WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Roger Ebert Calls "Kick-Ass" Morally Reprehensible

Posted: April 16th, 2010 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Roger Ebert Calls "Kick-Ass" Morally ReprehensibleSubmit Comment
"Kick-Ass" is getting great reviews and while most fans and critics are enjoying the movie, there are still a bunch of people who cannot get over the fact that an 11-year-old girl (Chloe Moretz) was asked to speak in a very crude way.

One of those people is critic Roger Ebert, who gave the film a single star and declared it to be "morally reprehensible." Seems pretty harsh considering that there is more to the movie than just a little girl using inappropriate language.

Ebert wrote (possible spoilers): "Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find Kick-Ass morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let's say you're a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the movie does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context."

Click here to read our "Kick-Ass" review.

Source: Sun Times

Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 135 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:57:59 AM

f*ck off roger !!
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:59:32 AM

said same thing about Die Hard as well, c*ck !!
Scrooge McDuck writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:05:25 AM

My god, people really need to get over this. Oh, so Dakota fanning can get butt f*cked in a movie and you call it "tasteful"? f*ck me, people need to reach very far up their ass holes and f*cking pull out what ever Vin/Dandy put up there, because it isn't coming out on its own. Ebert, the movie was fan-friggin-tastic, learn to live in this world that I LOVE inhabiting, a world where movies like this can get big releases.

Jump off something.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:16:03 AM

Lost all respect for Ebert!! You think thats NOT how kids talk these days? open your f*cking ears!! Its a movie! its not done in a doc*mentary style, people know its fiction and fantasy, and so does Chloe Moretz!! she seems pretty mature about the whole thing, and judging by her performance in 500 days of summer she seems way ahead of what her age would suggest! Im not trying to be cool by saying i loved the movie, im being honest! its made for me and my generation, people that get it, i would never slag of a romantic comedy because its not something i find 'cool' and you sir should not put down a movie that you dont understand and was not aimed at you in the first place!

and im sure hit girl would say it so i will speak for her....f*ck YOU!!
wonderBOY writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:23:11 AM

he gave death at a funeral 3.5 stars and lets not forget the 3 stars for paul blart
wonderBOY writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:23:25 AM

he gave death at a funeral 3.5 stars and lets not forget the 3 stars for paul blart
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:36:22 AM

....that says it all!
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:42:30 AM

How can you trust a man with a chin like this !!


Bigcheese writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:49:15 AM

Oh no an 11 year old sweared! That NEVER happens in the real world! Get out more Ebert! Also, judging a entire movie over a couple of words? What about all the people who worked on the movie behind the Camera, guess there effort dosen't count, an 11 year old is Swearing!
ikleesdekrant writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:53:31 AM

f*ck Ebert. Who needs critics with a conscious anyway.. The "batsign" that's shaped like a big c*ck? Probably Ebert's illuminated face.
eViL.kEv2 writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:06:06 AM

You know, just like Siskel, I've never liked this *sshole. He can type whatever the f*ck he wants about movies, it doesn't matter, because the majority of the movie-going crowd doesn't even know who he is anymore. The thing that really gets me in this article is when he says:

"You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in."

f*ck you Ebert! There has never been and will never be a spot for you amongst nerds, geeks and fanboys. With all this garbage spewing out of your mouth for so many decades, it's no wonder your jaw committed suicide. The only thing that's sad about your life now is that Siskel isn't here to put you in your place anymore and remind you how much of a know-it-all, little bitch you are.
VDODSON writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:07:30 AM

Hold the god damn phone, when did Dakota Fanning get buttf*cked, and how come I have never heard of it?
japaninmotion writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:24:33 AM

SOLD!! too bad this movie will never come to japan....guess i have to buy this one from ebay
playergamer23 writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:27:28 AM


yeah, there was. it was called Hounddog. There's a scene where she gets raped. No one watched that movie though.
N8R writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:52:25 AM

Isn't this the same guy who made "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls"?
Aingx writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:53:13 AM

If the fat bastard actually read this, I'd bother posting insults...
SACdaddy writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:59:29 AM

Its getting kind of hard to judge morality these day isn't it Mr Ebert. In a world full of papal child molestation, female sex slavery, and savage bullying, its very refreshing to see a kid finally striking back with no regard for the "moral" establishment. This movie is hyperviolence at its best, and is never meant to be taken very seriously. Now if they would have shown Hit Girl sucking Big Daddy's d*ck, I might have had a problem with it.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:08:42 AM

Sorry Roger, I couldn't hear you over MY JAW THAT STILL WORKS.

HA! HA! You have no jaw!
SACdaddy writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:11:18 AM

@Japanimotion: Why aren't they releasing it Japan? The all the business men buying panties out of vending machines would love it. This was the closest an American/British film will ever come to being like the crazy sh*t that comes out of Japan. The two seem made for each other.
Ranma-Irias writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:12:05 AM

this is the guy who gave 4 stars out of 4 to the movie "2012"

That says it all.
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:58:40 AM

just read 1 more things on good old roger !!

: Panned Reservoir Dogs on his show while praising Cop and (burt reynolds) which was one of the worst films ever made...

The guy seems a little out of touch with what people of today like and watch ....

TRUEMAN writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:02:57 AM

this movie is going to suck so much it just look ridiculus, a 11 years old girl kicking ass yeah right, and Sam W. is no gay yeah right!
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:08:49 AM

@ TRUEMAN _ way off man, WAY OFF
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:12:00 AM

I would punch Roger in the face if it weren't for the fact that I'm afraid my arm will be sucked into the black hole that is his jaw.

