pretty much the same thing as Team America, except without anywhere near the satire or self-awareness.

I won't deny Millar has his finger on the pulse of what sells comics, and there can be no denying his writing is solid, but he reminds me of Quentin Tarantino's more recent output, in as much as I feel like he's simply serving up the darker underbelly of the world simply for the sake of giving it a damn good leer, rather than to expose any uncomfortable truths (watching the Hateful Eight is akin to watching a bucket filled with scorpions, waiting to see which order they sting each other in- there may be death, but you won't learn anything from it). Compare that to, say, Paul Verhovan, whose work is often hideously violent, but while Verhovan flirts with the notions of evil, and our society's obsession with sex and violence, you feel like he's always making a valid point. Tarantino (and Millar in same fashion) feel less like flirting with the insidious, and much more like a back street blowjob with it; and by way of that analogy, it left me feeling sordid. Sure, I'd had my fun reading Civil War, but afterwards I felt hollow, and after it was done I realised how much simply wasn't there; cheap thrills had taken the place of anything deeper or more rewarding.

Grisly, but is it more than its surface brutality?

There's an argument to be made that, if I'd followed the entire Civil War arc and spin-off comics, then perhaps I'd have been rewarded with some epiphany, that the greater subtext would make itself apparent, but I doubt it. I've read Kickass, and that was similarly grimy, while Kickass 2 was so leery and spiteful I sold both that and Kickass because I'd done with it. Sure, Maillar's bang-on with his dissection of a warped media-obsessed society, and the malicious under-culture of desensitized modern youths, but ever rape and child murder felt like a Daily Mail headline that offered no reward beyond the grim details, and it sat very jarringly with what I guessed was an attempt at humour. Conversely, both the Kickass and Civil War films offered far more than their comic source material. And, as if to solidify my every point, when asked if Mark Millar enjoyed Kickass on it's release, he answered flippantly “yeah, but they turned my comic into a chick-flick”.

In short; I'm glad Millar is out there somewhere writing comics. Without him, better writers would be less inspired. Millar's influential legacy will, in the fullness of time, be far greater than his own work, because what started with him will be taken on by people with far more to say about the world around them, than those who simply thrive on it's unpleasantness like crows on the dung heap.

Because that's what every comedic story needs; a rape scene.

KICK-ASS 2; Carlisle's Final Word

"If I was even thinking about a Kick-Ass sequel, I had to get serious." 

Dave Lizewski.

Will they kiss-and-makeup?

Synopsis;

Bumbling but well-meaning superhero Kick-Ass joins forces with like minded have-a-go-superheros to make the streets a a safer place. However, Hit-Girl (Kick-Ass' infinitely more capable crime-fighting partner) succumbs to the pressure of her new guardian to hang up the cape and lead the life of a normal fifteen year old girl. But trouble is looming on the horizon in the form of super-villain The Motherfucker- an enemy from Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl's shared past, and one who is intent on a very violent revenge...

Script Logic; 1/2

Well, the script sort of makes sense- given the context of superheros and the constraints of comedy. While the film does well to avoid the original comic's more-offensive moments (such as a gang-rape, child executions and a tortured dog) in many ways it does take a swipe at plot threads so well established in the original film- in particular the main character's relationship with Katie Deauxma. Here, Katie has been rewritten as something of a bitch, possibly to better fit with the continuity of the comic sequel (the first comic and first film had wildly different endings). That's is a real shame, seeing as that same relationship was so well-established and affectionately played-out- while Kick Ass' new 'fling' with fellow vigilante Night-Bitch is a hollow one-note affair by comparison. All that work and chemistry completely gone to waste...

Despite this, perhaps the script's worst failing is the lack of any wit. The one-liners are dead-on-arrival and the comedy in-general is far more juvenile; nowhere near as smart, sassy or subversive (or deliberate) as it's predecessor. Without that particular ace-in-the-hole, all we're left with is a sub-par action movie, and a reliance on cranking-up the grossness and violence...

Pace; 1/2

It has to be said that at least the pace is never slow- if anything, it's too rushed! The film's tendency is to wedge too much into the running time, which means that whole sub-plots, character arcs and set pieces struggle to make any impact; individually these are all sound 'ideas' that simply fail to take flight because of a lack of substantial screen-time allowing an audience to properly invest in these characters and their individual struggles. Instead the film relies on a certain amount of good-will generated by the previous film rather than working out it's own failings. One or two stories well told is better than a dozen botched attempts.

