Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
La piel que habito (2011)
Nothing short of genius
In the modern day of cinema it is increasingly more and more difficult to be caught by surprise. A film that very cautiously tells you where it's going and still manages to astonish you at the moment it wants you to be astonished is even rarer. "The Skin I Live In" is such a film. However that is not its only feat by far.
In this movie the viewer gets confronted by a wide array of philosophic ideas and moral dilemmas. When does one's revenge start to outweigh what it avenges? Can a physical copy of a lost loved one replace that loss? Is the face we see in the mirror an accurate representation of who we are underneath? Or perhaps it is the other way around and we are determined by what we look like? That is only a portion of powerful themes of human condition that are touched in this film.
Not only that, but the script in itself is very well written. The plot centers on a mysterious woman by the name of Vera. Little is known about her, but the strange environment she is exposed to and her reaction to it evoke a sense of wonder from the very start. The story will grip the viewer and will not release the interest from its grasp. It progresses very carefully by feeding us only the very essential bits of information until the very climax of the story.
Cinematography is also very engaging, everything is done right from the well thought out camera angles to near perfect lighting. The dialogues are well written and acted accordingly. Elena Anaya is stunning in the role of Vera and Antonio Banderas as Roberto is magnificent. In the print of the book this film is based upon, the print I read, on the cover it said that Pedro Almodóvar casted Penelope Cruz in the role of Vera. I'm so glad it is not the case. Imagine a "bandida" in that role... That makes my skin crawl quite literally, which is ironic considering the title.
The film in question is inspired by a book "Tarantula" by Thierry Jonquet. Whilst it wasn't a bad book by any means, it didn't grip me intellectually nor emotionally enough aside from an interesting ending to be called superior. It's still quite a good book, so be sure to give it a shot after you watch this movie. I knew I had to read it cover to cover on the same day I watched "La piel que habito". Still the movie is better in almost every way aside perhaps for the ending. The book does not explore morality in the same way and while it deals with redemption quite well the rest of it is often too extreme on the good-and-evil meter. There are mostly no shades of gray which I find to be a lost opportunity that this movie fixes. On the ending: I don't think it would have worked as well in the film. Vera's personality differs from Eva's personality by a whole lot. The film also explores the side characters more, enough for us to want to give them closure.
It's not every day that a film makes such an impact on me as to last several days in a row and never leave my memory afterward. A film that both entertains me and makes me think. A film which I have to postpone reviewing, because I have to digest it enough to give my thoughts on it. The only title such film deserves is "masterpiece".
Red Lights (2012)
Red-lights district of modern cinema.
Yes, yes, spoiler alert, yada yada yada. The movie as a whole is a genuine piece of manure, due to one thing and one thing only: the finale, and as I will continue to preach on and on - the movie's only as good as its ending. That's what I call an axiom of good film making. However if you happen to disagree, read no further as the rest of this film is actually pretty good. Maybe you can fantasize an ending that doesn't suck and settle on that. I did make up a much better ending that was actually somewhat intelligent unlike the ending we have received, but I will not settle on an imaginary ending, it's simply not my responsibility, it is the screenplay writer's one. The rules of engagement are elementary: a creator has to be criticised for his half-good job.
"Red Lights" starts out promising enough. We have two physicists from a "Myth Busters" science division, rolling around the country in their "Mystery Van" (it's not really a van). They keep exposing one small charlatan after another, passing their knowledge and experience to a small group of students in the time between their supernatural escapades.
There is another, rather unusual branch of science on the other side of the unknown university our meddling scientists work for (suffice to say: it's no Cambridge). That division is more akin to being the "Weird Al Yankovic" of science, rather than "Myth Busters". The so-called "Scientific Paranormal Research Centre" (emphasis on the word "scientific") which of course takes in triple the money our protagonists receive from the government (a plot-point that goes nowhere by the way) and of which the boss is shown to be a complete fool by my favourite actress of all time Sigourney Weaver in a matter of mere seconds... And then she dies, that point being? Who knows? Not me, certainly. Oh, yes, she establishes De Niro to be the big bad wolf of the picture just before she does. That point being? I feel like we're falling into repetition here.
Cillian Murphy goes completely insane, obsessing over De Niro, trying to expose him as a fraud. All the weird things start happening around Cillian as the plot thickens: suicidal birds, toasters blowing up, cement dust falling on him, unusual dreams and so on and so forth, following every single line in the great book of "horror" movie clichés. None of which would've bothered me that much, as I grew accustomed to the Hollywood clichés, on one condition: provided the rest of the film is adequate. Which sadly it is not.