I don't see the moral issue either. If some guys kill your dad, sure you want to take revenge? It's not like they are innocent.
Nekros22 writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:43:22 AM

"Will I seem hopelessly square if I find Kick-Ass morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point?"

Yes. Yes you would.
CCBlev writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:49:47 AM

Roger aren't you due to die in a horrible accident, or overdose or something?
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:13:23 AM

@cc- could be a shaving accident with that f*cking jaw line !!
BigUnit writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:33:04 AM

its called a movie! and you call yourself a film critic.
BigUnit writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:36:17 AM

i must admit, i wasnt to fond of Kick-ass at first, and i admit about a month ago when comparing the trailers of clash of the titans and kick-ass i was saying clash of the titans all the way and kick-ass what??? boy did that totally turn out wrong, I loved the movie Kick-ass, loved everything about it, a big surprise for me, i didnt know it was the same director of stardust and i shoulda known better cuase i loved that movie also
shayhiri writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:36:43 AM

Who even listens to this parasite? Movie critics who think they're doing their job are the sorriest sc*m on the planet.

"Dakota fanning can get butt f*cked in a movie and you call it "tasteful" ----> And where is that, Scrooge?

CCBlev writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:45:10 AM

Wonder if we can send him an email to stand an inch or 2 closer to the blade next time he shaves.
SamuelClayton writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:55:24 AM

Oh look, here comes the internet geek brigade, rushing to defend the newest piece of fanboy masturbation from someone who has the NERVE to have a dissenting opinion.
Odd writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 11:04:11 AM

Oh Samuel C are you silly man you.. You say he (roger) is just giving his opinon, well what do you think everyone else is doing? They in turn are saying (giving their opinion) of what they think of him..whats wrong with that?
By the way Kick-Ass.. rawr ^^
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 11:10:53 AM

@ SamuelClayton - pop down of your high horse and we can have a little chat about why his comments are so far from the mark.

He has CHOSEN to be a film critic, he is only as good as his word, and if he CHOSES to praise movies which are universally trashed by FANS (yes, we mortals that pay money to see these movies) and the pushes his own close minded views on a movie which most FANS consider fresh and current entertainment, then YES we paying FANS will be pissed off, he is in a profession that tells people what good movies are out there, but instead of having a go at the movie for not being very good, hes instead having a go at anyone that enjoyed it and calling people that may have enjoyed it in the future morally compromised.

So i will remain on TEAM KICK-ASS in a world where freedom of speech and originality reigns and you and Ebert can go live in a room with no doors and windows and continue to moan at the opinionated masses.

we shall call in TEAM MOANY f*ck
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 11:17:13 AM

@SamuelClayton - by the way, you are part of the internet geek brigade!! and you clearly havent seen the movie, maybe watch it before moaning, you may then realise why people feel so strongly about defending it against a man that wrote some of the most exploitative sh*t ever put on film
KingAdash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 11:41:01 AM

Roger Ebert has been terrible for years. To be honest, I think it was the death of Gene Siskel when Roger started handing out 3 and 4 star reviews like he was a pedophile with a bag hard candies. So when he does hand out a bad review to a good movie, and Kick-Ass rocks by my standards, he usually picks a reason like this because he thinks it wasn't done in the name of art. Believe me when I say he's lost any critical integrity a LONG time ago.
rocketman writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 12:17:08 PM

Most fun i've had at the cinema for over 15 years easy.Most bored i have ever been at the cinema was when i took a date to go see Dead Poets Society,trying to act all cool and mature.Save to say i didn't get my ball licked that night.
rocketman writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 12:27:03 PM

That would be saFe and ballS.
Edit button please...again.
rabid writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 12:29:31 PM

This Ebert talking, the guy who wrote exploitation films for Russ Meyer.
Save your righteous indignation for your proctologist, Roger.
SamuelClayton writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 12:29:54 PM

@ AYT: You're pretty much proving my point, as is everyone else here who's acting like a petulant teenager over one person's opinion over a film that's getting divisive response as it is. Critics aren't supposed to parrot the opinions of internet fanboys or the masses and they certainly aren't under any obligation to force themselves to like what's considered "cool." I guarantee, based on the idiotic responses this review has recieved, that almost none of you have actually bothered to read Roger Ebert's relatively reasoned review. You just read the headline, glanced at the blurb, and flew into a rage. But he's the close-minded one. Sure.

This happens every time a film that's been hyped up by comic geeks gets some negative responses. I remember the same kind of bile being thrown at people who dared to dislike Spider-Man 3 on the day of its release, and look how that turned out. And considering how most of their responses center around death threats and making fun of his cancer, I agree with him completely that you guys "inhabit a world I am so very not interested in."
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 12:37:50 PM

@SamuelClayton: I have no problem with people not liking Kick-Ass, to each of his own. But when he claims that Kick-Ass is morally corrupted, I think he totally missed the point and bashes the movie to cover it up.
lawman writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 1:17:35 PM

CLAYTON SAID>>>>And considering how most of their responses center around death threats and making fun of his cancer, I agree with him completely that you guys "inhabit a world I am so very not interested in."

Well, you can leave our world whenever your ready! In turn, we will do our best not to mourn your exit!
Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 1:36:22 PM

1. Hounddog is #1 on my shopping list (Fanning butt-raped... honestly?!)

2. Siskel & Ebert were on Carson and even Johnny asked if people took critics seriously.

3. 'Robert Ebert Calls "Kick-Ass" Morally Reprehensible' --- funny... that's what I think of his face (condemnable).
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 1:46:46 PM

Who wrote this f*cking article and did anybody ready it?! Ebert never says anything about language. He talks about the child lack of remorse and the brutality she inflicts and is inflicted on her.
Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 1:59:18 PM

Sounds kinda HAWT!
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:12:40 PM

@ SamuelClayton - im proving your point am i? ok well you keep talking about internet fanboys as if your something different and ignore everything i said, thats like real smart n stuff.

