An Accurate Look at: Hollywood's "Kick-Ass" Adaptation

When I first saw an issue of the Kick-Ass comic on the wall of my favourite comic shop (Carsley's Comics, Montreal's best-kept secret!), I couldn't help but smile. The title, art, and tagline grabbed my interest, and when I finally bought the first issue and read it, I couldn't wait for more. I read them all and really got attached to them. I guess, as a horny bespectacled geek with incredible powers of opposite sex repulsion, the comic really spoke to me. And let's be honest, you've wanted to, at one point or another, be able to do superheroics. I know I have. There, I said it.

I love the book. When I heard about the movie, I was excited. (Well, rather, read about the movie in the back of an issue.) The TV spots and trailers got me pumped. I wasn't crazy about the costume redesigns, but hey, I was sort of expecting that. As long as they didn't mess up the coming-of-age superhero story, I'd be happy.

So I get to the movie theatre and a brace myself for the ride. I mean, the comic is a straight-forward 8-issue miniseries which I read in 2 hours. How could they possibly mess up a film adaptation?

Surprise, kiddies. They messed up the film adaptation. I had no issues with the casting, and the generic superhero-ish music was good. It starts out accurately enough, but then it all falls apart. It's like the writers read the comic, picked-and-chose points they liked, threw out meaningful, important elements that should have stayed, and tossed in needless excessive action-flick content instead of the characters and story that made the book so great.

If you've read my other movie-related articles, you know I don't write spoilers. [And if you haven't read them, just browse the site for posts that begin with the tongue-in-cheek phrase of "An Accurate Look at:"] With that in mind, there really isn't anything much I can mention without spoiling the story, other than some of the most important elements of the book were omitted, making many of the characters seem either excessively flat or just too over-the-top. By reducing the comic's story to an action-packed teen comedy, the mood of the book is completely killed. It was like listening to someone try to tell someone else about something they'd heard but don't know about. Some of the details are there, but the information is just plain wrong.

While the room howled with laughter and applause, I literally exclaimed "What the f#%@?" while looking around. You know that clichéd supervillain hand gesture? Where the fingers are spread out, gripping something that isn't there? It might be easier to visualize if I use a picture:

I'm not even joking when I tell you that my hands hurt afterwards from them both being in that position due to rage. By now, I should be no stranger to Hollywood butchering my favourite comics, but that doesn't make me less annoyed each time it happens. I'm used to facepalming in movie theatres, but this is the first time I've hurt myself due to anger. Yes, something is most definitely wrong with me.

Once again, Hollywood misses the point of the source material. The book is about a young man who tries something ridiculous, and through his actions and interactions with others, learns about the world and grows as a character. It's a coming of age story about missing youths, illusions, expectations, and violence. The movie conveniently pushes all that character junk aside and focuses on the ridiculous. Sure, it's funny, and I laughed at times, but there is more to the Kick-Ass of the comic's world than just comedy. As the book shows us (graphically at times), the joke ends, and that's when reality begins.

The Kick-Ass movie entirely misses the point, mood, message, and spirit of the comic and does not do it justice. It feels like the whole flick would be one of Dave's daydreams in biology class, wearing his Kick-Ass costume under his school clothes. It's that excessive. Yes, I'm attached to the comic, but I'm able to recognize its flaws and shortcomings. Unfortunately, the unplausible elements of the comic were only made worse in the movie. Compared to the movie, the book is non-fiction. Honestly, spend the money on the trade rather than the movie ticket.

An Accurate Look at: James Cameron's "Avatar"

Last year, I got into a free screening of a 15-minute preview of James Cameron's Avatar. You might remember that I wasn't particularly enthused. Hence my not reviewing the film when it came out in December, instead waiting until the New Year to bother seeing it. Was it worth it? Let's find out.

Avatar takes place in the future, on a dangerous, distant alien world called Pandora (note the name). Humans are there for the sole purpose of robbing it of its natural resources, an element called "unobtanium" (note the name). Along with the military forces is a team of scientists, lead by a lady named Grace (note the name) who wishes to learn of the planet rather than rape it.

The humans are obviously at odds with Pandora's natives, a race of blue anthropomorphic cats, hereafter referred to as "furries." The furries are primitive, living with nature, wearing little clothing, and fighting with bows and knives. Some uptight people would probably get upset and draw comparisons between the furries and African tribes (and there's a lot of evidence for them, believe me).

