marcusdean118

The first Kick-Ass was a triumphant success, a film that despite displaying the same genre tropes (social outcast, loss of a close relative, seemingly unobtainable girlfriend etc...) packaged them in a completely skewered way that felt fresh to witness. By rooting the tale in a 'real world' setting, it up's the stakes of the peril facing our heroes while also presenting a satirical look at our own world and how we deal with not only superheroes but with violence also. Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman's first film handled that delicate balance masterfully. Sadly, Jeff Wadlow's sequel does not.

By losing Mark Strong and Nicolas Cage from the original, Kick-Ass 2 had a huge hole in need of filling at both sides of the spectrum and despite Jim Carrey turning in a wildly impressive performance (in relation to his frustratingly short 8 minutes of screen time), it is perhaps on the side of evil you notice this more. Christopher Mintz-Plaisse is woefully under-served as the films main foe and despite having a few funny moments throughout, he is never given the chance to shine and the film's bizarre plotting ensures that for every one step forward (nick-naming seems to be a talent of his) he takes two steps back. Evidence to this is the one scene cameo of Iain Glen as his Uncle in prison who threatens him to stop pursuing Kick-Ass, to which Chris says no, forcing his Uncle to kill Chris's only confidante (in itself, a very effective scene), only for this to do nothing to dissuade Chris as he continues with his plan anyway. And we never hear from his Uncle again.

Unnecessary scenes like this plague the film throughout and they really hammer home how disappointingly short Carrey's role as Colonel Stars and Stripes is. His performance is compelling as he sinks into the role, but rather than revel in it, the film only allows him two stand-out scenes and then continually uses it's supporting cast of character to eulogise him and ram down the audiences throat just how important he was despite his brief tenure as the leader of the pack. You really wish they could have trimmed the fat in other sections of the film to afford more Carrey time as the crazed Colonel.

With the lack of the Colonel on screen, comes a lack of fight. The film falls into a lull after his character meets his demise, with the delicate escalation of events in the first film being replaced by a mish-mash of random events seemingly undoing each other as they reach their rather uninspired climax. Moretz is again eminently watchable as Hit-Girl, but considering the most she gets to do is make people defecate themselves and stare at her Father's suit, the viewer can be forgiven for missing Big Daddy as well.

The film itself is not a bad one, it can have it's rather enjoyable moments, but in comparison to the first one, it falls decidedly short on all levels.

When this movie was in pre-production, I couldn't wait to see it. I loved The Road, which John Hillcoat directed also and its cast just excited me further. But I was left rather disappointed by the finished product, it seemed like the film wasn't entirely sure what it was aiming to do. Half of it plays like a prohibition Goodfellas, chronicling young Jack Bondurant as he rises through the family business of bootlegging. Which in fairness, would be a really fun film to watch, if the whole narrative was like it. But at crucial points the story takes itself way too seriously, trying to come across as a brooding epic, much like The Assassination of Jesse James, which considering the opening cheesy narration, it was never going to emulate.

I know a lot of people have problems with Shia LaBeaouf as an actor, but I'm not one of those. I thought he was great in Holes, Disturbia and even most of Eagle Eye. But watching this movie, I sort of understood what everyone else was saying. He doesn't quite have the charisma the carry a movie in the lead role, he plays the weedy brother in the first half of the film very well. But when the tone shifts and he has to take over his brothers mantle as leader of the gang, it's never once convincing.

Tom Hardy is an actor I love, he was great in Bronson and Inception (I personally didn't love him in Dark Knight Rises, but I understand why everyone else does) and I was excited to see him getting to grips with the classic Archetype of gang leader. But considering most of his work in the film is grunting and punching, he is underwhelming. As is Guy Pearce, who tries way too hard to be a quirky captivating villain from the big city. Trying to pull off a Christoph Waltz and failing.

But yeah, the film's not bad. Its just not good. And considering the talent involved, you think it would have been. Oh yeah and Gary Oldman? Literally in it for about 8 minutes. Ridiculous sub-plot which never takes place where you think it's going to. Be warned also, there is a lot of awkward silences in the film, where dialogue surely must have been in the script, only to be replaced by Tom Hardy grunting. A must see for grunters all over the world.