Now, i noticed you failed to respond as to wether or not youve actually seen the movie! your jumping on the side of someone thats angered people by putting down something they loved.....but you havent even seen it....sooooo i dont see why you feel the need to butt in on this one (stir the sh*t? make your day go quicker?).

And before you label me as some teen fanboy that has insulted the man, his face and his health, read my post! And read previous posts where i wished him well in his health! this has nothing to do with him as a person, its to do with his comments. Your saying we all complain when someone has an opinion but what do you think hes doing when he claims anyone that likes the movie inhabits "a world I am so very not interested in"??

He has an opinion about the movie and the people that support it, and WE have an opinion about his comments, i dont agree with nor do i take part in the insults about his face, theres plenty of material to make fun of the guy with out that, have you even seen valley of the dolls?!?!? guess exploiting women is fine, just not kids?? anyway enjoy the weather up there on your moral high ground with Mr Ebert and as lawman said, feel free to leave our world that you consider your self so above anytime......look in the mirror my friend, your a fan boy posting on a movie site! life sucks :-)
Ted Mosby writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:13:06 PM

Really? I've always been on the fence on whether i should like the guy but I could never really stand critics with a big headed ego. Thanks for making my decision a hell of a lot easier. f*ck You Ebert and good day WP.
Ted Mosby writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:16:45 PM

Since when is the term "Fan Boy" a negative term for all of us? I for sure don't take offense to it?
BunnyFooFoo writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:17:41 PM

ebert absolutely misses it. And the comparrison of Houndog is dead on. I've seen Houndog and it's a horrible movie. There was so much "tasteful" hype about it and that scene and when I finally saw it I was stunned. Not due to the scene but the fact that it was a blatant attempt to generate buzz. It could have been left out and implied and the same message would have come across.
But in it's defense, it fit the time and setting of the movie. As does Hit Girl's parts in Kick-Ass. She's an 11 yr old girl who was put on this path and has to deal with the results of that. Be it dealing out ass whoopings or taking one herself. And for anyone young or older girl or boy who deals out beatings in the fashion she does can only expect the same in return. That's how the world works. It's not going to go easy on someone just because they're an 11 yr old girl.
Even more so since this 11 yr old girl is viscious.
that's the point this makes. I wouldn't have taken it seriously if she didn't get her ass beat.
So if Ebert doesn't like it, fine, don't. And go ahead and write why you don't. But do not use your platform to put down those that due and cast them out of society (or refuse to live in theirs) because of their likes.
that my problem with his and other critics.
It's not because they don't like what I like so they should die. They don't like what I like and they then decide to judge anyone that does. That to me is complete horse sh*t.
You want to be a real critic? Stop bashing people who like a flick that you don't and keep it moving, simple.
So @SamuelClayton, for you to go on here and bash people for expressing their disconcern over Ebert is ridiculous because you're doing the same damn thing Ebert is doing. who are you to come on and sh*t over so-called fanboys who also have the nerve to cast their own dissenting opinion? You see where your hypocritical statement just screams out what a f*cking bitch hole you are.
sorry that was out of character and so un-lady-like.
But that sh*t pisses me off. You can't use a quasi-freedom of speech argument to argue against freedom of speech.
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:26:36 PM

Freedom of speech? How does that apply on this site, or Ebert's site?
Tizzle writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:29:08 PM

Is it possible that the director (I believe it's Matthew Vaughn) has this 11 year old girl do morally reprehensible things on purpose to prove a point? Yeah I think it is. Watch the movie and you will understand what I'm talking about.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:34:51 PM

@ Bunny - exactly!! and not out of character at all to be passionate about something, just honest!

@ Ben Reilly - people are taking crap for expressing thier dislike of Eberts comments, that is attacking freedom of speech
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:44:24 PM


Freedom of speech protects citizens from government censorship. It doesn't apply to disagreements between WorstPreviews members, or moderators for that matter (you can say what you like, but no one is forced to provide a platform for said speech).
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 2:59:55 PM

@Ben Reilly - clearly no one is referring to any government or political intervension! Its a phrase used to explain that we can have an opinion without someone giving us crap for it....i really shouldnt have to explain that, come on!
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:04:56 PM


You don't have to cry about it either. If you mean what you say, than Ebert should be able to express his views without taking crap for it. Be consistent or be gone.
bluemeenie writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:10:13 PM

Critics are supposed to be objective/professional. Robert aka Roger forgets this often...
Subjective Teen bias is for you guys here on the kiddynet...Seems like this film was made for you guys...suck it all up
bluemeenie writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:12:28 PM

"Morally Reprehensible"- why does that incite/offend any of you kids in here? That's usually a label you wear with pride...??
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:18:17 PM

@ Ben Reilly - Sorry ben, you clearly didnt read what i was "crying" about so i will spell it out for you, you ready? get comfy....

Ebert is a critic, he has the right to express his views on any movie he choses to and thats fine, when he clearly insults the morals of anyone that found that movie entertaining (And understood it!!) then he is open to all kinds of personal abuse in return, the comments about freedom of speech refer to another poster on here that basically called us all moaning teen fan boys for not just taking Mr Eberts insults silently, dont pick arguments before reading all the posts, your making your self look like a troll
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:20:02 PM

@ Blue - seriously. try harder, yawn
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:37:52 PM


It's not a right just because he is a film critic. No I didn't read your tears. So you understood it and Mr. Ebert didn't? Maybe you should read his review again. I don't know what "world" you live in, but you can't brush off a statement with "you just don't get it". Ebert gets it. He knows Kick-Ass is not Traffic. He knows it's not the same reality and that each should be judge my different standards and it is from that that Ebert says he is not interested in that reality (or with the people involved in it).
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:42:39 PM

@ Ben - Thus judging anyone that enjoys it and placing himself on a higher moral ground.