Then comes the crescendo and suddenly the film is on its head. The ending makes such a sudden 180-degrees turn, the "twist" is so nonsensical and stupid that it gives "Magnolia" a run for its money (not talking about De Niro being able to see, I figured it out long before, since that part actually makes sense).
Ready for the big reveal? Cillian Murphy is actually a powerful psychic himself and all the strange happenings were his doing (De Niro is of course a nobody, which once again makes perfect sense). "Tactical facepalm", you have got to be kidding me. Somebody please poke me, have I suddenly been teleported into a screening of a completely different movie next door? What's with all the morality of a woman dying of a stomach cancer, due to a quack "psychic" telling her those pains are irrelevant (here we fall into a debate as to who is a legitimate "psychic" and who isn't)? What happened to Cillian and his student being the last barrier between the world and stupidity? Furthermore: what's with the "idea" of divine presence? The existence of paranormality does not prove afterlife and there being a god in the slightest. Isn't Cillian supposed to be a scientist, a scientist that is able to use a basic logical reasoning like that? This film had just been elevated onto an entirely new level of mental retardation. The only thing that's missing to complete the landscape is Murphy flying away into the sunrise, Copperfield style, which unfortunately did not happen.
Oh, yeah and the watch should not be there in the first place (a "controlled" experiment, remember, we even had a scene), but so does the "Scientific Paranormal Research Centre", so why am I complaining? Also, did you notice that I didn't mention the girlfriend? Well, neither did I, since she's so secondary to the story.
It's blatantly obvious that Rodrigo Cortes traded his brains for a pinch of faith a long time ago, him trying to come off as deep is just pathetic. I do realize that this film isn't really mocking sceptics, rather trying to establish a "paradigm shift" however childish it might be, or maybe I'm wrong and Cortes is doing exactly that. Either way this film is probably not worth your time. It can be entertaining sometimes, but entertainment is cheap and the substance is not. Substance you shall not find here, or rather you shall, but that substance is twisted, which is a lot worse. Yes and please do not mistake fringe science for pseudo-science. Fringe science can become good science, pseudo-science cannot.
Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
Dumber than fiction...
I'll tell you right now what happened in this film. Spoilers or not, you should not care either way as not much happens in this film.
Richard Gere finds and befriends a puppy. Puppy gets dependent on Richard Gere because all of his underdeveloped movie family are a bunch of indifferent, neglecting and sometimes even hating a-holes. Puppy turns into a mature hound, every day giving his farewell to and welcoming his owner back the only way he knows how: mainly following Gere to the train station and then waiting for him to return in the evening. Richard Gere gets a heart attack and dies. The dog does not and I emphasize - does NOT get invited to his master's funeral. Dog naturally assumes that Gere will come back one day, since he had seen nothing to prove otherwise. Dog keeps waiting for Richard at the train station. Dog dies of old age. The end.
The moral of this story: always invite everyone close to the deceased to the funeral, that includes pet animals. One more thing: this movie is apparently based on the real events that happened in Japan almost a hundred years ago, which goes to show that reality can be a lot dumber than fiction.
The best Emmerich had ever done
You might think that it's not that hard after over three decades of manufacturing such schlock as "Godzilla", "10 000 BC" and "2012" among a couple of debatably okay ones like "The Patriot", "Stargate" and "Universal Soldier" (the latter one due to my personal nostalgia more than anything else). Yet "Anonymous" is as close to a magnum opus Roland Emmerich will most probably ever get. In fact it's such a radical departure from his usual pop-corn flick routine it alone is quite fascinating in and of itself.
The story centers on the firm belief that William Shakespeare wasn't the one writing all the plays we all love so much. It is not the only motive however. What makes the story this good is the fact that all the intrigue between Edward De Vere and the world around him is a setting for the other themes to develop. Whilst still good all by itself, the various topics are at least as important and fleshed out as the main one. There's an author that struggles to find his identity in spite of a great opportunity presented before him. A scoundrel of an actor, a perfect opposite. De Vere himself, not as a writer, but as a man torn apart between what he loves to do and what he has to. Most of all the fact that Shakespeare, more importantly his (?) writing is what made the era, not kings or queens, not soldiers or politicians, words. A pen is mightier than a sword.
