There were a few moments had me wondering why they were included and some things shoe horned into the movie that could have been left out (plus some unexplained plot holes) but overall it was thoroughly entertaining.
There were a lot of plot holes really in this film. In the first film Dave and his friends were supposed to be 17 while Mindy was meant to be 11, so why are Dave and all his friends still in High School when Mindy is now meant to be 15, surely that would make them all 20 or 21? I also hated the way that they just totally ditched Dave's girlfriend from the original film and neither of them seemed to care after it was such a big part of the story in the original. Same goes for how nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when Dave was casually accused of having sex with Mindy, an underage 15 year old girl...
To be honest, the more i think about this film, the less i liked it. The only real bright spots were the bits involving The Motherf*cker and Jim Carrey.
There were a lot of plot holes really in this film. In the first film Dave and his friends were supposed to be 17 while Mindy was meant to be 11, so why are Dave and all his friends still in High School when Mindy is now meant to be 15, surely that would make them all 20 or 21? I also hated the way that they just totally ditched Dave's girlfriend from the original film and neither of them seemed to care after it was such a big part of the story in the original. Same goes for how nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when Dave was casually accused of having sex with Mindy, an underage 15 year old girl...
To be honest, the more i think about this film, the less i liked it. The only real bright spots were the bits involving The Motherf*cker and Jim Carrey.
They're very, VERY minor spoilers, infact I wouldn't even consider them spoilers (hence why I didn't bother putting it in spoiler tags). Seriously, the stuff I mentioned is so minor that it's all pretty much just throwaway comments.
There were a lot of plot holes really in this film. In the first film Dave and his friends were supposed to be 17 while Mindy was meant to be 11, so why are Dave and all his friends still in High School when Mindy is now meant to be 15, surely that would make them all 20 or 21? I also hated the way that they just totally ditched Dave's girlfriend from the original film and neither of them seemed to care after it was such a big part of the story in the original. Same goes for how nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when Dave was casually accused of having sex with Mindy, an underage 15 year old girl...
To be honest, the more i think about this film, the less i liked it. The only real bright spots were the bits involving The Motherf*cker and Jim Carrey.
Those are some of the things im talking about.
Having his girlfriend cheat on him and ditch him made no sense whatsoever, didnt fit the character and the replacement sex interrest, yes sex interrest, not love interrest that i found hard to stomach just seemed shoe horned in for no reason
I saw this on Friday and was disappointed, but only because I enjoyed the first film so much. I think centering an 'adult' film around a 14/15 year old girl is problematic and the general theme of the movie also seems confused: I'm not sure I get whatever revelation Kick Ass has at the end.
It has a lot of good scenes and the acting is fine. Jim Carrey was obviously good but he gets a lot less screen time than I was expecting.
I saw this yesterday and while I enjoyed it - It isn't as good as the original.
But I suppose that was always going to be the case as the novelty value of the concepts in Kick Ass and its dark humour were what made it - sequels always seem to try to go with "more of the same, turned up to 11" and miss the mark.
Interestingly I though there were 2 other films in hidden inside Kick Ass 2 that would actually would have been funnier, more interesting tales. I thought that the Motherf***ers attempt to become a supervillian and Hit Girls attempt to become a "normal girl" could both have been entertaining stand alone films.
Kick Ass 2 only cost £28m to make so £12.5m at the box office is still ok.Once you take in overseas box office it will easily make a profit but it may struggle to match the original success!
Kick Ass 2 only cost £28m to make so £12.5m at the box office is still ok.Once you take in overseas box office it will easily make a profit but it may struggle to match the original success!
2m cheaper than the first film? Universal may be cleverer than they look.
And having taken just under $20m already, it will probably make it's budget back...
I really think cinema's are pricing themselves out of business.
It cost me £9.25 to go see the first showing of Kick Ass 2 at my local Vue.
When admissions start costing that sort of money cost I expect more and more people are going to be happy to wait 6 months and buy the film on DVD for a tenner. Even if you only watch it once thats better value than two of you going to the cinema to see it.
Especially as some of those multiscreen aren't much bigger than a TV.
Don't films have to take in double their production budget to break even? I'm sure it will once dvd/bluray sales are included.
Yes, films need to take double the combined production and marketing costs to break even. (Cinemas and distributors split roughly 50/50 overall, but it favours distributors in the first few weeks and cinemas in later weeks.)