Have you seen kick ass? Id like to know your personal views on the movie because all of our comments against Mr Eberts condemnation come from our love for the movie....so i assume you must have seen it in order to so strongly agree with the man? right?
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 3:46:08 PM

also, just curious, do you think Mr Ebert would want to live in the world he created for beyond the valley of the dolls? because naked bouncy women and the brutal murder of those women seem fine to him....interesting
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 4:02:54 PM

"it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context."

Context? What, 'Awesome' isn't in your vocab, Roger?
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 4:05:51 PM


lol u mad?
minkowski writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 4:11:55 PM

The question is, could the movie have remained unaffected in quality, or even perhaps improved, by removing the little girl vulgarities? In other words, does the movie somehow transcend some plane of cinematic values by merely including the offending words?

Or did they include these vulgarities because the writers lack the imagination to stir controversy in a more appreciable and intellectual way? Did they say: hey let's toss in some profanities, have them utter from the mouth of a child, just to piss off parents and 'traditional' people?

If so, that's just lame and immature. Like a lot of these WP posters.
Ted Mosby writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 4:37:39 PM

SamuelClayton writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:52:56 PM

@ minkowski: Right on the money. These frothing-at-the-mouth trolls who have already made up in their own minds to worship Kick-Ass spew vile insults at Ebert for doing his job, then cry when someone calls them out on their immaturity.
vaodsi writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:53:45 PM

Ok, everybody is prolly going to think i'm being some kind of vindandy for saying this...
but i have a question. a genuine question cause i don't know much about the graphic novel or film other than the fact that it's got a little girl getting beat up and killing people and saying "c*nt, f*ck, c*ck"First let me say that Roger Ebert has TOTALLY missed the point before. I mean, look at his review of fight club (one of my favorite movies of all time!) where he TOTALLY misses the satire.
so everybody on here is saying that he has missed the point again, and that he's not "getting" the satire.. or point.
so my question posed to all of you, since i am an ignorant english major who seriously does not have the time to read graphic novels (seriously... if i had the time i would) because i'm to busy writing essays on jonathan swift, what is the point? what is the satire of this? How does a little girl spewing the C word and getting beat to pulp make a statement about our society?
I'm not challenging, i'm just asking cause I'm curious.
I would ask what is so funny about it in the first place... but i'm afraid that would be pointless cause it's just not really my humor.
But really, what is the "point" that ebert is missing? Everybody is saying that but nobody is giving saying what the point is.

AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:58:05 PM

@minkowski - well thats not the question at all but to answer your own curiosity, all those crude lines and all the violence that is causing these morally superior people to speak up, were all included in the comic book. Now very few parents read their kids comics, because, they are JUST comics, so you ask if they are included "just to piss off parents and 'traditional' people?", the answer is no, the movie stays true to the comic and the comic was never intended to be seen by parental eyes.

I understand why people would be offended by this movie, and thats fine, but casting judgment on people that arent offended is pushing things a little too far. Have you seen the movie?
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 5:59:24 PM

@ SamuelClayton - so you havent seen the movie? figured.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:14:28 PM

@ vaodsi - will try answer your question, enjoy talking about it but seems alot of people that havent seen it want to just stir crap for the sake of it.

The main point to this movie firstly is to entertain, it doesnt take its self too seriously (infact the comic was alot more realistic and harsh in some parts), but we live in pretty harsh times, in the 80s you could actually imagine a guy becoming a crime fighting super hero and having some success, seems everyone has wised up these days, and like in the movie, if someone tried it these days they would be stabbed and left bleeding in seconds, the movie deals with the line between fantasy and reality, sure we would all like to swing down batman style and save some hot chick from bad guys, but no ones dumb enough to try.

So the comic and the movie explores it for you, so you can sit back and watch the fantasy unfold, no its not the most realistic movie in the world, but has alot of realistic elements, i dont know where you lot live but ive heard younger kids saying alot worse than the actress does in that movie, and theres not a week passes that you dont hear of some low life that been hacked up on the news. The world today is alot more harsh, and thanks to the internet, its full of geeky people with computers that are all into fantasy in one way or another.

You ask what the importance of the young girl being beaten is, its no huge comment on the kids or adults in the world today, but its actually the climax of a very violent journey for the character, in the movie she is practically brainwashed by her father into being the way she is because of his obsession for revenge, maybe its a comment on bad parenting, bringing up children to do their bidding, but to me its quite simply, play with fire and you get burned, and your burns will smell and they wont be pretty.

Hope this answers some of your questions, but i would highly recommend seeing the movie and if you do let me know what you think. Cheers
vaodsi writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:36:18 PM

thanks ayt ball!
i'll let you know what i think when i see it
i can see where that could be going. it's always nice to know these situations in context...
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:41:48 PM

@ vaodsi - no problem, look forward to hearing what you think
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:45:34 PM


Of course I've seen it. I don't strongly agree with his opinion, but the article failed to acknowledge it and irrelevant comments followed.

