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?
Posts