I really think cinema's are pricing themselves out of business.
It cost me £9.25 to go see the first showing of Kick Ass 2 at my local Vue.
When admissions start costing that sort of money cost I expect more and more people are going to be happy to wait 6 months and buy the film on DVD for a tenner. Even if you only watch it once thats better value than two of you going to the cinema to see it.
Especially as some of those multiscreen aren't much bigger than a TV.
What cinema is this? I dont think I have ever seen a cinema screen not much bigger than a tv! Either that or the writer of the post above must have a tv with a 200 inch screen!!!
What cinema is this? I dont think I have ever seen a cinema screen not much bigger than a tv! Either that or the writer of the post above must have a tv with a 200 inch screen!!!
Saw it at a late screening last night and loved it.
Yeah, alright, it wasn't as good as the first one, the opening twenty minutes was rushed, the Mean Girls bit didn't really work and the inclusion of Union J was somewhere between bizarre and excrucating.......but for me, it still had the essence of what made the first film so enjoyable.
I thought the various shots of the teams in broad daylight made a brilliantly crap contrast to the standard 'Hero team walks towards camera in slow motion' shots that we've seen so many millions of times in comic book adaptations.
I loved the first book and deliberately avoided the second as I wanted to see the film first. All things considered, I'm glad I did it that way round........although having read the book first might have saved me the embarrassment of being the only person in the rather quiet cinema to crack up laughing at the mention of the name,
Early numbers indicate a poor start for KA2 in the US - a not very heroic $15m weekend.
Seems serious-adult-drama The Butler is kicking Kick-Ass ass.
It's even worse than first reported. It opened in 5th place behind We're The Millers, Elysium, and shockingly, also behind the critically maligned Planes, all of which were in their second weekend. The low budget will no doubt mean it still turns a profit, but it's definitely a bomb compared to the expectations Universal had. I doubt they'll risk making a third film after this.
It's even worse than first reported. It opened in 5th place behind We're The Millers, Elysium, and shockingly, also behind the critically maligned Planes, all of which were in their second weekend. The low budget will no doubt mean it still turns a profit, but it's definitely a bomb compared to the expectations Universal had. I doubt they'll risk making a third film after this.
The wording of that is slightly unfair. No child is going to avoid Planes, because Pete Travers from Rolling Stone * gave it a bad review, and therefore Planes is likely to be somewhat critic proof...
*(Rolling Stone didn't actually review the film, that was just an illustration)
The wording of that is slightly unfair. No child is going to avoid Planes, because Pete Travers from Rolling Stone * gave it a bad review, and therefore Planes is likely to be somewhat critic proof...
*(Rolling Stone didn't actually review the film, that was just an illustration)
I wasn't meaning that really, I was just pointing out that it was shocking that Kick Ass 2 couldn't even beat Planes in it's second week. Most box office analysts this past weekend thought that Kick Ass would adjust up slightly to second place when the actuals were reported, but instead if was adjusted down below 3 other films in their second weekend.
I should also point out though that just because a film is a kids film doesn't necessarily mean that it's critic proof, the parents who take their kids to the cinema still read reviews, and if something is critically destroyed like Planes and The Smurfs 2 then the film always generally underperforms expectations, especially in the case of The Smurfs 2 which bombed a few weeks ago. Planes opened "okay" to $22 million last weekend, but compare that to other Disney cartoons, especially Cars which Planes was a spin off from, and you can see that Planes (even without Pixar) is nowhere near the usual box office standard for Disney.
Comments
There were a lot of plot holes really in this film. In the first film Dave and his friends were supposed to be 17 while Mindy was meant to be 11, so why are Dave and all his friends still in High School when Mindy is now meant to be 15, surely that would make them all 20 or 21? I also hated the way that they just totally ditched Dave's girlfriend from the original film and neither of them seemed to care after it was such a big part of the story in the original. Same goes for how nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when Dave was casually accused of having sex with Mindy, an underage 15 year old girl...
To be honest, the more i think about this film, the less i liked it. The only real bright spots were the bits involving The Motherf*cker and Jim Carrey.
Thanks a bunch for the spoilers:mad::mad:
They're very, VERY minor spoilers, infact I wouldn't even consider them spoilers (hence why I didn't bother putting it in spoiler tags). Seriously, the stuff I mentioned is so minor that it's all pretty much just throwaway comments.