What did I think of Kick-Ass? I enjoyed it more than Watchman, but had the same problem with it (which wasn't a moral issue).
thedotsays writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:48:38 PM

@Mink, That's exactly what Bunny refers to. Is it simply a matter of someone tossing in an 11 yr old kid to curse and fight just for sh*ts and giggles and the movie would be the same without it. That was the nod to Hound Dog which I did see and agree 100% that the rape scene fits that description to a tee. The film would have survived without it but it was filmed and shown, in my opinion, to make a splash.
Now I have yet to see Kick-Ass so I can't comment on whether or not this point of contention falls into the same category.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why are folks on here sh*tting on folks who are expressing their opinion? Fine, the way they express it may not fall within your good graces but that's how the world goes gents. Not everyone on it marches to the same beat you do. This isn't as simple as "I don't like it." "f*ck you for not liking it." And maybe I'm giving too much credit to those that are just being d*cks for the hell of it but when you blast a population for liking something you don't like, that makes you just as guilty as those that are blasting Ebert for NOT liking something they do like.
But here's the punchline, this post was put up because WP knows that most of it's base likes Kick-Ass and posting this will create exactly what is happening.
Bottom line though, who really cares?? If people want to jump on here and fire rockets at his comments, let them. We're all not here to agree with one another. So move on.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:50:42 PM

@ Ben - well like i said before i didnt make any of those "irrelevant comments", thats why i encouraged you to actually read my posts, there were no tears in there either. Mr Ebert is more than welcome to express any views about any movie, but when he expresses view about people that liked the movie, such as myself, then i will speak up.

Im interested, what problem did you have with watchmen and kick-ass?
avaela writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:51:57 PM

Dakota Fanning got butt f*cked in a movie? Which movie? I wanna see
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:53:02 PM

@ thedotsays - well said
rocketman writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 6:54:47 PM

She goes round killing people,swearing is the least of her worries.
Ben Reilly writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:01:04 PM


I'll read you previous post.

Both films (and the graphic novels before them) explore the possibility of real people becoming vigilantes or "super-heroes" (excluding Dr. Manhattan). It goes all to hell during the over-the-top-super-strength-wirefu fight sequences.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:09:17 PM

@ Ben - Im with you on that, would be nice to see an ultra real version of both movies, BUT would it be as entertaining? i think they would possibly be too gritty and depressing, i like the mix of the realistic concept and the fantasy way of telling it, worked great for me but i do see where your coming from on that, i loved casino royal because bond got beaten to hell and we saw him in real pain, but then the fantasy elements made the movie visually more entertaining, so like i said for me its a good mix if done right
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:10:01 PM

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on here thats why we all come on here and post, if people want to tell roger to f*ck off or you want to agree with what he said thats fine thats your view and even though i dont agree i respect everyones movie opinion if they have taken the time to come on here and express their views.

@SamuelClayton- i do take issue to your statements like "internet geek brigade, rushing to defend the newest piece of fanboy masturbation" and "These frothing-at-the-mouth trolls" that is out of order and i really want to say f**k off to you for that but i know thats immature so i wont !!

But i do respect what your trying to say but i dont agree one bit , i'm not how do you say a comic book geek but Kickass is great entertainment thats it end of story, which is what roger has failed to grasp and when you have seen the movie please come on and tell us what you thought, be it good or bad i will very interested on what you have to say on the movie.

@ayt - thought you put your points across very well dude...

ZenShark writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:12:59 PM

the context is, obviously, a movie called kick-ass. but ebert forgets that fact.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:15:57 PM

@ trailertrash - cheers man, and good job holding back, wasnt easy for me either lol
Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:38:18 PM

@mink - you greasy c*nt!

Welcome back!


Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:47:34 PM

Were Ranger to combat Roger Ebert (methodology explained):

1. Point my fist to his face and say: 'SEE THIS!'
2. When he replies (in terror): 'yes!'
3. I knee him in the nuts!
4. Then deliver an 'Iron Mike' uppercut to that jaw of his, then watch to flap around on it's hinges like a gate in a tornado!
5. Then I'd just laugh and go for dinner because I'd probably be hungry.

Thank you.
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:48:49 PM

@ayt- just reading roger's review from his web site again and i'm pretty sure he went into the cinema already hating the movie before he had even seen it and as a reviewer he should leave his opinions at the door and review the movie from a neutral stand point. Something johnathan ross does so well here and the bbc will miss him come july.

@cc lol
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:49:40 PM

@ranger - lol
trailertrash writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:50:50 PM

He has a jaw like the maniac cop !!! lol
Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 7:50:50 PM


'to' = 'it' (suck a nun's hairy twat we need an edit button!).
CCBlev writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:36:46 PM

Your right he already do go into it already hating it.
Would you be going to the nearest Hooters after ripping Rogers hear off like a lion does a gazzelle on the discovery channel?
Left On The Moss writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:56:28 PM

Okay, I just want to say something that I know will crucify me, but here goes:
I have great respect and admiration for Roger Ebert. He's the only critic out there that knows what he's talking about with 50 years of experience. I enjoy his reviews, and am inclined to agree with a lot of them.
Now, I'm game for cheap thrills (blood, sex, vulgarity) as much as any teenage boy. I love carnage when handled well on cinema (i.e: Dawn Of The Dead, Inglourious Basterds), and I find it amusing sometimes when spunky kids are in the mix.
But, you gotta understand where Mr. Ebert is coming from. If your throat exploded, had bones removed from your back and shoulder, and eventually had to have your jaw surgically removed, don't you think you'd be a bit squeamish upon seeing a little kid getting beaten to within an inch of her life, even if it was just a movie?
Please just understand that there are people out there who are uncomfortable with the idea of children murdering people who are trying to murder them. And as for those of you guys who poke fun at Mr. Ebert's cancer, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. That is completely out of line and just plain cruel.
This is my first entry on WorstPreviews.com
The_Zizzler writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 8:56:34 PM

Just because we live in an immoral world doesnt mean we should encourage it.