The acting is truly top notch. Rhys Ifans in particular is extraordinary as De Vere. The only two films I remember him from are "Notting Hill" and "Mr. Nobody", in both of which I disliked his performance. Apparently "Anonymous" is a pinnacle not only to Emmerich's career, but to Ifans' as well. The other actors are alright, but Sebastian Armesto is exceptionally good as Ben Jonson. He is quite young (he's a bit older than me) and I wish him the very best on his journey to the big Hollywood, he deserves as much. Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare himself is quite annoying I might add, but perhaps it was the whole point to his character, who knows. I sure hope so for his sake. All in all the dialog is masterfully written and executed for the most part.
This movie does have a few problems, though. The camera work could use some work (whether a pun was intended or not remains to be discovered by scholars in a thousand years or so). "Anonymous" is shot too close often times, but it's nowhere near enough to ruin the experience. Also, I didn't exactly like the parallels with Shakespearian plays, I thought they were contrived and phoned in to be later used as plot devices. This was exactly the case. Plus, some of the characters motivations on their actions weren't all that clear. These problems are not numerous in the slightest and don't really contribute to the massive black hole of story inconsistencies Hollywood is known for today.
It is a shame that "Anonymous" didn't do well in the box office, according to Wikipedia (as of the time of writing of this review) it made roughly the half its thirty million USD budget back. Roland Emmerich knew it was a risk, but he took that gamble anyway and I am glad he did. By this move he proved that he's a competent director that can make a really good film without chasing after the wagons of cash. And you know what? One good film is all that matters to me, it means little that the director has almost Michael Bay like status. Besides, do you really think a film of this stature would've seen the light of day without a figure such as Ronald Emmerich? That's where another mystery lies.
This (yet another) story of alienation is about half a century too little too late. It is basically Kafka's "Der Prozeß" ("Der Process" for all you purists out there) without the actual trial.
I am so sick and tired of all the crap that's being pushed ahead under an artistic mask. All the convoluted and pointless symbolism. Especially when the whole point is hammered into our heads in as blatant a manner as possible in the last ten minutes, where Robert De Niro is literally buried under a mountain of paperwork. Bureaucracy is bad, see? You think? As if I didn't get it in the first three seconds of watching this poor excuse for a film.
I am also not that big of a fan of dream sequences, but now I know where "Repo Men" got its inspiration from at least. To me dream sequences had always been a last resort to a saga that had written itself into a corner. Sadly it had been abused to death by all the incompetent writers of which there are too many. "Brazil" is a testament to that, of course (the possible interpretation of "dreams are your only means of escape" notwithstanding).
As for the story, there really is none. The main "dude" is about as bland as a character gets. He's an anti-hero, in the correct definition of that word, as in a protagonist that does little to nothing, a non- hero. You know, my most favorite type of a hero... The what's-his-name spends the first half of the movie dreaming about some woman, feeling aimless because he's not with the said woman and finally goose chasing the woman through all the ins and outs of modern bureaucracy until he literally stumbles upon that woman... So the first hour of this crap- fest (pardon me, "art") is pointless. Well done, Terry Gilliam, you pretentious bastard.
In the second hour of "Brazil" our couple tries to escape the law, girl gets shot while being ridden, boy gets a sadistic lobotomy whilst dreaming his happily ever after "Sucker Punch" style. The End, satisfied? I sure am not (yes, I am aware that "Brazil" came long before "Sucker Punch", I just had a pleasure to sit through both "films" in that particular order).
If you want a really smart existential movie, go watch "Memento". If you desire a brilliantly thought out dystopian film, see "V for Vendetta". If you wish for an amazingly written dream, slash self- discovery moving pictures, witness "Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road". Want an artsty flick? "Drive" is your friend. For the non- existent god's sake, do not bother with "Brazil" if you have even an ounce of self-respect.
Movies like these are not as bad as "Melancholia", for the sake of not being intellectually offensive. However, they are guilty of being pretentious. That alone is warranting enough to place such movies next to the likes of "Melancholia". Steer clear, you have been warned.
P.S.: oh, yes, I almost forgot. Doug Walker (a.k.a. "The Nostalgia Critic"), F.U.
Shakespeare can do no wrong... WRONG!
The assumption that William Shakespeare is a god amongst men is just about as absurd as it sounds. Yes, he is an exceptional writer. Yes, he did make some amazing plays, "Hamlet" being the pinnacle of his writing career. And yes, he is just about as fallible as everybody else.