Acting; 2/2

Nobody really drops the ball here; Aaron Taylor-Johnson does what he can with his scenes and a scatty story arc, Christopher Mintz-Plasse makes an amusingly volatile villain (and epitomizes everything wrong with the worst kind of teenage fan-boy), and Chloe Grace Moretz makes a very welcome return as Hit-Girl (who is clearly the script's most favored character). However, the real stand-out performances in this film belong to the criminally underrated John Leguizamo and (dare I admit this) Jim Carrey. The first plays a pivotal role as the villain's first body guard, a sympathetic crook whose murder acts as that character's tipping point from 'pathetic snot-nosed nerd' into a very warped antagonist, and the second puts in  a scene-stealing and unrecognisable turn as psychopath-turned-born-again-christian superhero Colonel Stars & Stripes (shame he ruined any kudos by bad-mouthing the movie in relation to the Sandy Hook tragedy- see my note on the subject for more details).

Aesthetic; 1/2

While the costumes and sets all remain fittingly-glossy, the fight scenes- such a highlight of inventive insanity the first time around, here are all flat and lifeless. I watched this film only the other day and I struggle to remember any of them- nothing as outlandish or stand-out as 'that' corridor scene, or Kick-Ass' first failed outing and subsequent beating at the hands of two car-jackers. Even the film's climax, a mass-battle between hundreds of masked heroes and villains, fails to make an impact.

A clash of titans, something that the film intentionally build towards, Hit-Girl vs. the bulging and brutal Mother Russia (Motherfuckers most dangerous ally) is also depressingly mundane and unimaginative. I'll admit, seeing a teenager slicing up a bunch of criminals is never going to be as eye-popping as seeing a child do the very same thing, but even overlooking this fact there's no excusing just how uninspiring the fight sequences are. Only one moment featuring a lawn mower even comes close to anything in the first Kick Ass...

On a similar note, in this film the violence is far more leery and mean-spirited, which I appreciate may be more in keeping with the source material (myself, I'm not really a fan of the comic), but it's strikingly at odds with the overall warmth of the original... This is especially true in relation to the 'prison murder scene'...

Originality & Intention; 0/2

The original Kick-Ass film, despite the language and violence, was a charming film with a big heart and a mischievous sense of humor. By comparison, this is a leery, immature and spiteful film which feels more like the bad fan fiction of a teenager with a few 'issues'. This film is the product of a creative team who just aren't as driven, talented or witty as those responsible for the first Kick-Ass; failing to build on the foundations of the first film, they have instead turned-in a lack-luster sequel that fails to properly appreciate (or understand) what a gift the first film actually was.

Final Score; 5/10 

It's not that Kick-Ass 2 simply fails to live up to the first film, it's that Kick-Ass 2 is just a shoddy film, full-stop.

"I TRY TO HAVE FUN. OTHERWISE, WHAT'S THE POINT?"

Colonel Stars & Stripes (Kick Ass 2).

Jim won't be signing up for a Tarantino movie anytime soon...

This from Jim Carrey on Twitter:

"I did Kick-ass a month before Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence... My apologies to others involved with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart." 

Oh, get over yourself. Stop courting publicity- if you really feel that bad about it, why not give away your paycheck to charity?

Talk about ungrateful. Jim, you should just be glad of the work, because (and let's face it), you're hardly in demand at the moment, are you?


So, for my next question: do movies encourage real-life violence?

Let's have your thoughts on the matter...

Me personally, I don't think so. Surely if films do have an impact on those who watch them, then it wouldn't just be the violent ones that influence our behavior? We'd be inundated by lovers chasing after departing trains, bursting out into musical numbers in the street, setting up hotels for their cats, or performing brave and heroic deeds while dressed in spandex? Perhaps, at their worse, and as Wes Craven alluded to in the very first Scream film, violent films make psychopaths 'more creative'- but that's such a small population of the planet, and these sick fucks were always going to go out and commit heinous crimes, regardless of what they did or didn't see on the TV. Pedophiles, rapists and serial-killers aren't a modern phenomenon, they predate the TV by some time- Jack The Ripper didn't need to watch Hostel to gut hookers, and Richard 'The Lionheart' didn't launch the Third Crusade after having his mind warped by re-watching Child's' Play 3. Josef Fritzl was in no way inspired by re-runs of Reservoir Dogs or The Evil Dead...

If anything, most violent (realistically violent) films put me off the idea of conflict, as they should. I certainly didn't finish watching the first Kick-Ass deciding I wanted to go out and take on the Mafia, or "cap" some innocent kids...

Welcome to the World we live in, it's not always a very nice place.