Think of the message her character and your comments project to the youth of the future -

"hey kids, the world is so f*cked up. Movies are going to reflect that by letting an 11 year use words like c*nt and f*ck, which is OK because thats how it is out there".

Well f*ck you, you stupid bastards - I hope you never have children to raise.

The movie was great but some of the messages it advocates are definately wrong and could have been avoided.
Iam_Jack_smirking_revenge writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:33:00 PM

Will everybody stop bitching and just see the movie! If swearing by 11-year-old girl bothers, you then do not go see it! Remember what is offensive today is the norm tomorrow, remember when Kill Bill came out and every one called that morally reprehensible and saying it glorified violence, and now there are a ton of films that are just as violent . By the way, Roger gave Kill Bill four out of five stars. In addition, why do people care what this washed up critic says? Be an individual and l see the movie and form your own opinion!
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 9:36:47 PM

"Morally Reprehensible" should be put on the DVD cover.

I just got back from it, it f*cking rocked. Anyone who has a problem can go back to watching sh*t like The Blind Side (which I also saw today, sucked f*cking d*ck. Sandra Bullock can pull of sassy as convincing as lindsay lohan can pull of sober virgin). The film is a non-stop thrill ride of f*cking awesome. And no, it didn't live up to my expectations because I never set expectations when I watch a movie for the first time, because that's f*cking stupid.

Anyways, cheers all! I look forward to "Balls to the Wall".
Ranger writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 10:54:34 PM

'If swearing by 11-year-old girl bothers you...'

Doesn't bother me one bit!

The one I have handcuffed to my boiler swears like a trucker... it's kinda HAWT!
ian_918 writes:
on April 16th, 2010 at 11:15:48 PM

Just saw the movie. BEST f*ckING MOVIE EVER. i actually screamed out in the theatre "I f*ckin love this girl!" this movie is what we all have been waiting for. Ive never seen something so brutal and so f*cking funny that i actually bought tickets for tomorrow when i got home for some more friends just to see this again. PEOPLE DO NOT MISS THIS FILM.
encoreyourface writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 12:07:47 AM

f*ck off Ebert eat a d*ck then go get yourself douched fagot. not defending the movie really (haven't seen it yet and i've been skeptical about it, but not because of morals)but if you don't like it you know what: don't f*cking watch it.

also thinks for the insult but welcome back Mink!! hope you stay with us for a while.
manichispanic writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 12:56:13 AM

i saw some older people walk out due to the swearing. i was laughing my ass off! the movie's called kick-ass for christ-sake!
encoreyourface writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:39:31 AM

lol really
DetroitFanRick writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:13:28 AM

I've seen Mr. Ebert's reviews and television shows for a big part of my 39 years on this world, and I have to say that every movie he has panned I have enjoyed. Also, every movie he has lauded I have not enjoyed. My tastes obviously are the polar opposite to his.

Don't know if that makes him a good or bad critic. But I do know that I will probably love Kick-Ass when I see it. 'Nuff said.
JohnZee writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:16:52 AM

The movie is okay. Certainly not worthy of all this tremendous hype and fanboy loyalty. There were lots of people in the comic book industry that didn't think it was all that. The movie constantly conflicts with itself. Is it a super realistic vision of what it would really be like if someone dressed up in a costume and started trying to, excuse the pun, kick ass? Or was it an over the top action movie with character's performing feats and possessing technology that NO ONE in the real world could possibly possess. Was it another teen movie that just so happen to be about a kid that puts on a costume. Or was it an over the top Guy Ritchie style shoot-em-up? This movie was a mismash of conflict, and very easy to establish which writer wrote which part. Which is exactly not the way a collaboration should be. It could have been a great movie, but it was trying to be too many different movies, and the end result was cluttered, and some parts and scenes contradicted others. But that moment when Kick Ass makes his second attempt at crimefighting against those three guys, just for a moment I thought that it could possibly be a great movie, but that movie never seemed to recapture the emotion and power of that scene ever again.

I would have liked to seen Kick Ass actually be forged into an actual hero by what he had endured by the end of the movie, and not just be the guy sitting in the flying recliner with multiple chain guns attached.

Yep it takes a lot of effort to be a hero, when your ONLY claim of real bad guy kicking comes from pushing a button or pulling a trigger...

It was a mediocre movie. And the majority of the cool fight scenes were already utilized for trailers to build up the hype.

Violence doesn't offend me, little girls swearing doesn't offend me.

But this movie isn't all that.

I am starting to think that the new Woody Harrelson movie is going to be much better. But you can bet your ass my opinion will be based on actually seeing the movie and not all this pathetic bullsh*t hype that most of you seem to fall for like retarded sheep.
trailertrash writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:00:56 AM

@johnzee , fair play to you you thought it was a ok movie and you've let us know with a good comment thanks.

retarded sheep !! why add the last bit it was such shame i lost my respect for what you had said before hand...

The_Zizzler writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:12:41 AM

I don't think anyone is bothered about whether a girl swears or not. It's about the message being projected by an industry that is capable of reaching out to all types of age groups.

As an example, say your 10 - 13 year old managed to sneak into a showing, watched the flick and next day started mimicking Hitgirl by quoting - "Ok you c*nts, let's see what you can do". If that term becomes the new cool4school word - can you imagine how fast it can spread?

I know the example is extreme but its very possible. If I have children, I don't even want them saying "piss" at that age let along "f*cking" and "c*nt".

