Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Coolerjohn23 Only one word describes this and that word is garbage. I don't have a lot to save since others here have already said it so this will be brief. If people like this are not actors at all they should not act in something that clearly they have no talent for. One question I have is why film brains character was changed at all. I mean in his reviews he is always serious and barley makes any jokes yet here he is a spa-zing annoying kid here. If someone who is not an insane tgwtg can explain please let me know. in truth this is not worth watching especially on DVD since youtube already has it all for free. Thank you for your time and hopefully you know a better movie to watch on a Friday night.

depaderico I have read a wide range of viewpoints on this movie, and honestly I find both the strongly negative arguments and the strongly positive arguments somewhat compelling in their own ways; however, I'd grant greater purchase to the negative views, and here is why.On the one hand, you have a series of highly disjoint and awkwardly assembled set pieces, with characters numbering in the double digits, but none of them having a personality in any way distinct from any other character. They are all very mean-spirited and tend to speak only in a shouting voice, complete with exaggerated arm gestures and painfully contorted facial expressions, and there isn't really a single character for the audience to like and connect with. I guess that Brad Jones (the Cinema Snob) is somewhat likable, but his role is quite small, to where you couldn't really classify him as a protagonist in any respect. Every single character is a greedy sociopath bent on domination and constantly scheming. That could make for a good dark comedy, in the right hands, but it falls apart here because there's no goal or cause for the audience to care about. Now Doug's in the president's chair--okay, now Spoony's in charge--oh, no wait, now Lindsay is running things. None of these is a meaningful transition, since Doug, Spoony, and Lindsay are all basically the same character--a scheming sociopath. Meanwhile, all conflicts are played out in the same exact manner: long fight scenes consisting in the worst fight choreography I have ever witnessed, including in community theater. Also, the characters all evidently have infinite hit points and never sustain injuries and occasionally display never-before-so-much-as-hinted super powers, so there is no drama to these scenes. Spoony and Doug Walker apparently both possess force lightning, while Sage has super- strength (or something).On the other hand, one can tell that a lot of effort went into making this movie. But that's the problem in many ways, because one wonders *why* they went to so much effort for such a weak screenplay. I mean, they all flew to Nevada and rented rooms at a hotel in Reno. Benzaie came all the way from France. They composed a score, stitched together a couple costumes, and even hired the "president" of a micronation to provide his home and lend his acting ... talent? The effort is all very transparent, and it's almost as though the movie tries to convince you it's good solely on account of this effort; the problem is that I cannot discern any true creative spark beneath the heaps of detritus. I don't think that Doug Walker woke up one morning to be whacked in the head by his muse with artistic inspiration, resulting in this film. Rather, it looks as though he squeezed out a corporate product with a checklist of elements, like a weird low-budget version of the Star Wars prequels. The fact that it's low budget doesn't negate that the movie is essentially a money-making vehicle and hardly an artistic product. I'm not sure whether Doug and Rob Walker ever had a coherent vision for what they wanted 'Kickassia' to be. The tone is really confused, constantly veering between light slapstick and heavy black comedy.That said, there are some positive factors. I wouldn't go so far as to describe the tech aspects as *adequate* but obviously someone was paying attention to giving the movie at least a slight veneer of respectability. (The special effects, though, which appear to all be post-production Adobe After-Effects, look terrible. Cummon, you couldn't buy a couple firecrackers and bottle rockets in *Nevada* and done some real, tangible special effects? It's like the most lawless state in the nation!) And it was kind of a funny tone shift when Santa Christ is shot, bringing the action to a sudden halt. I would say the scene is good only because it's the only time that a physical confrontation actually has consequences.

Vincent Beaudry Doug Walker's Kickassia is the story about a Critic who want to conquer the world, beginning by conquering a (real) Micronation. released in 6 episodes for the 2nd Anniversary of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com and entirely free under The Nostalgia Critic section of the movie, Kickassia is a huge crossover between a huge bunch of Channel Awesome stars and even more (Cinemassacre's Board James.). Epic Story, Silly Jokes, nice 4th walls, awesome running gags (OF COURSE !). Kickassia simply do kick asses ! Jeezus, they even got the balls to invite the REAL leader of Molossia, Kevin Daugh, and the movie plot is even written on the official Story of the micro-nation !Watch it ! it worth your time !