Can someone spoiler tag the end credit scene? I never stay for them!!:rolleyes:
Early numbers indicate a poor start for KA2 in the US - a not very heroic $15m weekend.
Seems serious-adult-drama The Butler is kicking Kick-Ass ass.
Those are some of the things im talking about.
Motherf*cker is easily the best character IMO.
It was a pretty lazy credit scene, not worth staying for IMO.
It has a lot of good scenes and the acting is fine. Jim Carrey was obviously good but he gets a lot less screen time than I was expecting.
But I suppose that was always going to be the case as the novelty value of the concepts in Kick Ass and its dark humour were what made it - sequels always seem to try to go with "more of the same, turned up to 11" and miss the mark.
Interestingly I though there were 2 other films in hidden inside Kick Ass 2 that would actually would have been funnier, more interesting tales. I thought that the Motherf***ers attempt to become a supervillian and Hit Girls attempt to become a "normal girl" could both have been entertaining stand alone films.
2m cheaper than the first film? Universal may be cleverer than they look.
And having taken just under $20m already, it will probably make it's budget back...
Don't films have to take in double their production budget to break even? I'm sure it will once dvd/bluray sales are included.
I think a lot of people will wait for this one on DVD rather then go to the cimena, i know I wish I had.
It cost me £9.25 to go see the first showing of Kick Ass 2 at my local Vue.
When admissions start costing that sort of money cost I expect more and more people are going to be happy to wait 6 months and buy the film on DVD for a tenner. Even if you only watch it once thats better value than two of you going to the cinema to see it.
Especially as some of those multiscreen aren't much bigger than a TV.
Yes, films need to take double the combined production and marketing costs to break even. (Cinemas and distributors split roughly 50/50 overall, but it favours distributors in the first few weeks and cinemas in later weeks.)
http://www.screendaily.com/news/box-office/kick-ass-2-tops-uk-box-office/5059339.article?blocktitle=Box-Office&contentID=610
What cinema is this? I dont think I have ever seen a cinema screen not much bigger than a tv! Either that or the writer of the post above must have a tv with a 200 inch screen!!!
Yes, I think that's a slight exagerration!
Yeah, alright, it wasn't as good as the first one, the opening twenty minutes was rushed, the Mean Girls bit didn't really work and the inclusion of Union J was somewhere between bizarre and excrucating.......but for me, it still had the essence of what made the first film so enjoyable.
I thought the various shots of the teams in broad daylight made a brilliantly crap contrast to the standard 'Hero team walks towards camera in slow motion' shots that we've seen so many millions of times in comic book adaptations.
I loved the first book and deliberately avoided the second as I wanted to see the film first. All things considered, I'm glad I did it that way round........although having read the book first might have saved me the embarrassment of being the only person in the rather quiet cinema to crack up laughing at the mention of the name,
It's even worse than first reported. It opened in 5th place behind We're The Millers, Elysium, and shockingly, also behind the critically maligned Planes, all of which were in their second weekend. The low budget will no doubt mean it still turns a profit, but it's definitely a bomb compared to the expectations Universal had. I doubt they'll risk making a third film after this.
The wording of that is slightly unfair. No child is going to avoid Planes, because Pete Travers from Rolling Stone * gave it a bad review, and therefore Planes is likely to be somewhat critic proof...
*(Rolling Stone didn't actually review the film, that was just an illustration)
I wasn't meaning that really, I was just pointing out that it was shocking that Kick Ass 2 couldn't even beat Planes in it's second week. Most box office analysts this past weekend thought that Kick Ass would adjust up slightly to second place when the actuals were reported, but instead if was adjusted down below 3 other films in their second weekend.
I should also point out though that just because a film is a kids film doesn't necessarily mean that it's critic proof, the parents who take their kids to the cinema still read reviews, and if something is critically destroyed like Planes and The Smurfs 2 then the film always generally underperforms expectations, especially in the case of The Smurfs 2 which bombed a few weeks ago. Planes opened "okay" to $22 million last weekend, but compare that to other Disney cartoons, especially Cars which Planes was a spin off from, and you can see that Planes (even without Pixar) is nowhere near the usual box office standard for Disney.