You all know the movie was great BUT you all also know (i hope) that you would bring your kids up (if/when you have them) with good parenting, which means - to keep their language appropriate.

Whether you like it or not, you agree and disagree with Ebert but at this moment in time your balls are pumped up like pineapples ready to c*m because the movie was great, which in turn is making you cuss Ebert. But when you release that j*zz and take a step back and see where he is coming from, you might just get it.

I for one have seen the movie twice in theatres last month and both times it was f*cking brilliant . But i'd be lying if I said I didn't feel - "Whoa, kid using words like that" - bad parenting and bad hollywood for allowing that.

The_Zizzler writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:17:12 AM

Basically it all comes down to whether you give a sh*t about the future of what society and industries are projecting to youngsters or the future generation.

And remember you are all less than 40 years old. Ebert is OLD and has grew up in a stricter period. Off course he isn't going to think along the lines of us goons.

Simple and case closed.
trailertrash writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:46:01 AM

@zizzler- i understand your argument but it's not Hollywoods responsibility to be educating and raising our children. I have 2 kids one is 8 and he really wants to see Kickass but the rating is a 15 here so i know there is content in the movie he can't see and i wont let him watch until he is old enough that's my responsibility as his dad not hollywoods for making the movie. It's not a movie for kids end of story.

We will be banning everything being made above a PG-13 ratting at this rate.

I do give a sh*t about what's going on in this world and how my kids will grow up but the education for that starts in the home and you hope they then take it on board when they go out into the world , at the end of the day (sorry hate that saying) i raise my children not the tv, movies, the play station or what ever , i knew that when we decided have kids and they are down to me no one else.
joshmihaly writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:00:52 AM

First off,
I have seen Hounddog, and trust me the rape scene is nothing special, you do not see sh*t, don't bother.

and Second,
I love how people try to get on this movie because there is a girl in it who cusses and murders. Cussing is nothing new, everybody f*cking does it, it's realistic, get over it.

As for the violence, we in America live in such an oblivious society towards violence and are fine with such movies as Cabin Fever and Hostel, yet if you lower the age just a bit everybody wants to act like its immoral. It is a movie. It is not real. This is a simple lesson to be learned by the age of ten. Please grow up anyone that is going to bitch about this violence.

And also, how the hell is America going to be so against nudity/sex in film yet Europe is just fine with it. Europe is also fine with the violence in this movie, probably due to the maturity factor in that they realize it's a movie. I'm thinking America is just turning into a huge p*ssy with the entertainment industry. How about we all just sit back and watch the f*cking movie, quit the bitching in the process. Good day.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:08:02 AM

@The_Zizzler - totally agree, none of us would want our kids to grow up like that, but this has a 15 certificate here in the UK, meaning no one under that age, even if they are with parents can get into the cinema to see it (and yes i know there are ways and means) my point is it would be bad parenting to let your kid watch it, its aimed at people that would already have heard these words in their life.

Now i agree, the actresses parents maybe havent shown the best parenting in letting their little girl star in this movie and say and do all those vile things....BUT shes an actress playing a part, and if you read her interviews about it shes alot more mature about it than the people judging it. Also, this movie would appear to be the start of huge career for the girl, so, bad choice? i dont think it is.

like i said in earlier posts i hear younger kids all around saying alot worse! I dont want our movies to shy away from reality to avoid offending people of an older more respectful generation, that generation had its movies with all the swearing and violence hidden away, its our turn now, and we dont mind it.

@ JohnZee - yeah like Trailer said, fair point until the end, waste of time posting if all your leading up to is a cheap dig, and the people that HAVENT seen the movie on here are the ones siding with ebert with nothing to back up their defense of his insulting comments. thats more of a response than you deserve.

@ Left On The Moss - welcome to worstpreview! I know its gonna look like im on a fan boy rant but its not the case, i take great offense at his comments which are aimed at me and other that loved the movie. I havent made any comments about his health etc, just wanna get that clear, and alot of the people that have, also got into a quite deep discussion about him when the news broke on here about his struggle with cancer, people will always make fun of stuff like that on here, but in reality very few would say or mean those things, its just internet banter, no matter how distasteful you or i may think it is. Now, you asked us to bear in mind that the man has gone through some horrible things in his life recently and that maybe that has effected his sensitivity to seeing things portrayed in kick-ass....very possible, but if thats the case its time for him to find other things to do. A critic should be objective and in no way judgmental towards fans of certain movies, if he doesnt have that ability anymore then hes not doing his job correctly, and i will say again since everyone is avoiding this comment HE wrote some of the most exploitative crap to ever be filmed, showing women as bouncy dim sex objects that are there to be screwed and butchered, and do we judge him for it? No, and i expect the same in return when i like a movie like kick ass.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:09:34 AM

@ trailertrash - spot on, said it better than me!
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:11:53 AM

@ joshmihaly - haha get your ass over here to england you will fit right in!
joshmihaly writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:27:52 AM

@AYT BALL - lmao, and i dont even turn 17 until next week. my opinions took form a bit younger than others i believe.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 4:35:22 AM

@ joshmihaly - lol gotta say i was amazed Hostel even got made, that really was just pointless violence! But yeah its interesting how america and england see things differently, I got braveheart on DVD from america, they cut out the part where you see Mels wifes breasts and showed a clear shot of her getting her throat cut open while tied to a post, but in the english version, they showed the breasts and just focused on her eyes when her throat was cut, making it a much more hurtful scene to watch.....would be interesting to see what ebert thought of that! lol
trailertrash writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 6:19:20 AM

@ayt- cheers dude !!
rabid writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 12:32:46 PM

