Let me start by saying I loved almost every minute of Kick-Ass. I gave it a 4 on my review, and the only reason I didn't give it a 5 was because I felt a bit awkward about all the deaths in it. However, in the final cut, it was made clearer that everyone who dies may have actually deserved it. But that's not the point.
I've been reading about all the criticism about the movie, and most of it stems from the character of Hit-Girl. I was reading Christopher Tookey's review, and the last line of his review reads:
"It's lightweight and silly, but it's also cynical, premeditated and mindbogglingly irresponsible. And in Hit-Girl, the film-makers have created one of the most disturbing icons and damaging role-models in the history of cinema."
You know what, Tookey? That sentence is one of the most mind-bogglingly irrational and overeager lines in the history of reviews.
Really, in the history of cinema? I don't think I've ever read a bigger exaggeration in my life. Except for maybe the exaggerated sentence I just wrote about exaggerating.
First of all, it's 2010. I don't know if you've been to the movies in the last ten years, but movies are oftentimes violent. Tookey gave Inglourious Basterds, one of the best movies of the year, 2 stars because he thought it was immature violence. So if Tookey has some sort of idea that he must be a British gentleman at all times, and show a moral disdain for violence, he needs to stop being such a dandy. God forbid a movie be a bit realistic.
Of course, his main problem is not with the fact that it's violent, but the fact that the violence is at the hand of a 12 year-old girl. Seriously though - why? He mentions she is a bad role-model. A role-model for who? 12 year-old girls? Does he really think that they are the demographic for this movie? I can't think of a set of parents that would allow their little girl to sit through an R-Rated movie. And even if they do, they're the irresponsible ones, not the filmmakers! Hit-Girl is not supposed to be a role-model for anyone. The whole point of Hit-Girl's character is that she was robbed of her childhood, and she has been sucked into her father's war of vengeance. She's not supposed to be a character you admire morally. It's totally ridiculous for someone to criticize a movie by saying that one of the morally questionable characters is morally questionable like it's their own brilliant epiphany that popped up. Hit-Girl is the way she is for a reason.
The other huge problem with his (as he says a couple times) "bone-headed" review is that Tookey states that Hollywood created the character of Hit-Girl. Now I wouldn't expect a film critic to do any research on a movie whatsoever, or EVEN READ THE OPENING CREDITS, but Hollywood didn't create shit. Kick-Ass is based on an award winning, best selling comic series. The character of Hit-Girl was created by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. before the movie. Matthew Vaughn just guided it to the screen. So to say that it was created by Hollywood is ten times as irresponsible and stupid as he pins the movie to be.
Finally, he doesn't really mention what an incredible job Chloe Moretz did playing Hit-Girl. He mentions she is charismatic, but that's about it. Honestly, this is one of the all-time douchiest reviews I have ever read. Chloe Moretz doesn't deserve to be criticized, she deserves some sort of medal. It's one of the best performances by a young actor I have ever seen.
So Mr. Tookey, and I mean this with all due respect, get a life. Jody Hill, for example, makes movies about morally reprehensible people that are supposed to be taken seriously, and even though I don't find them particularly funny because the characters are so awful, they aren't under constant attack. What makes Moretz's character any different than Fred Simmons of The Foot Fist Way? If you really think she is one of the most damaging role-models in the history of cinema, you need to either grow up or see some more movies.
And you might as well start looking behind you when you walk down the street. I hear that Hit-Girl is awfully violent.