Chaos Cinema: Action Movies In Decline

Chaos Cinema Part 1 from Matthias Stork on Vimeo.

Chaos Cinema Part 2 from Matthias Stork on Vimeo.

What Do Superheroes Tell Us About Ourselves?

An abridged version of an article originally posted on NCRegister.com on the relationship between superheroes and the American culture (emphasis added by me).

"Why are superhero movies so popular? Are comic books simply another reliable source of familiar pop-culture franchise fodder, along with TV shows, cartoons and anything else we grew up with? Another source of escapist spectacle to divert us from the sorrows of a world of terrorism, war and economic woe?

Partly, yes. But superheroes also fill a cultural niche that belonged 60 years ago to Westerns and 25 years ago to Star Wars. Superheroes have become a major strand in today’s pop mythology — stylized, larger-than-life stories about heroes whose adventures give shape to ideas about the world we live in and how we live in it, about who we are and who we aspire to be.

What do today’s superhero movies tell us about ourselves? Among other things, we’re more skeptical these days about heroes and heroism. In contrast to the stoic confidence of the typical Western hero — or even of Christopher Reeve’s Superman, who as late as 1978 could unabashedly say, “I’m here to fight for truth, justice and the American way” — today’s heroes have feet of clay and have to grow into their heroic roles.

Bad-boy cockiness and womanizing are common weaknesses. Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark in the popular Iron Man movies created the template here, and Green Lantern’s Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), an irresponsible, self-destructive skirt-chaser, comes off like Stark’s screw-up kid brother. The movie introduces Hal with a one-night-stand/morning-after bedroom scene overtly reminiscent of a similar incident early in Iron Man, though without the pointed moral critique of that film’s treatment.

The young Charles Xavier of X-Men: First Class, played by James McAvoy (The Conspirator), isn’t nearly as flawed a character. Altruistic and idealistic, he already exhibits some of the nobility of the older Xavier, played by Patrick Stewart in previous X-Men movies. Yet he’s also brash and somewhat lacking in self-awareness, as well as being a rather flagrant ladies’ man who isn’t above using his telepathic powers when hitting on women.

Arrogance and recklessness are major themes in Thor. From the outset, the son of Odin (Chris Hemsworth) revels in the acclaim of his fellow immortals and surreptitiously leads a foolhardy attack against Asgard’s enemies against his father’s explicit orders and desire for peace. This temerity leads Odin to exile Thor to Earth to learn humility.

On the other hand, not only is Thor refreshingly free from the womanizing weaknesses of other heroes, its hero treats the film’s love interest, Jane (Natalie Portman), with unfashionable courtesy and respect, going so far as to chivalrously kiss her hand twice — a mark, presumably, of Thor’s noble Asgardian upbringing. (Despite this, the film fails to establish an emotional bond between Thor and Jane, and the climactic smooch that she plants on his lips falls flat. But that kiss is as far as it goes between them, and he doesn’t initiate it.)

Captain America’s Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) benefits even more from his cultural milieu, embodying the ideals of the “Greatest Generation”: responsibility, modesty, respect, fortitude. Like Thor, he treats women with respect, though it’s true that prior to the “super-soldier serum” that transforms him into Captain America, the 98-pound weakling Steve hadn’t had much opportunity to be a ladies’ man.

Judging from Thor and Captain America, we can appreciate heroes who are gentlemen, not playboys. Perhaps audiences just find them easier to accept when they aren’t products of our own time and place. Gallantry is a virtue we as a culture can admire from afar but can’t relate to; with great power comes great temptation, and many people more or less assume that men like Hal Jordan, Tony Stark, and to an extent the young Charles Xavier probably won’t fare much better than Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods or Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Xavier’s story is set during the Kennedy presidency.) Yet we can imagine, and appreciate, gallantry in a historical or mythic context. Perhaps this indicates some awareness that our cultural standards or expectations are too low.

Perhaps Captain America offers the best depiction of what makes for a good hero: being a good person in the first place. (Cap’s old-fashioned virtue hasn’t hurt him at the box office, either: Captain America has already outgrossed Green Lantern as well as X-Men: First Class, though it may not be able to catch Thor.) In this summer of raunchy comedies, it’s gratifying that audiences are still interested in a hero who is (along with Superman) one of the genre’s biggest Boy Scouts.