Kenny Farino First, you are most likely curious as to why this begins with the saying "this film is hardly a movie." That's because I consider movies to be entertaining and worth the investment of time, and "Kickassia" is neither. However, given my negative opinion about ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, the website where this special little piece of cinema comes from, I will not let that get in the way of making this review as fair as possible. However, let me also clarify: to ask reviewers not to criticize a movie on IMDb is a ridiculous notion - why would it be on IMDb if it was solely meant to be fan service and not an actual movie? It will be judged like any other movie, no exception. This review will also be split into several parts to break down the movie in a critical way:1. Story and Character: - It's incredibly flimsy. The story in Kickassia, although it was obviously not meant to be a masterpiece in cinema, is still seriously lacking. The basic gist is that cewebrity the Nostalgia Critic wants to take over a real micro-nation in Nevada, and wants to become its new leader. If you've read the review that this is in rebuttal to, then you already know the basic plot. However, while Grann-Bach is absolutely right in saying that it will leave no impact on its audience, this still doesn't forgive the fact that the plot is nonexistent. Some movies, you could argue, are character films (The Big Lebowski, Wayne's World), but you can't have a character film without characters. The biggest flaw of Kickassia is that the film is devoid of real personality; everybody is a cutout, one monotone personality distinguishing each person. Instead, we are presented with the personalities of every review show on the website, which is fine if there is actual character development, but what we get instead is a barrage of cultural references. You can't seriously expect somebody outside of the fan base to want to spend money on your DVD (and thus expand your audience) if the characters all have the distinct personality of sandpaper, right? Hardcore fans will know where the sandpaper comment came from.2. Comedy - I'm sorry, but there isn't a single joke in this movie that is original in any way. Most of them are either references taken from the multiple review shows on the website, or are directly taken from other movies, television shows, or comics. "Family Guy" does the same with its pop-culture references, and it is vilified for not having an original bone in its body as a result. This means the comedy is really weak, and the nonexistent acting capabilities painfully emphasize this. Newer fans will even be confused if they haven't watched every single show on Channel Awesome, so they will not know that "OF COURSE!" is actually a joke. Let me rebut another review by Lloyd Markham: "Hence much of the humor and enjoyment to be had relies exclusively on the audience[']s familiarity... each with their own styles, in-jokes, memes, continuity, etc." That's the problem, memes and in-jokes aren't funny to wide audiences. An in-joke may be funny to a certain group, but as soon as you try to explain it to a stranger, they won't understand what you're saying. The humor isn't helped by the plodding comedic timing where the writers take far too long with the punchline. The fence scene is a perfect example. Overall, the humor is bone dry and poorly timed.3. Technical Aspects - This portion of the film is the most shocking aspect, especially coming from a group of individuals who make their livings critiquing movies and are (supposedly) well-versed in making movies. This is not the case, as the continuity is nonexistent, the lighting is very poorly done, as it changes from scene to scene, and the overall presentation is not pleasing to the eyes in the slightest. To rebut Glenn-Bach's review where he says "hey were on a budget, they didn't have room for professional... lighting..., things get to be overly bright or dark, and there is grain in some bits) and the continuity can be all over the place", that is no excuse. There were films just as long as "Kickassia" that were made on a shoestring budget and in four days that were far superior, like Roger Corman's "Little Shop of Horrors." They pulled off a lot in four days with what they had, so there is no excuse to say everything is sub-par, and then just say "Oops, they were on a budget!" is unacceptable. Again, if the 'movie' is on IMDb, it is sold on DVD, and the 'actors' are also on IMDb, then it can be as mercilessly reviewed as the reviewers please because it calls itself a movie.The Verdict - "Kickassia" was horribly painful to watch, and I am honestly shocked that people would purchase this. The fans will be displeased with negative reviews, but the negative reviews are warranted when you make something as half-baked as "Kickassia."