It doesn't really matter what language children use in the film, it's there for realism. It's a film and comic book for adults, so it appeals to adult sensibilities and humor. Ebert finds it morally reprehensible because of Old Man Syndrome, which causes elderly farts to be unable to relate to the freedoms of modern media.
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 12:39:06 PM

@ Rabid - LMAO! gonna use that theory next time my dad complains about the way i live my life! lol
on April 17th, 2010 at 12:43:11 PM

@ rabid - u well read my mind and then knicked my thoughts and published them on here before me, damn u and paranormal ways sir!
Left On The Moss writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:01:02 PM

Thank you for your response and for intelligently supporting your viewpoint. I'm glad my comment hasn't been met with scorn. I mean, usually, when I go on this site, the first thing I see on the user comments is either "f*ckin' retards" this, and "suck my d*ck" that. While I'm glad to find people as passionate about movies as I am, it does get a little exhausting. So thanks. Your response has been quite refreshing!
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:27:59 PM

@ Left On The Moss - no problem at all, passionate conversation seems to be a dying art! lol so its nice when people can do it with out giving each other crap for it, at the end of the day we are all here because we love movies and if we all had the same opinion on everything it would be the dullest website on the internet! Looking forward to your future posts.
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:37:31 PM

U guys should get a room
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:37:55 PM

Just joshing, mellow out lol
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 1:44:56 PM

@ HIRONAKAMURA86 - LOL! hey we are the only ones NOT throwing sexual comments about at each other!
joshmihaly writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:01:39 PM

@AYT BALL: The only time I'm ok with them switching from the nudity and/or violence is if it will add emotional depth to the movie. The best example I can think of this is Disturbia in the very beginning during the car crash. The director was given the choice of showing the dad in the car, blood and all, or his son's face and the obvious trauma it puts on him. If the deletion of nudity/violence will add to the movie, I am fine with it because it gives more to the storyline and there is plenty more time for nudity/violence. Other than that though I believe people truly need to ease up and just enjoy the media.
JohnZee writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:34:05 PM

Yeah a comment thread with cheap shots all up and down it, and some people are offended because I put one single solitary cheap shot at the end of my comment? I'm sorry I didn't know that some people's comments on here were governed by the Queensbury rules of proper thread comment etiquette.

@ Trailertrash

You tell Roger Ebert to "f*ck Off" in a comment thread and make derogatory remarks about his facial deformities with a handy link to a picture of him, comments that he will never see, and never be able to respond to, yet you get pissy about my "sheep" comment?

So sorry, sorry that I wasn't being proper. I had mistakenly gotten the idea that being a little offensive on this comment thread was okay.

From your initial comments btw.

AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:38:16 PM

@ JohnZee - responding in anger to an artical having a pop at us is very different from trying to put across your opinions in a long wordy response only to then insult the reader, if you just put the insult up front we all get the point and no one cares, when you try joining a discussion and we take the time to read your thoughts then you throw out the typical sheep comment....i mean really whats the point? other than to get peoples backs up?
gotsghostrider writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 2:53:53 PM

First of all she's playing an 11 year old, shes actually 13 she also has 4 older brothers and even said herself that there was nothing in the script that she hadn't heard before so ease the f*ck up Ebert!
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:10:09 PM

@ AYT, yeah ur right, this threads been getting weird compared to the usual stuff! But all the same, a douche on the 'Kick Ass- what did u think' thread was basically putting the film down too but for silly things just because i said I thought the film was near perfect for me, so i tried to clear his concerns up and call him a tool because he deserved due to some o his comments
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:17:43 PM

@ HIRONAKAMURA86 oh i know, hes tried the same crap on here, i thought the same as you! the movie is exactly what i wanted it to be
on April 17th, 2010 at 3:46:15 PM

I just noticed hes the guy who cant structure an argument together too yeah lol
AYT BALL writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 5:07:20 PM

@ wiseguy - its nice to see various views, was the same when avatar came out, some claim that is a masterpiece too, and others hate it, at least you saw it before having an opinion, unlike some on here
NunYoBusiness writes:
on April 17th, 2010 at 5:26:50 PM

Coming from the guy who wrote the screenplay for the movie that for many years was considered the worst movie ever (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls)
I am not surprised he didn't get the movie, he is older than dirt after all (I am too but I still have a sense of humor and enjoy a great laugh). He has been reviewing movies longer than most of have been alive but I think it's time to stop going to movies and enjoy the residuals from sticking your thumb up all those years.
jigsaw23 writes:
on April 18th, 2010 at 2:57:33 AM

f*ck him he cant review sh*t and so what and 11 year old killing and cursing it is called kick ass so f*ck off c*nt
Affliction writes:
on April 19th, 2010 at 7:48:21 AM

Go f*ck your face Ebert. JC who needs critics now a days? I mean we are all critics but we just dont get paid for it.
skooterz writes:
on April 19th, 2010 at 10:47:46 AM

Ebert... do you have any taste? At all?
SixOfFour writes:
on April 20th, 2010 at 3:08:04 AM

morally reprehensible? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in? That's coming from the man who wrote Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls!
Captainharlan writes:
on April 20th, 2010 at 1:37:39 PM

I agree with Ebert here. It kind of does send a bad message when in real life 6 year olds are going to school and capping their classmates. Also Hollywood has traditionally not shown violence toward children on screen. You never see a child brutally beaten or murdered on screen, if it's happened it's very rare and not the norm.

Anyway this move though somewhat entertaining was really not that good. Certainly wasn't original. It aped so many films "Spider-man" , the Matrix" "Not Another Teen Movie" ,"American Pie" etc. Perhaps that was the point. But I for one would not run out to buy the video or line up to see it repeatedly.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved