bilgerat99
Joined Aug 2008
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews20
bilgerat99's rating
A modern "Heist" caper, starring Bruce Willis?
Should be good, uh-huh...
I'm legally deaf and far-sighted and I have an IQ that would probably qualify me to be marked down 30% at your local 99-cent store. I only completed two years of high school and when people start talking about things like "character arcs", "long shots", "cutaway", "out-takes", "dailies", etc., regarding the art of film-making, I really have no idea as to what they're talking about.
But even I could make a better movie than this one.
(I do understand what "plot holes" are though - so in addition to those *many* already mentioned, I'll add one more):
Let's do the surreptitious "hot diamonds for money swap" in an out-of-the-way place - like a rooftop parking area - so nobody can watch and get suspicious, OK? Best if we choose one *without* a minimum of 180 windows overlooking it from directly across the street, (yes, I counted), as we saunter around outside the getaway vehicle, dressed in our identical dark coveralls and knit watch-caps while carrying the big black bag of booty and clutching our machine guns. Ya think?
Should be good, uh-huh...
I'm legally deaf and far-sighted and I have an IQ that would probably qualify me to be marked down 30% at your local 99-cent store. I only completed two years of high school and when people start talking about things like "character arcs", "long shots", "cutaway", "out-takes", "dailies", etc., regarding the art of film-making, I really have no idea as to what they're talking about.
But even I could make a better movie than this one.
(I do understand what "plot holes" are though - so in addition to those *many* already mentioned, I'll add one more):
Let's do the surreptitious "hot diamonds for money swap" in an out-of-the-way place - like a rooftop parking area - so nobody can watch and get suspicious, OK? Best if we choose one *without* a minimum of 180 windows overlooking it from directly across the street, (yes, I counted), as we saunter around outside the getaway vehicle, dressed in our identical dark coveralls and knit watch-caps while carrying the big black bag of booty and clutching our machine guns. Ya think?
I read the reviews on-site and many off-site before watching this and saw they were very polarized, so I even went through some European reviews, which treated it quite a bit nicer but which were also pretty polarized. I did notice that, as of this writing, 20% of the people voting here on IMDb gave it a 10, which is significantly higher than even George Clooney's latest film, "The American" received, although it has a somewhat higher overall score. The major complaint I read amongst all the reviews was about the ongoing narration but, I thought, it's only a dollar rental and if it's too intrusive I can always watch something else. So, I decided to give it a spin.
Imagine you are watching a young man in a room, alone with the open casket of his mother, who had just passed away from cancer. He's thinking that the wig the undertaker put on her, to hide her hair loss from the therapy, was unbecoming. He would rather see her for the last time as she really was at the end of her days, bald-headed. This is an important thought of his, which sets up a subsequent scene that would otherwise be totally inexplicable.
How can a film-maker express this thought? By introducing someone into the room with which the young man can have a conversation about this? No, that destroys the solitude of the moment. By having him speak this thought aloud to his mother's remains? Not very likely. By creating a completely new scene where someone is present and then create an artifice to have a conversation about it? No, that adds unnecessary complexity and bulk to wade through, confusing the storyline.
What Schumacher does is to use a narrator to give the viewer a short-cut directly into the minds of his characters at times - many times. This makes the film somewhat more like a visual book than a movie. It wouldn't do for most movies but it was effective here. (I got a good chuckle from the vapidity of the last thought of Sara's that we are exposed to.) It is a different approach but I, for one, enjoyed it. I most probably would not of enjoyed the book this film is based on, as I don't think there was enough plot substance here to make an enjoyable book for me but I do think there was sufficient substance for a film. 6.5 out of 10.
Imagine you are watching a young man in a room, alone with the open casket of his mother, who had just passed away from cancer. He's thinking that the wig the undertaker put on her, to hide her hair loss from the therapy, was unbecoming. He would rather see her for the last time as she really was at the end of her days, bald-headed. This is an important thought of his, which sets up a subsequent scene that would otherwise be totally inexplicable.
