<img src="http://www.noows.de/spezial/gallery/einzelbilder/kultur/kino/Kick_Ass_Film.jpg" class="left" height="200" />

This is not a film for everyone, but it is a film for me. If you don't like cartoon style violence, though, you had better stay away. But if an ironic take on the masked hero (which following all these (horrid) film adaptations is now firmly settled as mainstream culture) appeals to you, and you don't mind a little girl using foul language and performing some truly excellently choreographed violence, you will probably like this. Despite Nicholas Cage being in it.

I continue to be fascinated by the difference between my reaction to cartoon violence and what I perceive as "real" violence on screen. Whereas the latter will make me hide behind buckets of popcorn/my scarf/my fingers/other available objects, the cartoon style does not affect me much more than watching a Tom & Jerry episode (which is also horrendously violent if you choose to take it seriously), despite real people playing the roles. I suspect it is down to the beauty of the choreography, the music in the background (which removes it from reality), and the pretty, pretty colours. And the humour. Interestingly, this film has a mix of the two -- and I found myself oscillating between the two attitudes depending on who the focus was on: Hit Girl and Big Daddy are wholly in the realm of cartoons, no matter what they do/what is done to them, whereas Kick-Ass himself moves along the border.

The "real" feel to Kick-Ass himself is the main contribution to cringing. I am not normally a fan of films that rely on uncomfortable social situations, and so that particular part of the film should not have appealed to me. But with some exceptions it was so well handled and quick to pass, there was no lasting damage. And there really is no way to avoid uncomfortable social situations when your main character is a geek who decides to dress up in a green wetsuit to fight crime, without any real training or funding or anything else providing hope of success.

There is also the case of Nicholas Cage. It must be addressed. He is never very good. In fact, the best way for him to make a good film is to not be in it. As a rule. I was therefore amazed to find that he did not mar this one. They have taken his weakness (one-face-fits-nothing) and turned it into a strength, even underscoring it by making his voice even more monotonous. It is gold. Where he has gone wrong all these years is in trying to play fully functional human beings who express things with their voice. He is no good at that.

The girl, Chloe Moretz, is amazing. There is no other word for it. Those choreographed action scenes alone made my jaw drop (granted, there must have been some stunt people in some of them), but in addition she does not act like a child. I was somewhat less impressed with the main character, played by Aaron Johnson. He felt like he was lifted out of Freaks and Geeks. Still, there are worse things that could be said about an actor.

Now, any hero-film must have a villain, and Mark Strong is a truly excellent choice. Always. He did not really get to demonstrate the amazingness of his villainness, as this is not a serious comic book film (say, Spiderman or Batman style), but something else. He was just an ordinary bad guy. In the real world. Where people do not dress up in capes, and if they do you just knock them over the head with a tyre iron.

Of course, it is based on a comic book. One written by the Scottish writer Mark Millar (who also wrote the Wanted series and a lot of other stuff) (and drawn by John Romita, who drew Gaiman's Eternals). It is even published by Marvel. But without actually having read any of his work, I am beginning to suspect that Millar has that thing, which Alan Moore also has, which allows him to step outside his genre and look at it from the outside. He denaturalises what comics takes for granted, and I sincerely believe that this film (the script of which was apparently written concurrently with the comic) brings it all with it to the screen. It is an independent film (another reason to go see it, pay for it) because he didn't want it softened for a reliable mass market. Mass markets want heroes, clear cut and triumphant. It wants Batman and Spider Man. And it wants the violence toned down. If you did that to this film, there wouldn't be much left.

But it is not a case of simple subversion, either. It does debunk the masked hero by showing what would happen if anyone were mad enough to actually try it (severe beatings and lots and lots of hits on youtube). But it is not willing to let the idea die entirely. The fantasy is allowed to exist alongside. It creates an interesting dynamic. I should probably consider it a failure to live up to its subversive potential, but I can't. It is too damned entertaining.

There may also be some glee at the thought of people like
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/apr/02/kick-ass-bad-language"> The Guardian</a> , who are morally outraged that an 11-yearold is allowed to say "Okay, you cunts, let's see what you can do now". As you will know, I am no great fan of obscenity (or taboo-transgression without a point), but I found that hilarious. I probably wouldn't have if it were a grown man saying it. Most likely I'd be disgusted. But it is an 11-yearold girl with ninja skills. (There is also the added bonus that the offense seems to stem from her use of the one word, not from her brutal slaying of lots and lots of bad guys).

It may have become apparent, in the course of this review, that this is not a terribly deep film. I am sure some depth might be extracted if one tried really hard, but I don't think that is the point. Yes, it is a commentary on comics. Yes, it could be said to be about youth's search for justice or the difficulty of growing up. Or simply how drugs are Bad. Or the desire to stand out from the crowd. That misses the point a little, though. I laughed a lot.

I really recommend the film. Especially to the geeks among us.