Like others of his generation, Steve’s character was tempered in the forge of the Great Depression as well as the shadow of world war. Next year’s Avengers movie will throw this Greatest Generation warrior into the mix with the Tony Stark generation. What will that show us about ourselves and the world we live in?

I’m almost afraid to find out."

For more cultural commentary, visit NCRegister.com.

The Moviegoer's Code of Conduct

Know it. Respect it. Or else.

The NY Times Takes A Quick Look At 'Rio Bravo'

'Let Me In'

“10 PM. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?”

This post is way overdue, but after finally re-watching ‘Let Me In’- the brilliant (and arguably better) American version of the Swedish film ‘Let The Right One In’- I couldn’t resist sharing a few thoughts. Let me say right off the bat that I would NOT recommend viewing ‘Let The Right One In’ prior to ‘Let Me In.’ Yes, the Swedish film is technically the original, but director Matt Reeves has done the impossible and proven once and for all that remakes are in fact NOT the root of all the evils of the film industry.

Twelve-year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is living alone with his alcoholic mother as his parents are going through a divorce. Owen doesn’t have any friends, he’s bullied relentlessly at school, and, to be frank, he’s a little creepy (he buys a knife and imagines using it to strike back at his oppressive schoolmates). One evening, two strangers- an older man and a girl who is apparently his young daughter- move in next door in Owen’s apartment complex. One night he meets the girl, Abby (Chloe Moretz), and warily befriends her. The trouble is, Abby is more than a mysterious twelve-year-old girl. As she tells Owen, “I’ve been twelve for a very long time.” And she needs blood to survive…

What then ensues is a darkly compelling tale of young love at its worst- and make no mistake, this is not a movie that some sappy teenaged girl would giggle at.

‘Let Me In’ achieves a level of sophistication that very few films in the horror genre have ever achieved, let alone today’s horror genre, which is full of films that by rights ought to be confined to Best Buy’s comedy aisle. Instead of relying on cheap scares and overdone gore, this movie relies almost solely on the weight of its characters. Owen is a very disturbed character, but he is vulnerable enough to inspire sympathy, and most of us will still be able to identify with his insecurity, especially in the face of an increasingly troubled world. Likewise, far from romanticizing the vampire concept, the character of Abby may finally remind audiences of the original intent of vampire lore: Shock and horror.

You might not know it based on today’s watered-down vampire flicks, but the original vampire is an inherently theological metaphor (just ask any informed Catholic). A vampire takes the blood of humans in order to extend its earthly life, in contrast with Christ sacrificing his blood so that we might attain eternal life in Heaven. Additionally, vampires act as effective symbols for demonic possession as understood by the Church, and this is especially true in the case of ‘Let Me In.’

Like a demon, the vampire has no power to invade unless it is invited in. We are also taught that a person without faith or a solid family structure will be more vulnerable to demonic possession, and, thanks to his parents, Owen has neither. As such, when Abby’s true identity is revealed to him, instead of fleeing from her, Owen is thrown into serious moral confusion. Without either a person or an institution to serve as the basis for his morality, Owen is slowly coaxed into the night by the only creature that has ever shown genuine interest in him.

Owen’s predicament should seem familiar, for it is precisely the predicament of what was once known as the Christian West.

Christian thought still perpetuates life in America and Europe in more ways than the secular left cares to admit, but there is currently in our society a movement to purge God- that is, the source of our understanding of good and evil- from public life. As a result, “evil” as a concept has been largely deconstructed. The media loves to talk about war and revolution in socio-economic terms, but what about moral terms? “Enfranchised” and “disenfranchised” have largely replaced the terms “good” and “evil” in the media's vocabulary. In the wake of our institutional abandonment of Christianity, the meanings behind words like “good” or “evil” have been called into question, and the consequences have been disastrous.

Recall ‘The Exorcist’, one of the greatest horror films of all time, a film concerned with recognizing the difference between good and evil before evil can triumph. ‘Let Me In’ is the other side of that coin. It serves as a stern warning about what the future holds, should we fail to recognize that all-important difference.

Re-watching the movie on DVD, I noted that the film’s opening scene includes a televised speech by Ronald Reagan utilizing a quote popularly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good…”

And with that not-so-subtle nudge, the best horror film of the decade commences.

'True Grit' (2010)

The newest film by the Coen Brothers offers a spiritual viewpoint that we don't get to see too often in Hollywood these days. Father Robert Barron (who also reviewed the Coen films ‘Fargo’ and ‘No Country For Old Men’) offers his insight.

WARNING: Spoilers ahead!

There's another decent review of the film in the National Catholic Register.

Personally, I think the Coen Brothers deserve every penny of the $111,145,321 that 'True Grit' has made thus far, and more.

'Flipped'

I had the pleasure of watching 'Flipped' with my family without any knowledge whatsoever of the source material. I did, however, go into it well aware of director Rob Reiner's past work, such as 'Stand By Me,' one of my personal favorite films.

'Flipped' doesn't live up to the director's best work. The characters are likable enough, even if Bryce (played by Callan McAuliffe) is one of the more annoying male characters I've ever seen in a movie. In addition, the story itself is just a bit too squeaky-clean, which may open it up to unintentional comedy in certain scenes (like a Lifetime movie, just not as bad).

The strongest scenes come to us courtesy of Juli Baker, played in down-to-earth fashion by Madeline Carroll. In a film that seems full of characters that might as well have been taken from a cheesy Hallmark card, Juli is completely realistic, and she absolutely shines. I would have liked the film to focus on her rather than cut back to the lame Bryce for half the time.

While it has it's weaknesses, this is still a better "love story" than most of the awful romantic comedies you're likely to come across these days.

For the life of me, I can't understand why it wasn't given a wider distribution in U.S. theaters.

My Favorite Movies of 2010

1. Toy Story 3

Most have come to expect greatness from Pixar, but 'Toy Story 3' is undisputed Oscar material- and not just in the animated category, either. At the very least, it deserves a nomination for 'Best Picture,' and I'd venture that it deserves to win.

2. Harry Brown

Michael Caine is at his best - as if he ever isn't- in a brutal film which might be measured as a halfway point between 'Gran Torino' and 'Taken,' but, like those other two films, sits comfortably in it's own category.

"You failed to maintain your weapon, son."

3. Kick-Ass

It's difficult to describe the sweet surprise that comes with one's first viewing of 'Kick-Ass.' But one phrase would be "HELL YES!!" Not appropriate for audiences who disapprove of Quentin Tarantino-style violence.

The true star of the film: Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl.

4. The Book of Eli

*Spoiler Alert* 'Mad Max' meets Christianity. Denzel Washington as the wandering "Eli" proves that faith and manliness go hand-in-hand. Gary Oldman as the power-worshipping "Carnegie" helps make it a wonderful experience.

"We walk by faith, not by sight."

5. True Grit

A good, solid Western if I ever saw one. Not as intense as 'Unforgiven,' but arguably an improvement on the original (Besides John Wayne, of course). Hailee Steinfeld also makes an unforgettable debut as Mattie Ross, outperforming costar Matt Damon with ease. Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne, but he wears an eyepatch well and handles the role of Rooster Cogburn nicely.

6. Let Me In

As tender as it is terrifying (think Nicholas Sparks meets Stephen King). But mostly terrifying.

Believable performances by child actors Kodi Smit-Mcphee ('The Road') and Chloe Moretz ('Kick-Ass') as well as an old-fashioned, subtle filming style help make this the best vampire movie in decades, surpassing even the original Swedish film.

7. Iron Man 2

It may lack a "jump-out-of-your-seat" moment (i.e. when Iron Man punched an Islamic terrorist in the first film), but you just can't deny how damned entertaining this sequel is. Mickey Rourke plays the villain with gusto, and Scarlett Johansson proves once and for all that you CAN beat up henchmen and look good while doing it.

And did I mention the explosions?

8. Resident Evil: Afterlife

Sometimes you just can't trust critics. Or your friends, for that matter.

Despite bad reviews, I enjoyed every minute of the fourth entry in the 'Resident Evil' franchise. Milla Jovovich is one of the best genre actresses around, and she's not bad-looking either. Leave your brain at the door, and enjoy the party.

9. From Paris With Love

Bald is badass. 'Nuff said.

10. The Expendables

Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Bruce Willis, and every other action star under the sun, with the conspicuous absence of a certain Texas Ranger. Absolutely necessary viewing if you consider yourself a fan of action movies. There are no surprises here, but it's all worth it for a couple hours of mindless escapism.

Most Pirated Movies of 2010

Can a list of the

most pirated movies of 2010 tell us anything we don't already know about American filmgoers?