To get closer to furries and attempt any kind of communication, Grace's team technologically transmits their consciousnesses into some lab-made furry bodies. With these "avatars," they are able to roam Pandora and interact with the natives. But not all goes well, as you'd imagine.

The world of Avatar is very well-designed and feels complete. The humans have incredible technology: holograms, cryosleep, badass mech suits, and of course, the avatar technology. The furries have their own culture, their own customs, their own language, and their world is beautiful. Some of the scenery is breathtaking. And the animals of the world are frighteningly unusual. There's a real sense of being on another world. This isn't just New Zealand with a giant fibreglass tree, people.

But a fleshed-out world is nothing without characters. Unfortunately, Avatar's characters are dull archetypes. You have the Unlikely Hero/Chosen One (complete with troubled past!), the Geek Who Learns to Be A Man, the Hotshot Driver, the Gruff Drill Sergeant military guy, the Profiteer, etc. None of the characters are particularly fleshed out. They all feel very flat and uncompelling. The story has been done before. Ever seen Dances With Wolves? Then you've seen Avatar. Combine uninteresting characters with a generic, predictable lacklustre story, and what do you get? A letdown of an overhyped blockbluster.

But what about the amazing IMAX DIGITAL 4-D? Surely the stunning visual effects will redeem Cameron's flick? While I enjoyed the 3D of the 15-minute preview, those scenes were obviously chosen to demonstrate said 3D. In the final film, though, the pop-up visuals really don't stand out. While other 3D flicks milk their AMAZING 4-D GRAPHICS for all its worth with gimmicks such as axes flying "through" the screen and other objects "reaching out" towards the audience, Avatar features none of that crap. You will notice the 3D and in some scenes it looks great - just look at the hologram projectors. But as they've avoided obvious shots such as spaceships flying out of the screen, nothing in particular stands out. The 3D ends up feeling underused, and, outside of a few scenes, you'll wonder why you bothered paying so much for an Imax 3D ticket in the first place. Don't get me wrong. The 3D is constant throughout the film, it just doesn't seem to add much. Perhaps it would have ha dit not been so subtle.

Avatar is an overhyped version of Dances With Wolves set in space, with elements of Alien thrown in and some freaky furry crap off Deviant Art somehow made the cut. The good action scenes and terrific creature design do nothing to save the film's uncaptivating story and flat characters. Yet another disappointing overmarketed blockbluster.

An Accurate Look At: "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"

Have you ever had to listen to someone speak of something they know nothing about? Or had to listen to someone explain something they know nothing about to other people? If you answered "no," your answer will change if you are unfortunate enough to end up at a screening of G.I. Joke: The Return of Sigma 6.

The movie takes place in the "not-so-distant future." What does that mean? To put it simply, it means that they can introduce crap that neither makes sense nor is plausible in the Joe-verse for the sake of it: things like "pulse" energy weapons, active camo pyjamas, solid hologram projectors, vehicles/weapons/armour that belong in a bad sci-fi B-movie, and, of course, the "nanomites." This is the sort of crap you'd expect from that godawful '80s GI. Joe cartoon, which is even worse than this Hollywood attempt at G.I. Joe.

If you asked, "What are 'nanomites'?" I'll be more than glad to answer your question. In this generic action movie, "nanomites" are tiny little robots that can pretty much do anything because of the lazy writing. These silver plot-devices somehow turn green and can be used as weapon and/or medicine and/or brain controlling device. Open palm, insert face.

Haven't you heard? This is the TECHNOFUTURE where crap doesn't have to make sense!

And what terrible Hollywood movie would be complete without unlikeable characters? First, there's "Duke," who looks and sounds even more like a douchebag than the Duke we already know and loathe. His black comic-relief sidekick is a Wayans brother. I don't think I need to say anthing else.

But I will. There is little to no characterization for most of the important characters, besides for the occasional "oh gnoes, I has emotions" moments. There is not much to say about the acting, since there's hardly are there. I have literally "seen better actin' in fast-actin' Tenactin."