Shakespeare's greatest asset is, without a doubt, his ability to utilize the English language to nearly its absolute maximum. However, he often falls into a trap of "lazy writing" in his stories. "Coriolanus" is a perfect example of that. William just didn't think it through well enough with all the consequences as a result.
There are two major plot holes in the play. Aufidius declares eternal vengeance against Martius (but not Rome, for some reason), but then embraces him as a brother once Martius decides to defect. Really? Eternal vengeance is something one doesn't declare lightly. Not only that, but Aufidius gives Martius half his army to do as he pleases. In my opinion, it would have made a lot more sense if Aufidius swore vengeance against Rome, whilst respecting Martius as a worthy adversary.
The second plot hole is basically the same as the first. After being exiled, Martius then Coriolanus, swears bloody vendetta against the citizens of Rome. Nearing the end of the campaign his mother comes to him in order to plead for mercy. He submits... Really? Bloody vendetta is not something one declares lightly... Again.
Coriolanus as a character is probably the worst. He's a whining mommy's boy, despite looking tough. Not once, but twice had he been screwed over by his mother's wishes. The first time being her attempt at making a politician out of a soldier. Oedipus complex, anybody?
Other than that, the story could have been really good. Just change the antagonist's motivations and mutate the ending by, you know, locking your family in a cell whilst you burn all the Rome in your quest for revenge. Problem?
As for the film itself. The idea of Shakespearian plays being integrated into the modern world works just about as well as "Warhammer 40k" with orcs and "elves" running around, wielding swords and plasma guns. What's the word for it again? Ah, I remember: "stupid". Not to mention that it is really, really overdone. Ralph Fiennes didn't bring anything new to the table. Even "Romeo + Juliet" was better, at least it was executed a lot more competently in its cinematography.
Acting is good though, but both Fiennes and Butler are decent actors, so no surprises there.
In the end nor the movie, nor the play it was based upon are that good. A grave Shakespearian stamp on this work should not make it immune to criticism. And it won't make it so, not as long as you and I dare to think for ourselves.
"I think it's a piece of sh*t"
Yes and yes, not once, but twice had the movie uttered the above phrase in some sort of a self-aware meta-cinematic ejaculation. I honestly couldn't describe it better myself. I only put a flag on the spoiler box due to the fear of being prosecuted. Trust me, even if you haven't seen this "film" it really can't be spoilt: the movie basically spoils itself in the first couple of minutes.
Part I is essentially pointless as it establishes Justine to be a melancholic (see what both I and larsie-the-oh-so-awesome-director did there?) bitch. Yeah, her privileged upper class ass is having so much suffering, those poor starving kids in Africa couldn't even begin to approach the levels of agony that dumb bimbo is going through.
Justine is the quintessence of what I hate about western civilization. She's ignorant, yet claims to "know things" by being able to accurately predict the amount of beans in a jar (in retrospect of course). She's somewhat evil herself (politely cock-blocking her fiancée-going-for-husband on her wedding night, having monkey sex with some douche afterwards), yet calls all living things evil (probably making her the only good thing on this planet, even though she doesn't explicitly state it). And above all she's just so full of herself, that whiny little bitch.
Scratch that though, it's that idiot lars von trier (lower-case letters is the only thing he gets from me) making a statement: all living things are evil, plus Earth is the only planet with life on it. How that guy managed to sodomize philosophy on the side of ethics, physics on the side of cosmology and biology in one lucky strike is beyond me. The directing cretin behind this piece of trash trying to be a film makes the boldest of assumptions without any justification, analysis or evidence. It's this way, because I said it so, munch it up you morons or go home. And don't even get me started on the pseudo-scientific aspect of this manure. An undiscovered planet "hiding behind the sun" (like an inter-planetary boogeyman for billions of years) on a collision course with us carrying the name of this "movie"... Are you for real?
This garbage commits the worst of offenses: it takes its audience for a bunch of brainless twats and to add insult to injury it rubs it in our faces afterwards. The only redeeming thing about this atrocity is the surprisingly good performance by Kiefer "Jack Bauer" Sutherland. Apparently that guy can act, he just doesn't show it unless he's in a really crappy movie such as this one. Dunst is bland as always though and John Hurt is a blast as usual (but no points for you good sir, we expected you to be good).
If you want an artsy flick, go watch "Drive" instead. At least that one is harmless. Cinematography in "Melancholia", despite trying to be artsy is crap, especially the cuts. This disaster fails on every level, even on the points it tries to be sold on. Such an ultimate mess is truly a gem, if it was made out of droppings.
Enough with all the puns, this movie is only half as good as everybody says.