How can a film-maker express this thought? By introducing someone into the room with which the young man can have a conversation about this? No, that destroys the solitude of the moment. By having him speak this thought aloud to his mother's remains? Not very likely. By creating a completely new scene where someone is present and then create an artifice to have a conversation about it? No, that adds unnecessary complexity and bulk to wade through, confusing the storyline.
What Schumacher does is to use a narrator to give the viewer a short-cut directly into the minds of his characters at times - many times. This makes the film somewhat more like a visual book than a movie. It wouldn't do for most movies but it was effective here. (I got a good chuckle from the vapidity of the last thought of Sara's that we are exposed to.) It is a different approach but I, for one, enjoyed it. I most probably would not of enjoyed the book this film is based on, as I don't think there was enough plot substance here to make an enjoyable book for me but I do think there was sufficient substance for a film. 6.5 out of 10.
Imagine you're having a dream about driving a souped-to-the-max dune buggy in the Baja 500 race, you're zooming along but, hello?, people are passing you left and right - something's wrong. You look down and instead of your custom racer, you find that you're driving a vehicle haphazardly slapped together from parts of all descriptions, a piece of Ford Anglia here, a piece of 1942 Willys there, some skateboard here and a little bit of Volvo there, ala Beyond Thunderdome. Everything holds together and you do finish the race, limp across the finish line and pull off your helmet, wipe the sweat and dirt from your brow and think: I made it! Just barely, but I made it...
This movie had everything, great actors, great locations, a tidy, suspenseful plot and great cinematography, a hunted assassin, a kind-hearted hooker, a mysterious assassinette, a perceptive and garrulous clergyman, a suspicious character as the assassin's controller, a couple of chases and several gunfights but the George Clooney in this movie seemed somnambulistic throughout, compared to, say, the George Clooney in Three Kings or O Brother, Where Art Thou. Then again, an assassin who is becoming introspective might be a bit daunted by the feeling, who knows? Yet the priest, played by Paolo Bonacelli, out-charisma-ed George and he was followed by the hooker, played by Violante Placido; they both portrayed more of George's trademark impishness than he did. Okay, maybe it was: "don't upstage your hosts".
The movie's plot itself was like a compendium of a lot of movies instead of an original, yet Kick-Ass was a compendium also but it was highly original. This ultimately was a very strong film that just never really flexed it's muscles, it was more like a good Rolex copy - perfect in every detail except with a quartz movement going: tick - tick - tick instead of a self-winding Swiss precision movement going: tickety-tickety-tickety-tickety - it got the job done - but a with certain lack of panache.
There, now I've gone and said it - they'll hate me for it but I've said it...
This movie had everything, great actors, great locations, a tidy, suspenseful plot and great cinematography, a hunted assassin, a kind-hearted hooker, a mysterious assassinette, a perceptive and garrulous clergyman, a suspicious character as the assassin's controller, a couple of chases and several gunfights but the George Clooney in this movie seemed somnambulistic throughout, compared to, say, the George Clooney in Three Kings or O Brother, Where Art Thou. Then again, an assassin who is becoming introspective might be a bit daunted by the feeling, who knows? Yet the priest, played by Paolo Bonacelli, out-charisma-ed George and he was followed by the hooker, played by Violante Placido; they both portrayed more of George's trademark impishness than he did. Okay, maybe it was: "don't upstage your hosts".
The movie's plot itself was like a compendium of a lot of movies instead of an original, yet Kick-Ass was a compendium also but it was highly original. This ultimately was a very strong film that just never really flexed it's muscles, it was more like a good Rolex copy - perfect in every detail except with a quartz movement going: tick - tick - tick instead of a self-winding Swiss precision movement going: tickety-tickety-tickety-tickety - it got the job done - but a with certain lack of panache.
There, now I've gone and said it - they'll hate me for it but I've said it...