The characters are very underdeveloped. You meet them, they fight, stuff blows up, hurray. But you know nothing about them, and honestly, you don't have any reason to care about them. "Okay, she has a crossbow. That guy talks funny. That guy doesn't talk. Hurm. Is that it?" And as for the characters that DO have backstories which they bother to reveal, whoo boy. All of the storytelling is done by flashbacks which either feel very over-the-top and excessively dramatic, or not serious at all. So kids fight, and some douchebags want to get married. Who cares?

And speaking of the characters, the writers really went out of their way to make it feel like a soap opera. It seems like every character somehow knows each other from something they did in the distant past -- CUE FLASHBACK SEQUENCE!

The characters have been "internationalized." Rather than Fort Wadsworth's motor pool housing America's finest, this new international Pit has people from all over the world. G.I. Joe is once again Action Force, this time an Action Force made by the combined power of multiple governments. Probably easier to market the flick internationally this way.

Yet, despite the "internationalization" of the characters, the one they mess up the worse is the one best known for BEING from a foreign land. How ironic that this new reimagined Baroness is simply some American broad with badly dyed hair. That's it. No accent. Just some random white girl in a slutty costume. Hooray for plot devices. Way to go, Hollywood! Other characters just look really, really stupid - take for example "The Doctor" or the "Vipers" with ugly helmets with huge eyes and metal grins. These characters look like badly-designed comic-book villains. Unfortunately, the comic book they're from is NOT G.I. Joe.

Despite the movie taking place in the "not-so-distant future," the civilian ground vehicles are from the present day. Wait, what? How can there be airships and VTOL carriers out of Star Trek or Ghost In The Shell, but the ground vehicles remain the same? Did the governments of the world decide to ban new cars and instead invest that money into developing shuttlecrafts and bizarre submarines? Nah, it's just product placement. They can call it a "Steel Crusher APV" if they want, but it's just a lame-ass Hummer.

And speaking of "not-so-distant future," let's briefly talk about the Joes' equipment, shall we? Crossbows with self-navigating shells? Arm-mounted hologram projectors? Fancy suits of mechanical armour? What the crap? Does G.I. Joe buy gear from Stark Industries? If not, Tony should sue them for blatantly ripping off his armour. That shot of the ankles sealing up was more than just an "homage."

Honestly, though, "Delta-6 Accelerator Suit"? Come the hell on. Here I was thinking S.N.A.K.E. Armour was lame, and then they pull THIS out of their ass. Of all of the Joe eras to include in the flick, Sigma 6? WHY? If you don't believe that they intentionally tipped their hats to Sigma 6, stay 'til the end of the movie. If you can.

Like most recent generic Hollywood action flicks, this one features gimmickry such as shakycam, too much slow-motion, and plenty of sparks/explosions to get in the way of seeing whatever is supposed to be on the screen. The fight scenes aren't that entertaining and the chase scenes aren't much better. Stuff's moving, camera's shaking, can't see what's happening, some sort of explosion, a flip or two, some slow-motion, repeat. Again. And again. And again. Truly groundbreaking filmmaking.

There is some good among this sea of mediocrity. Dr. Who plays Destro and they did a good job with his character. They also explained a bit about one of his ancestors in what was probably the best scene of the movie - not that that's saying much. The new take on Zartan is fantastic. Much more plausible than the shape-shifting hologram-using ab-revealing Aussie biker gang leader.

There are several references which older Joe fans will pick up on. Don't be fooled by a few lines, an alternate costume, something to chew on, or a red helmet. Just because you might have chuckled at a line doesn't mean you didn't facepalm a few scenes back, and in no way begins to make up for the flick's numerous flaws.

The story is terrible, the acting is just awful, the music is generic, the gags aren't funny, the action is uninteresting, and the plot twists are foreseeable. Do yourself a favour - buy some Joe comics or a figure instead.

An Accurate Look At: "Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen"

In the first Great Depression, Hollywood managed to survive by spewing out terrible, generic cut-rate movies. People would flock to theatres, forget about their woes for a few hours, and Tinseltown would rake it all in.

Sound familiar? It should.

Generic Hollywood Robots II: Return of the Product Placement is a two-and-a-half-hour orgy of mediocrity. Remember the 1998 Godzilla re-imagining? The needlessly radical redesign, the overly large cast of uninteresting humans, and the plot which seemed to have been added as an afterthought between explosions?

Sound familiar? It should.

The team who reduced the Transformers to nothing more than a brainless teen comedy have returned to once again reduce the Transformers to nothing more than a brainless teen comedy.

