Tookey gets his ass kicked for kicking Kick-Ass' ass

To the surprise of no-one, Mail film reviewer Chris Tookey has produced a scathing 'review' of Kick-Ass.

He gives it one-star (rather than his worst rating, a turkey) because it is:

sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot.

But he goes on to say:

it's lightweight and silly, but it's also cynical, premeditated and mindbogglingly irresponsible.

Why?

The reason the movie is sick, as well as thick, is that it breaks one of the last cinematic taboos by making the most violent, foul-mouthed and sexually aggressive character, Hit-Girl, an 11-year-old.

Avoiding any mention of the film's plot, he goes on to explain - at great length - why he believes it's a paedophile's dream, even mentioning:

Worldwide child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

And that's partly the fault of this film that hasn't even come out yet, apparently.

He says of Hit-Girl:

she makes comments unprintable in a family newspaper, that reveal a sexual knowledge hugely inappropriate to her years.

Some might find the description of the Mail as a 'family newspaper' more offensive that anything in this film, but is the Mail as coy as he thinks? Err, no:


Indeed, when the Mail started getting 'outraged' by Kick-Ass on 28 February, they explained exactly what she says:

In one scene, the young serial killer – played by 13-year-old American actress Chloe Moretz – screams at her victims: ‘Okay, you ****s, let’s see what you can do now.’

In another, she tells her vigilante father she wants a puppy for her birthday. When he looks surprised, she says: ‘I’m just f****** with you, Daddy’, and asks for a razor-sharp knife instead.

And they repeated those quotes on 18 March, 24 March (twice) and on 31 March as well.

That's how unprintable they are.

Tookey is also appalled by what he believes is the sexualisation of Hit-Girl:

The movie's writers want us to see Hit-Girl not only as cool, but also sexy...Paedophiles are going to adore her.

One of the film's creepiest aspects is that she's made to look as seductive as possible...She's fetishised in precisely the same way as Angelina Jolie in the Lara Croft movies, and Halle Berry in Catwoman.

As if that isn't exploitative enough, she's also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun.

Classic school girl pose, with plaid skirt and big gun? Where have we seen that before?


Ah yes, on the Mail website on 28 February. And 18 March. And 24 March.

How can Tookey possibly continue to work for a media outlet which indulges in such 'exploitative' behaviour?

Oh and then there's this:


Yes, that's Tookey's own website, where all his film reviews are collected. Just look at that vile 'exploitative' picture of a 'schoolgirl...with her hair in bunches...carrying a big gun' he's used to illustrate his Kick-Ass review.

The hypocrite.

He goes on to refer to the:

grotesque glorification of prematurely sexualised...children

Several of the people who have commented on Tookey's review on the Mail website, who have seen the film, say it does no such thing (indeed, all but around 5 of the 62 comments are attacking Tookey's useless review). Frankly, it would be hard to imagine the BBFC giving the film a certificate at all, let alone a 15, if it did.

But if Tookey is so concerned about 'prematurely sexualised children' he should have another word with his employers. In the 'Don't Miss' section to the right of his review is yet another 'story' (meaning: pap pics with words attached) about Suri Cruise. Or, as the Mail describes her, a three-year-old in a 'super-cute' outfit:


The article begins:

In mini heels and grown-up clothes, she often seems a little older than her inconsiderable years.

And one of the picture captions, refers to her:

coy expressions.

That's on top of calling her, as the Daily Quail pointed out, 'precocious', 'cuddly', 'traffic stopping', 'cute' and 'impeccable'.

Then there was the description of an 11-year-old Katy Perry as 'pretty' with an 'innocent smile'.

Not to mention the Mail saying of the 'sweet' 15-year-old Angelina Jolie:

even at the age of 15, it was clear Angelina Jolie had star potential. With her bee-stung lips and sultry brown eyes...

And what about the time the Mail ran a picture of a 14-year-old girl's bum, so readers could judge if her trousers were too tight?

Tookey, with no small amount of egotism, goes on to cliam he is the only film reviewer brave enough to take this film on:

they'll get an easy ride from the vast majority of reviewers, who either don't care about the social effects of movies or are frightened to appear 'moralistic' or 'judgmental'.

It's a bit baffling to say a film critic is afraid of being 'judgmental' - surely that's in the job decription? But it's a good job we have Tookey to show us the way, then...

Or not, given this ludicrous, and breathtakingly crass, statement:

Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?

Err, whoever said we did?

More claims of plagiarism against the Mail

The constant media hounding of Jonathan Ross eventually led to him quitting the BBC. Having claimed his scalp, they're now going after his wife for her involvement in the upcoming action film Kick-Ass.

The Sunday Times began this piffle with Jon Ungoed-Thomas' ill-informed article Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman spawns girl assassin, 11. Unsurprisingly, the Mail were quick to join in the attack, with the suspiciously similar Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman causes outrage with film featuring a foul-mouthed 11-year-old assassin, which they placed very prominently on their website.

Two things need to be pointed out immediately.

One: Goldman is only a co-writer of the screenplay. The other co-writer, Matthew Vaughn, is also the film's director - yet he is hardly mentioned in either story.

Two: the film is based on a comic book by Mark Millar. He invented the character of Hit-Girl, the foul-mouthed, eleven-year-old assassin, but the Mail doesn't even bother to mention him.

So references to 'Goldman's film' and her 'spawning' the character aren't exactly accurate.

As for the so-called 'outrage', it's as mythical as you might expect. The New York Times published an article about the film's red band trailers (ones that have swearing and violence in), based on the concerns of one person, who writes her reviews under the title Movie Mom.

Both articles quote Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, but he seems to be making a generic point about about movie violence and doesn't mention Goldman at all.

So a bit of manufactured outrage used to attack another member of the Ross family. What a surprise.

But on reading the Mail's version, the resemblance to the Sunday Times' article is too strong to be coincidental. As the Mail article says Furedi 'told the Sunday Times' his view, it's reasonable to assume the broadsheet article must have existed first.

Sunday Times:

Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:

Mail (with spelling mistake):

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

It doesn't look good, does it?

And this isn't the first time a Mail article has looked suspiciously similar to another story from another paper.

On an earlier post about yet another claim of plagiarism against the Mail, an anonymous comment pointed out these two articles:

Exhibit A - AC Transit bus brawler has video past by Angela Woodall in The Oakland Tribune.

Exhibit B - Bus assault pensioner, 67, starred in second YouTube altercation last August... when he was Tasered by police published on MailOnline.

I emailed Woodall about the claim. She said they had used her work without attribution and confirmed that she had written an email to the Mail about their 'strikingly similar' story, but which they had ignored. She also sent me a copy of her email to them.

Here's a section from Woodall's article:


And from the Mail's version:



And with these articles following on from the claims made against the Mail's Chris Johnson for plagiarism, is anyone going to call the Mail and its editor, to account?

Mail doesn't want violent criminals deported to 'where they came from' shock

The Mail's latest attempt to blame violent films, video games and Facebook for anything and everything comes in the story Vietnam veteran killed boss in Reservoir Dogs-style attack after slipping into UK despite string of convictions.

As he's 53, it's doubtful he was a Vietnam vet as the last US combat troops left 37 years ago, when he was around 16.

But Reservoir Dogs? Did he dress in white shirt with black suit and tie and chop someone's ear off while singing early 70s pop songs? Did he change his name to a colour and shoot someone during a diamond heist?

Well, no:

Russell Carter, 53, held the men at gunpoint in their office and forced them to transfer cash to his bank account.

He tied up three of the hostages, then took company director Kingsley Monk into another room where he brutally attacked him with a metal pipe before strangling him with his own tie.

OK, so one hostage was tied up in Reservoir Dogs, but other than that, none of that happened in the film. But wait:

In a scene recalling Quentin Tarantino's 1992 film Reservoir Dogs, Carter then drenched the remaining hostages in petrol, spread more around the office and set it alight before fleeing.

Of course, while one hostage was doused in petrol, no one was actually set on fire in an office in the film.

The Sun also refers to it as a:

Reservoir Dogs style slaughter

eventhough the one man who died was killed in ways which are nowhere to be seen in the film.

So why try and blame the film, rather than the fact that Carter was a nasty, violent man who:

was convicted of armed robbery in California in 1979 and again in 1985 when he was jailed for 20 years.

California? So he was one of those violent foreigners who come to this country to commit their crimes?

Well, not really. He was born in Britain and held dual citizenship.

Imagine the Daily Mail, in America, in 1985. After Carter's second conviction for armed robbery they would be demanding this person be deported 'back to where he came from'. Britain.

And yet, Carter's crime is the fault of...America:

It emerged that British-born Carter had a record of armed violence in the U.S. but immigration officials were not warned when he returned to this country ten years ago.

The comments include:

And another loony is let into Britain
- Despair, Kent, 23/10/2009 14:59

And:

Maybe Nick Griffin has a point,keep importing criminal scum like this and what do you expect??
- Tel em straight, Zefat Israel, 23/10/2009 16:57

Importing? He's British-born! And then:

Send him back to USA let him serve his sentence there. Why the hell should we keep him?
- Richard, Torrevieja, Spain, 23/10/2009 17:01

Which contains an interesting use of the word 'we' for someone living in Spain.

And over at The Sun:

Let him serve it back in the States.
posted by: VigilanteMan

Hmm. So whereas the Mail and Sun and their readers are all too keen to demand the deportation of criminals back to their country of origin, if they are British, they shouldn't return to Britain. To quote one Mail comment:

What he did was horrific and absolutely the US authorities should have informed the UK police of any criminal activitites or time served in prison, but you can't argue that he shouldn't have been allowed back to the UK and then argue in the same breath that immigrant criminals should be deported.
- C Martin, Auckland, New Zealand, 24/10/2009 2:14

Quite right.