Chloe Moretz Calls Out Jim Carrey on Those ‘Kick-Ass 2′ is Too Violent Comments

- 08-09-13Comics, Film Posted by Sarah Moran


About a month and a half ago Jim Carrey shocked us all with some stirring comments about his disapproval of the excessive violence in Kick-Ass 2. A movie he’s in and one in where he participates in quite a bit of said violence. It was shocking only because, one, anyone’s who read the comics or seen the first Kick-Ass would say, “No duh, the over-the-top violence is sort of its schtick,” and two, how did Carrey not come to this conclusion earlier? Like when he was filming.

I can forgive him the change of heart, but slamming the film both you and your fellow co-stars and crew worked so very hard on, that’s kind of low. And apparently, Chloe Moretz kind of thinks so, too. She recently responded to Carrey’s comments with a few of her own,

It’s a movie. If you are going to believe and be affected by an action film, you shouldn’t go to see Pocahontas because you are going to think you are a Disney princess.

If you are that easily swayed, you might see ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ and think you are a serial killer. It’s a movie and it’s fake, and I’ve known that since I was a kid … I don’t want to run around trying to kill people and cuss. If anything, these movies teach you what not to do.

It’s that same old argument of violence in the media being what spurs real life acts of violence. And it’s bullshit. I mean, hell, you want to talk about excessive violence? Check out out Kick-Ass 2, the comic, after seeing the movie and you’ll see what was considered too brutal for the screen. I wonder what Carrey’s comments would have been were the now infamous, though removed from the film, scenes of rape and extreme animal cruelty still included? Author Mark Millar is a twisted individual, but I don’t believe anyone who’d consider acting on truly evil impulses needs a comic, movie, or video game to inspire them.

Moretz did add, “Each their own,” in response to Carrey’s comments, so hopefully there is no ill will between the co-stars.

What are your thoughts of violence in the movies? Is the violence of Kick-Ass too extreme? Isn’t it only a movie, and therefor, easily distinguishable from real life?

Source: CBM

Category: Comics, Film

Tags: , ,


  • Randy

    I tend to agree with both actors view points but I also think if Carrey had reservations about the film he could have and should have opted out from the start. It’s not as if he didn’t know about the film’s violent nature because the first installment was as violent as they come so there’s no excuse for changing one’s mind later on. On the other hand, Moretz is still but a youngster and may feel differently about violence in general when she grows up. Once you have children of your own one’s opinion about issues like this tend to change. Also, Moretz implies she’s all grown up when she states, “I’ve known that since I was a kid” but the fact is at her age she’s *still* a kid given her current age, which is merely why I say she may likely find her own attitude about violence in cinema could change once she becomes an experienced adult with a few more years of what I call “life experience” under her belt. I do like Moretz though, and I think she has a bright acting career ahead of her.

    That said, there are points which I agree and disagree with on both sides of the issue but I enjoyed KA-2 and liked the original KA even more because it was different from most wimpy approaches to kid hero movies. However, I still maintain that Carrey should have stayed away from the movie if he felt that strongly about violence in movies rather than tear it down AFTER everyone put their own hard work into it, as I can only imagine how difficult it is to make a movie like this (or ANY motion picture for that matter). Then again, Carrey has already made his millions and is on the back stretch of his career so his opinions are likely different than someone much younger whose career is just beginning. Jodie Foster is another such actor who openly cries foul over violence and gun violence in particular, yet has no trouble accepting paying roles where she sometimes uses a gun or commits violence herself, but it’s funny how some peoples’ personal views can sometimes change when they’re being paid large sums of money to do the things they claim are so terrible . . .

  • Mike Dornfest

    Jim is a comic actor and should stick with comedy.
    I like the dude but it’s a movie and he shouldn’t have signed up for it.
    What were his motivations when he read the contract?
    Did he know of the violence THEN signed because that would give him a medium to protest it or did he change his attitude after Newtown.

    Either way, when you give him a ton of money for a job where he signed a contract then he should fulfill those obligations and NOT go out of his way to tank the project.
    I mean seriously, who would want to work with someone who may or may not ruin the success of a multimillion dollar investment.

    I suspect he has enough money to where he doesn’t have to work ever again but after that penguin movie who knows what is being offered him anymore.

  • SynicydalCouchPotato

    I think Jim Carrey only proved himself to be an opportunistic hypocrite.
    He’s a charitable, liberal gun-control advocate, but doesn’t mind cashing in on violent cinema? Riiight. And connecting Sandy Hook to cinema violence was a foolish mistake made by the same people that don’t understand that “gun control” is the regular training in the proper use of fire arms for self defense.

    Seriously, we homo-sapiens are out of balance – we can burn through steel with the same laser light that will heal an eye – but we don’t know how to respect our neighbors. Until our sociology out performs our technology we are doomed to endure senseless suffering. I refuse to disarm myself until we cure the crazy.

    And the operative word is Cure. I have zero respect for the chemo-industro-agribusinesses who pollute our air, food, & water – then turn around and sell us offensively over-priced, dangerously useless drugs to mask the symptoms of the diseases they cause. All in the name of Profits.

    Until we change the motivation dynamics of our society then violent cinema truly is our safest outlet for the self imposed frustration of maintaining the status quo.

  • Owlie

    I’m kind of astonished at some of the obtuse comments below.
    Look, movies are either powerful or they are not. Have you ever been emotionally impacted, powerfully, by a movie? I’m guessing your answer is yes. If no, then you’re probably a minority. Truth is almost everyone has a movie that in some way was a gut punch to them. So if you’re honest, you have to admit– movies are a pretty influential thing that have the ability to shape how you feel and think– especially when it comes to individuals of weaker than average mind.

    So once that premise is acknowledged, how can you sit there with a straight face and say “It’s just a movie, it has no impact on someone’s real world behavior.”

    Film is powerful. Books are powerful. Media is powerful. It shapes and changes who we are. We all grow and evolve because of what we’re exposed to. Some of us grow in bad ways. It’s still not the media’s /fault/, no, it’s still YOUR responsibility as a sentient being, to control your own behavior.

    But don’t kid yourselves. These things are /powerful/.
    The media needs to stop trying to shrug off responsibility just as much as people need to stop trying to blame media for real world violence.

    As an auteur of anything like a book, a picture, a film, or even a song, you need to take responsibility for your content and realize people will be affected by it. Use the power of art wisely. Because to trot out an old cliche– with great power comes great responsibility.