"Drive" is a movie with lots of potential, akin to, say, "Stay". Both movies have brilliant cinematography and actually a bit of thought to them as well. Yet both are very weak in terms of story, "Stay" more so than "Drive", the last one being only marginally better in this department.
I am honestly baffled by the almost universal praise this movie has gotten as of late. Sure it's a piece of art, once again very close to "Stay". It's very moody, again like the aforementioned film. "Stay", however, has only a very moderate score of ~7/10 here and 41/100 on metacritic, whilst "Drive" enjoys a 8.5 and 79 respectably.
Now, tell me, why is that? Both movies are almost identical. Alright, I shall admit: "Drive" has some very intense scenes, but on the other hand there are scenes upon scenes where nothing happens, nothing.
Ryan Gosling plays essentially the same character he had been playing for years now. It seems like Keanu Reeves finally met his match in a nil-emotion contest. I can't say he wasn't a good cast, however. He's very creepy and intimidating at times. So I guess a theorem about a clock being right twice a day worked here after all.
The storyline is very predictable and banal, apart from one small detail I couldn't see a mile away.
I said earlier that it was a kind of an opportunity missed. Apart from the first ten minutes, some action scenes and some occasionally intense interplays between the characters, this movie is really not that interesting.
Movie directors should realize that movies are story foremost and art second. Films are not poetry, films are not paintings. Cinema is close to literature in this regard: narrative is everything. Sadly enough Nicolas Winding Refn couldn't see that. I can recommend it, for the atmosphere, but it could've... no, scrap that: it should have been so much more.
Griff the Invisible (2010)
"Griff the Invisible" should have stayed that way.
Sigh... Here we go again.
I only recently reviewed "Super", exposing it for what it was: a cheap exploitation. "Griff the Invisible" is just as much so as "Super". Read my review on "Super", all the points I made against it are valid in this case as well. These movies do not have to be about "the darker side" of being a superhero. In case of Griff, he's not even a hero, he's an antihero in the correct sense of a word. Dictionary definition states the following: antihero is a central character of a work of fiction who lacks the traditional heroic virtues.
All the usual shenanigans are there in the case of Griff: a very unsympathetic protagonist, a lack of motivation, a lack of a defined antagonist (bad for a superhero movie, "Super" had a good one though) and a very strong female lead.
The movie is essentially about an adult that's unable to grow up, living in a fantasy world and a girl that comes to his aid. Very similar to "Defendor", except that particular movie wasn't bad at all (also the protagonist had a mental developmental disability).
The movie is also full of pseudo-scientific nonsense to make it seem more intellectual, where's it comes out as silly to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the discussed (pseudo-)scientific topics. I shall give one example of this. One of the main characters pounders a "theoretical" possibility of one physical object being able to move straight through another, due to the fact that most space between the molecules and atoms that an object is comprised of is empty. That fact is true: we are mostly empty space if we're talking about matter only. But those atoms and molecules also have bonds between them to form an object, unless it is a gas where those bonds are very weak. These bonds keep us together, were they to break we would fall apart. These bonds are energetic in nature, they would be disrupted if another bond were to be introduced in the same space. To penetrate solid matter an object has to reach a superfluid state, a highly homogeneous state of matter, but even then it is not really penetrating anything, but rather seeping through tiny empty cracks, benefiting from a complete lack of friction. It goes without saying that one would never survive such a transformation.
Oh, yes, there's also a lot of metaphysical garbage as well and as some of us may know: metaphysics is useless because it can be used to explain everything, since it itself is built out of the unknowable.
The only two good things I have to say about Griff are as follows. Maeve Dermody who plays Melody does so very neatly. She brings a lot of life into this barren wasteland of a film. She's also a great actress, I hope to see her in a movie that is actually good. Also the soundtrack is very nice indeed.
The ending is interesting, but I had seen it done before, so nothing special there.
Nothing else to say about it really. As a struggling superhero sub-genre goes this one is nothing to write home about. I suggest you skip it. Two points to Maeve and a half to the soundtrack, rounding it down, just because I feel like it.
\\\:DISCLAIMER:/// This review contains heavy spoilers on both this movie and "Kick-Ass". However the story of this film is so secondary that it does not matter one bit, trust me. Also if you're willing to watch this movie the chances are that you already watched "Kick-Ass", so it shouldn't bother you either.
