Why so much hype?

A Major Disappointment

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I thought this film wouldn't be too great. But when I saw it, I actually thought it was INCREDIBLE! I love films about made up countries, and this is set in a REAL LIFE micro nation! I thought the comedy was very funny and it made me laugh a lot, and the rest of my friends were crying of laughter in many scenes of this film.However, it does have a couple of issues. Some of them being a few predictable jokes, an unsatisfying ending and many plot holes and story inconsistencies, but that last thing is one of the things that makes it funny.The Nostalgia Critic was fantastic in it, Cinema Snob, the late JewWario and several other actors all perform excellently in the film. But some characters were a bit over the top, but nothing too big to worry about.

I've been a big fan of Doug Walker's comedy ever since his original youtube videos were up, and was more than happy to hear that the entire Channel Awesome crew was making a feature film. I sat through every single part and even as a big time fan, I found this film very unfunny, forced, and it relied way too much on fan-service. Many jokes were dated and didn't lead anywhere. It was poorly handled and tried to fit too much without enough entertaining content. Many say that the site has decreased in quality, which is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Granted, good stuff is produced regularly and has good entertainment value, but people new to the site at this point would have trouble understanding most of the jokes and running gags mentioned throughout the film.Don't watch it, it's a waste of time, yadda yadda yadda.

Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) and the rest of the reviewers from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com come together in a collaboration for their first full length film comedy. As a result, any inside jokes referencing reviews will go over a new comer's head. I for one, only watch Doug Walker's videos and Lindsey Ellis' (nostalgia chick). The story itself is very silly and over the top, but seems to be missing the pacing energy of a comedy.One must always remember that this is a movie with no budget and made by a bunch of internet amateurs. The story begins with Doug Walker decided to take over a one acre land called Molassia, which is apparently ruled by one man who dresses in an army uniform. They're is no acknowledgment of the fact that the man could just call the police to get rid of an army of internet geeks running around the land, or the fact that once these internet geeks aren't ruling over anything after taking over Molassia since it doesn't have any citizens. This is a very ridiculous premise that's funny at first, but the movie provides no pay off and milks down the joke. Doug Walker and his team take over Mollassia by an ambush and rename it Kickassia. The ruler of Molassia disguises himself as another person to avoid fighting with the ThatGuyWithTheGlasses team. Doug Walker rules Kickassia with plans to take over the neighbor hood and later Navada. Doug Walker, Film brain and Spoony deliver a delightful over the top performance, while the rest of the cast (15 people) are either hardly in the movie, or are forgettable. The best way to see if a comedy is really funny, is if I remember it afterwords. For example, there are several very funny moments in Nostalgia Critic reviews that I always remember, and I will often think of at random times of the day. The running joke that supplies the movie, is that several scenes are played out serious, but contain a line breaking the mood, or are serious while being over the top. This is a good idea, but doesn't work in a movie as long as Kickassia. Every scene is trying to be funny for the same reason, and uses the same comedy strategy that after the first half of Kickassia, becomes tiring. Bottom line, there just weren't many laughs during the movie. I wasn't expecting anything spectacular. In fact, I had no idea there was going to be a full length collaboration as an anniversary. I didn't even know TGWTG was doing an anniversary video until I saw the video with Doug raping Ma-Tia (boy that sounded strange to type). So I virtually had no expectations at all. I was just hoping to be entertained and laugh, and the movie didn't deliver very much of that. I laugh more times watching Nostalgia Critic reviews then Kickassia.

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."