It's a pretty diverse list, with a few big surprises (7 million people actually bothered to download Green Zone?) No surprise that Avatar sits comfortably at the top, and with the money James Cameron and 20th Century Fox raked in on that venture, illegal downloading probably isn't too high on their list of concerns.

But despite most of the films on this list being blockbusters (even the disappointing Clash of the Titans earned enough to warrant a sequel), there are at least two movies that definitely suffered financially for their exploitation on the web: Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass and the critically acclaimed Hurt Locker - two of the best movies of the year, and certainly more deserving of reward at the box office than their earnings would indicate.

Here's the list:

1. Avatar / 16,580,000
2. Kick-Ass / 11,400,000
3. Inception / 9,720,000
4. Shutter Island / 9,490,000
5. Iron Man 2 / 8,810,000
6. Clash of the Titans / 8,040,000
7. Green Zone / 7,730,000
8. Sherlock Holmes / 7,160,000
9. The Hurt Locker / 6,850,000
10. Salt / 6,700,000

The Best And Worst Movies of 2010 (According to Michael Medved)

The Best and Worst Movies of 2010

WORST

Somewhere

Jackass 3D

Sex and the City 2

The Wolfman

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Remember Me

Dinner for Schmucks

Robin Hood

Jonah Hex

Black Swan

BEST

Tangled

Toy Story 3

Despicable Me

Hereafter

True Grit

The Town

Four Lions

The Social Network

The King's Speech

City Island

Visit michaelmedved.com for more!

Evangelion 1.11 - You Are (Not) Alone

Parental Advisory: Rated PG-13 for violence and some nudity

If you’re not a fan of good old-fashioned science fiction and/or giant monster battles, ‘Evangelion 1.11’ is a film you should avoid at all costs. But if any part of you cringed when the SciFi Channel became the “SyFy” Channel, then add it to your queue straight away. You’ll be glad you did. And then you’ll write an angry letter to those darned “SyFy” executives, threatening to boycott their programming forever if they don’t cancel ‘Ghosthunters’ immediately.

If there’s one thing I've learned from watching old reruns of ‘The Twilight Zone’ every New Year's Eve for the last five years, it’s this: The best science fiction hasn’t got a blessed thing to do with science. It doesn’t waste time trying to convince its audience to recycle, that we have to stop driving our cars, or that global warming is going to kill us all if we don’t stop shopping at Wal-Mart. The best science fiction, like all great storytelling, starts with characters – with people – and this is where ‘Evangelion 1.11’ tries to stand out.

Fourteen-year-old Shinji Ikari is on his way to meet his father in New Tokyo 3, a fortress city built fifteen years ago in the aftermath of a global cataclysm that claimed the lives of half the world’s population. En route, Shinji is caught in the crossfire between the military – now under command of a mysterious organization called NERV – and a monstrous being referred to as an “Angel.” Not to be confused with the winged seraphim featured in Judeo-Christian art, these Angels come in the form of enormous shape-shifting behemoths that have more in common with the monster from ‘Cloverfield’ than they do with depictions of Michael or Gabriel.

As the film progresses, Shinji discovers that he has been chosen as the pilot of a weapon called an Evangelion (literally translated "the good news") – a gigantic “synthetic humanoid” constructed to repel Angel attacks. He also meets fourteen-year-old Rei Ayanami, the reserved female Evangelion pilot with whom he shares his new burden.

We learn that the Evangelions were created using data gathered during an encounter with the first Angel, the "Giant of Light" referred to as Adam (as in "the Garden of Eden"). There's also some vague references to the "Tree of Knowledge," and viewers are led to believe that the Angels might be holding a grudge against humanity for attempting to become God-like by eating of its fruit. Thankfully, the writers have avoided offense by treating these Old Testament elements primarily as plot devices. No erroneous arguments are made concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, nor does the film stoop to taking pot-shots against Christians (although the cross-shaped explosions might have been a bit much).

While these (non)religious elements are intriguing (Angels, huh?), the most compelling aspect of the story is Shinji’s quiet struggle with his own insecurity. Of course, insecurity in and of itself is never enough to hold my attention. Like any red-blooded American, I’d much prefer the heroic manliness of John Wayne to, well, anything less than John Wayne. But then again, nothing and nobody even comes close to measuring up to John Wayne. Did I mention I like John Wayne?

I can’t stand insecure, self-absorbed characters - the very sort of characters that have been explored ad nauseam by independent art-house films (which I also usually hate). But there is an important difference in the case of Eva 1.11’s characters, whose insecurity is rooted not in selfish nihilism, but in a collapse of family structure.

Shinji is a weakling, but he has also grown up without either a mother’s love or a father’s discipline.

Having lost his mother at an early age, and having subsequently been abandoned by his father, Shinji has apparently been living with different adult guardians for most of his young life, and this displacement has profoundly hindered his ability to relate to those around him. This insecurity has powerful ramifications, given Shinji’s responsibility as the pilot of an all-powerful super-weapon.

The boy must fight. He must be strong. He must become a man. That's a simple message, and one that isn't honored often enough when they hand out the Oscars.

On the negative side, my biggest complaint concerns the film's pacing. From one scene to the next, the plot seems to advance a little too quickly, often disorienting the audience as much as the characters on-screen. This isn't a huge problem, mind you (you haven't seen terrible pacing until you've seen 'The Last Airbender'), but there were probably a few scenes that could have been altered in the interest of a smoother scene-to-scene transition. There's also a bit of unnecessary nudity, but it shouldn't bother anyone younger than the Baby Boom Generation.

The next entry in the franchise, 'Evangelion 2.22 - You Can (Not) Advance', arrives on March 29th, 2011. Until then, consider checking out 'You Are (Not) Alone.' It's an imperfect movie, and I do hope the sequel corrects some of its weaker points. But this first entry proves that the Evangelion franchise has the potential to be one of the first great science fiction stories of the century.

And it most certainly possesses more artistic value than a big-budget 3D rip-off of 'FernGully."

Superman, Thy Name Is Jim

In a recent post, I mentioned that there’s a new Superman reboot in the works, overseen by Christopher Nolan (‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Inception’) and directed by Zack Snyder (‘300’, ‘Watchmen’). While this definitely counts as a dream team, especially considering Mr. Nolan’s success in reinvigorating the Caped Crusader (that’s Batman for the non-fans out there), speculation has already begun regarding the most important factor of all: Who will (or can) play Superman?

According to Comingsoon.Net, actor Arnie Hammer (‘The Social Network’), who has apparently “made a lot of people’s Superman fantasy-casting lists”, reports that the studio may be seeking a more mature (35-40) actor for the role. As the interviewer notes, this could be taken as a sign of hope that Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’, pictured below) could be up for the part.

While I think I could buy Mr. Hamm as Superman, I am not quite convinced he could pull off a Clark Kent. This is an important factor when casting the Man of Steel, because it means that the actor needs to be able to alternate between the almighty king of the superheroes and a clueless geek at the drop of a hat, as Christopher Reeve accomplished with ease in the classic ‘Superman’ films decades ago. Actors who could fill Mr. Reeve’s shoes aren’t too common in Hollywood either, as was made painfully obvious in Bryan Singer’s watchable entry ‘Superman Returns.’

I could dance around the subject, but instead I’ll just say it: Jim Caviezel should play Superman.

Best known for ‘The Passion of the Christ’ and ‘The Count of Monte Cristo,’ and recently starring in the independent sci-fi adventure film ‘Outlander’ and AMC’s mini-series ‘The Prisoner’ alongside Sir Ian Mckellen, Caviezel has appeared in just about every genre. His portrayal of Christ in ‘The Passion’ and Edmond Dantes in ‘Monte Cristo’ are of particular interest. As Dantes, Caviezel takes audiences on a whirlwind adventure of love and betrayal, and his strength of character carries the whole plot (along with an exceptionally despicable villain in co-star Guy Pearce). As for ‘The Passion,’ Caviezel’s casting was perhaps the most important factor in the success of the film, more so even than Gibson’s directing, and that strength of character will be a necessity if Nolan and Snyder want to be successful in reintroducing the "Last Son of Krypton" to a modern audience.

Now that’s a Superman. Sure, he might not have Jon Hamm’s chin, but neither did Brandon Routh (who wasn’t a great Superman by any means, but few could doubt Mr. Caviezel would have been a superior choice).

As for playing Clark Kent, Caviezel has such a traditional outlook on life that you’d think he’d been born in Smallville himself. Superman needs humility to complement his power, and Caviezel is as humble as they come. His ability to alternate between meek and powerful as an actor was made evident in 'Monte Cristo', which also showed us he can rock a cape in his role as the Count. In his personal life he’s an outspoken Catholic, and there’s more than a little Christology in the original Superman films for him to develop, which I’m sure he could accomplish beautifully.

And just imagine his future resume: “Have played both Superman and Jesus.” What more could an actor wish for?

UPDATE: It looks like Snyder and company will be pursuing an unknown actor for the role. So in that case... Caviezel for Jor-El!!

Learning From 'Kick-Ass'

“Hey… How come nobody’s ever tried to be a superhero?”

Such is the inquiry which lies at the heart of one of the strangest, most irreverent, and blissfully entertaining comic-book films of the decade.

Directed by British director Matthew Vaughn (‘Layer Cake’), and featuring performances by Nicholas Cage (‘National Treasure’, ‘Con Air’) and Chloe Grace Moretz (of the upcoming ‘Let Me In’), the 2009 superhero action/comedy ‘Kick-Ass’ is full to the brim with profanity, violence, and a fair measure of sexual innuendo, each applying at one point or another to shockingly underage characters. As a result, the film experienced a less-than-spectacular opening weekend, earning about $20 million at the box office. Though it narrowly overtook the Dreamworks animated film ‘How To Train Your Dragon’ for that weekend, ticket sales dropped rapidly in the following two weeks of its release, ultimately earning about $48 million domestically.

That said, the movie is likely on track to achieving well-deserved status as a true cult classic.

Based on Mark Millar’s graphic novel of the same name, ‘Kick-Ass’ tells the story of an average nerd, Dave Lizewski, living in an average New York suburb doing average stuff while hanging out with his average friends, all the while pining after the not-so-average girl of his dreams.

Needless to say, viewers expect this barrage of mediocre high-school drama to give way to something weird or extraordinary sooner or later- an expectation that is satisfied when, one day, after being robbed by a pair of alley-dwelling delinquents for the umpteenth time, Dave decides that enough is enough. Purchasing a perfectly ordinary, if not somewhat gaudy, green diver’s wetsuit, equipping himself with two fighting batons, and slipping on a pair of good old-fashioned Timberland boots for good measure, he assumes the identity of a masked vigilante, taking the titular name, “Kick-Ass.”

His initial exploits, however, are less than heroic. Without spoiling anything, Dave quickly gets in way over his head, and is literally on the verge of being castrated by a group of drug dealers when his salvation comes crashing down in the form of… an eleven-year-old girl.

No, the word “girl” doesn’t quite fit… More like a WMD wearing a skirt.

It is at this point that the film begins its gradual transition from outright slapstick to much darker comedy. Utilizing an array of edged weapons to deadly effect, the masked heroine “Hit Girl” (Moretz) quite literally decimates every foe that comes her way, leaving them broken, bloody, and invariably dead- except for the near-survivor sniped in the cranium by her father, the Batman-like “Big Daddy” (Cage, imitating Adam West’s Batman to hysterical effect). It is in light of this over-the-top, father/daughter version of Batman and Robin that the most morally valuable lessons from the film become clear.

If Big Daddy and Hit Girl have a motto, it’s this: Stand up against evil- as an individual, as a team, as a family- and don’t give an inch.

The city in which the main characters find themselves is one lacking any kind of moral center. As was Dave’s experience early in the film, muggings occur on a daily basis, and the citizens make no serious attempt to put a stop to such injustice. The people have lapsed into a state of complacency, leaving even the most petty crooks to do as they please. On top of this, the police themselves have been bought out by Frank D’Amico, the city’s leading drug kingpin, who also has an important role in Big Daddy and Hit Girl’s history.

So how do Kick-Ass and his fellow masked avengers respond in light of this seemingly insurmountable task? They strike, and strike hard.

Hit Girl, as many have already noted, is the film’s only true home run. While critics like Roger Ebert heavily criticized the use of a child actor in such a violent role, the fact is that Chloe Moretz’s brutal character is far and away a morally superior alternative to the inappropriately sexualized, self-concerned teen idols of Disney Channel fame.

To quote Big Hollywood’s John Nolte, Hit Girl is “heroic, selfless, completely self-reliant, and lives by a simple code that says evil loses. No angst, no handwringing, and no moral equivalency.”

Sounds like the ideal female role model to me!

Sure, this is an absolutely unacceptable film for those not mature enough for the ‘Restricted’ rating. But while nowadays such a rating usually indicates the level of a film’s moral decrepitude, the big bold "R" on the back of the 'Kick-Ass' DVD case is like a badge of honor.

After all, what fun is watching superheroes clobber criminals if the result isn’t the untimely amputation of a prosthetic limb or two? Or three, or four, or fifty…

The Unlikely Benefits of the 'Twilight' Plague

In the not-so-distant past, young males like myself led charmed existences wherein we were entitled exclusively to the mantle of immaturity. As our allegedly more “mature” female counterparts incessantly berated us, we nevertheless continued to indulge in the numerous tokens of our extended childhood. Comic books, video games, the occasional kung fu movie marathon- all have been repeatedly held up as proof of the intellectual inferiority of the male species, evidence of our inability to “think deeply” or be “intellectual.” Dudettes are all too eager to remind us dudes that they “reach adulthood” faster than us, and the line is repeated endlessly, starting in grade school. Those of us blessed with sisters have had our doubts as to the veracity of this claim, but not until the unmitigated success of Stephanie Meyer’s ‘Twilight’ series have we had enough proof to make our case. Having never read her books- and not possessing the faintest desire to do so- I can only speak of my mercifully limited experience with Summit Entertainment’s film franchise.

To state my reaction with specificity: ‘Twilight’ is twaddle. Malarkey. Tomfoolery. An inept attempt to revitalize the familiar teen romance blueprint by adding superficial genre elements to the same old, boring formula.

And, dare I say, the story just seemed so… shallow. Barren, even. After forcing myself at great pain to view a considerable portion of the series’ second installment on my university’s free movie channel, all I could ask myself was “Is that it?” Not only did I feel that I had just sat through a Lifetime Channel movie with an inflated budget, but I was also particularly struck by the total lack of... well… themes? Character development? ANYTHING? As someone who has spent more time watching horror/action-themed movies than I care to admit, it doesn’t bode well for a genre movie when the strongest entertainment factor is a supporting role played by Michael Sheen- the entertainment factor of which is quickly depleted as the viewer realizes “Yeah… I WOULD rather be watching ‘Underworld’ right now!” Sure, ‘Underworld’ had a cheap love story too, but the romantic elements were really just an excuse for getting vampires and werewolves tear each other apart. In ‘Twilight’, by contrast, the supernatural element is a blatant excuse for subjecting viewers to another corny teen melodrama.

But as I thought about it (not too much, mind you), there are at least a FEW elements to ‘Twilight’s’ success that we ought to find agreeable, if not commendable. Stephanie Meyer apparently knows something about what girls like to see in a guy- in a word, chivalry. Feminists just HATE that word. And when feminists hate something, I feel obliged to give it a chance. The character of Edward- played by some-guy-whose-name-I-can’t-remember-but-is now-universally-hated-by-heterosexual-males- possesses a mishmash of social attitudes that, quite frankly, young men are not taught by their society anymore.

In short, Edward 1.) wants what is best for the girl he loves, and thus resists converting her to the undead; 2.) Refuses to have intercourse before they have been bound in marriage; And 3.) he tirelessly works to PROTECT her from a hostile world. For a story with such a thoroughly bizarre plot, ‘Twilight’ is replete with underlying traditional messages like these, and if it weren’t for the intellectual arrogance of feminists in academia, they’d probably be more concerned with the number of women who seem naturally inclined towards such an archetype.

Another positive consequence of this mediocre franchise is the continued success of the production company Summit Entertainment, whose present standing in Hollywood has been built almost exclusively on the ‘Twilight’ series, and who are now looking towards aggressive expansion. What’s next for them, you ask? Why, an adaptation of ‘The Homelanders’ series by author and former movie scribe Andrew Klavan.

Lately quite active as a conservative blogger and youtuber, his unabashed love for America and Christianity got him kicked out of the Hollywood cool kids’ club years ago, and with Summit Entertainment facilitating a new film franchise based on his young adult thrillers, his ticket back to screenwriting may be forthcoming. Who knows, Summit Entertainment might well intend to use the flood of ‘Twilight’ revenue to fund a rebirth of value-centric films in Hollywood- hopefully, some that will raise the bar for the studio. Personally, I’m far too jaded to expect that much from ANYONE in Hollywood.

But I've got my fingers crossed.

*UPDATE* Check out this great blog by BigHollywood's John Nolte: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/10/the-twilight-phenomenon-the-kids-are-all-right/

"Trust me, no one’s benefited more from left-wing feminism than those shallow, sexist men who use, abuse, objectify and discard women like empty beer cans." - John Nolte, Big Hollywood