\\\:THE ACTUAL REVIEW:///
Really? Are you this desperate now that you blatantly copy "Kick-Ass"? Not that it wasn't a good movie, it was, but it certainly had its flaws. Like the fact that a character the movie is named for did absolutely squat the entire film (my biggest grudge with "Kick-Ass").
The funniest thing though is that even ripping off something isn't the greatest sin "Super" had committed. I can forgive plagiarism as long as the movie itself isn't insulting to its audiences, but in the case of this unfocused wreck it sadly is.
There is not a single reason why this has to be a superhero spoof. None! A loser loses his junkie wife (played by Liv Tyler, just another day for her I suppose) he shares a "sacred bond" with to a drug dealer. A loser decides to "rescue" his wife. His motivations are clear: he isn't really fighting crime, he's saving his dumbass wife. What's the point of wearing a ridiculous costume and fighting random criminals in the first hour of the movie? None, there isn't one. Apparently being a loser and being a nerd is all the same thing according to James Gunn.
Even though Kick-Ass didn't do much he at least had a believable incentive for becoming a superhero. He was a nerd, he was bullied and he wondered why there weren't any superheroes (although there were, as we learned later on). The protagonist of "Super" could've just grabbed the shotgun and gone for his wife, as he should have done in the first place, but no, we get all the worthless padding about superheroes that are most irrelevant to the core story of this trash of a film.
The protagonist is also very, very, very unlikable. He's a terrible hero, period. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about his character. He's a pathetic self-righteous whiner, that deserves everything that happened to him and more. He's just boring and the actor that plays him isn't good, as I didn't really believe his delivery.
The only two good things about this film are Boltie, played by Ellen Page and the antagonist played by Kevin Bacon. Both are a load of fun. Boltie takes the most screen-time next to Crimson Bolt (I forgot to mention that idiot's "stage name", since he's so damn plain). Boltie is loaded with hormones because of the unusual superhero, slash psychopathy sexual fetishes. She is overenthusiastic about everything Crimson Bolt does and is in love with him, for some unearthly reason (not entirely the fetish, since she was clearly gravitating to him before she found out he was Crimson Bolt). She is a delight to see and one hero to carry the whole movie, despite her officially being a side-kick. Pretty much this movie's somewhat older Hit-Girl plus lots and lots of libido (Hit-Girl and Mark Strong were the reasons I enjoyed "Kick-Ass" so much).
Ellen Page was a perfect cast. She's like a young female version of Nick Cage, a terrible actress, yet it hardly matters because of how quirky she is. All the same reasons we enjoy Cage so much. I just hope she doesn't sink to his lows by starring in two cent movies loaded with religious propaganda like this one. Part of the reasons I didn't really mind Nicholas being burnt to death in Kick-Ass, seriously Nickie, you deserved it.
Kevin Bacon is very charismatic as usual and is actually very amiable, especially for a villain. Sure he's a bad guy, but at least he has a decency to acknowledge the fact. He's not being bitchy about it, like the protagonist. Too bad he's not in the movie for that long. Oh and Liv Tyler still can't act and not in a cute way, like Ellen Page. Tyler has all the personality of a soda can... an empty soda can. Despite being the third best billed actor, leaving Bacon behind, she doesn't appear much in "Super". Yet, you know what? That is a good thing. The only movie she was bearable in was "The Incredible Hulk". Honey, the fact that you're a rock star's daughter doesn't make you an actress.
As if the story wasn't aggravating enough with all the religious symbolism and tentacle porn, abandoned plot points, useless buddies and cops, they actually did it. They freaking did it. They killed Boltie at the finale! You don't do that, you simply don't. You can't kill a character that carries the whole movie, unless it has a point in terms of story. It doesn't in this case. Boltie had a quarter of her head blown off to show us that being a real life superhero is not a comic book matter. No... You think? I didn't see a problem with it prior into the movie. Hell, Crimson Bolt slaughters the whole Bacon's crew of twenty (I didn't really count) mostly by himself at the end, without even breaking a sweat. Not to mention the fact that he started beating on crime directly without much of a problem. Dude, Kick-Ass was nearly murdered on his first attempt. That was powerful. Killing off Boltie just pisses me off: it isn't clever, it's just cruel and pointless. Even more so that the wife leaves the protagonist in the end (Now, who would've though that?), so that he can have his bunny (Bestiality much?). What was the point of it all? Only the non-existent god knows.
One and only reason this movie is worth sitting through is for the fans of Ellen Page (two IMDb points to her, one to Bacon, they both deserve it). Otherwise don't bother.