If you thought that the character development was bad in the 2007 flick, guess again. It's even worse this time around, with more characters who have less screentime than ever before. Think of the Redshirts from Star Trek. Only this time, they've given them names and even action figures. If you're only going to give a character one line and 30 seconds of screentime, you probably shouldn't have bothered to have put them in at all. Why would a character come to Earth just to drive through a few buildings, not even get a full robot mode, and ultimately get blown up?

And speaking of the 'robot modes,' have you ever crumpled up a ball of aluminum foil? Congratulations, you've made an accurate replica of a movie 'Transformer.' What's that? Your replica has no limbs and can't even turn into anything? Well, why not put it on a wheel? Feet are SO 1980s.

Seriously. A construction vehicle that turns into what looks like the robot equivalent of an abortion? A head between two wheels and arms? Where is the torso? Where are the legs? What the hell IS that thing? And don't get me started on the motorcycle triplets. Three motorcycles who don't have a robot mode between them. Picture a jack-in-the-box, with the head on the end of the extended spring. Now put that jack-in-the-box on top of a unicycle. According to Hollywood, you have a robot. Are they trying to make a Beast Machines reference, or just make their designers look lazy? And speaking of terrible designs, the main villain, a bastardization of one of the more memorable Transformers villains (and the ONLY character in this movie who should have had flames) looks like Makuta from Bionicle, and doesn't even turn into anything.

There are many 'robots' in this flick. Too many, in fact, with more literally leaping out of nowhere. Can drones tunnel their way across oceans, and just happen to be in the right area of the right country during an important battle? Do Constructicons reproduce asexually? Do they have Multiple Man's abilities? Sure seems that way because they can be everywhere at once, despite being combined into some kind of gorilla-like Shop-Vac.

Also, way to misunderstand Cybertronians. Megatron calls no one 'master.' Transformers do not cry. They do not have green blood. They do not speak like inner-city thugs. They have their own lexicon of slang and curses and need not borrow the humans'.

But don't worry. The robots aren't the only characters who are awful. The humans are, too. Forget about acting and characterization. Oh no, you can rely on stereotypes to instantly understand everything about a particular character. Paranoid geekboy? Check. "OMG, it's my destiny" guy? Check. Airheaded women? Check! People with learning disabilities? Minorities? Double check!

Why? Why must they make two of the robots who get the most screen time turn into awful-looking Chevrolets with repulsive paint jobs? And why must those cars turn into slang-talking stereotypical gangstas? The Retardicon twins (Hurp and Durp) have huge ears, gold teeth, oversized eyes, speak in human slang, and can't read. Of all the characters to give screen time to, it had to be these two. Primus, why? It was like watching a pair of mentally deficient wannabe rappers having a seizure.

Along with the awful characters came other staples of this kind of movie-making: too much gimmicry, too much special effects, too much frat boy/douchebag/unfunny humour (wrecking ball testicles? Dog buttsex? What kind of 12-year-old wrote that into the script?), and of course, airheaded/airbrushed women who are only cast for two reasons. And their reasons are on their chests.

At one point, Megan Fox's character is seen airbrushing what looks like some trashy tattoo onto a motorcycle. How very appropriate.

This flick is incredibly difficult to watch. And not just for the foreseeable plot twists (I use the term 'plot' very, very loosely), the excessive amount of uninteresting/undeveloped characters, the excessive special effects, a story structured almost as badly as this write-up, and the incredibly forgettable generic soundtrack (which, come to think of it, seems highly fitting). For some reason, this hack of a director loves gimmicks such as shaky-cam, lens flare, motion blur, and slow-motion - and combinations of any of the above. Not only do these 'techniques' feel overdone and tacky, but they really make the movie literally unwatchable. What's going on? What just happened? I don't know, because the camera wouldn't hold still while the sun blocked everything on screen while everything moved around really quickly. If you expect people to pay damn near twenty dollars to watch your drivel in Imax, show some courtesy and let them see the movie.

The best way to describe this flick is to compare it to a 90s comic book - 24 pages of over-the-top 'toughguyness' and badassery for no reason (to the point that characters act out of character), characters no one has any reason to care about, excessive fighting and violence for the sake of excessive fighting and violence, whenches, and bad stories, complete with a holographic cover, a collector card, plastic bag, and whole lot of ads.