Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Hancock

  1. #1

    • Now 40% less bitter!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Apple Valley, CA.
    Posts
    1,394

    Hancock

    So, I just saw Hancock last night, and I liked it. A word of warning to those who haven't seen it yet who have small children. It is rated PG-13 for a reason, and that reason is (mostly) strong language. There's also violence, but I noticed the strong language more so. The reason I did was because I was sitting next to a dad and his son, who I'm guessing was about four. While the previews were airing (and there were a lot of them) the father and son were having a blast! This was dad's moment to take his son to a superhero movie. Once the movie started, the language just started to pour in. Each time a bad word was said, the dad leaned over to the little boy (who was right next to me) and said, "you're not allowed to say that", "don't ever say that" or, "you can't say that, either". Dad gave up after about the first ten minutes of the show and just kind of sank back in his seat, probably imagining his four year old telling mommy to shut up before he puts his boot in her *censored*.
    Anywho, it is a good movie. Very funny. I'm not sure how I feel about the message of the movie. When I first said that, the friend I went with said, "There was a message?" To which I said yes, it was near the end. There are a few messages in the movie, like overcome your demons, treat people with respect, do what you were born to do. I'm not sure how I felt about the last message, though. I'm probably blowing it too out of proportion. I'll put it in a spoilerbox, so you can see if you agree with me or not.

    Spoiler
    You'll be stronger if you stay away from the one you were meant to be with.


    I wonder if they'll make a sequel? It's certainly good as a stand-alone movie. I would worry that a sequel would mess it up and over-complicate things the way the PotC sequels kind of did. Oh, and the little person who was in the PotC sequels is in Hancock! He's a prisoner.
    Oo-de-lally!

  2. #2

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    JSC
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Hancock

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/movies/02hanc.html

    July 2, 2008
    MOVIE REVIEW | 'HANCOCK'
    Able to Leap Tall Buildings, Even if Hung Over

    By MANOHLA DARGIS

    Soon into the superhero spectacular “Hancock,” before the machinery has fully kicked in, and the story is still wreathed in blissful ambiguity, you see the star Will Smith sprawled on a Los Angeles bench. Dirty, disheveled, in full distressed costume and character, and within easy sloshing reach of a bottle, he looks lost and alone, much like all the human detritus that washes up in every city and remains mostly unnoticed. But there’s no ignoring Hancock, who has amazing powers. He can fly, for starters, and soon enough he’s blasting straight into the heavens, the first homeless superhero in movies — Superbum!

    Alas (bummer), though he can look the part, Hancock isn’t literally homeless, just rootless, troubled and bedeviled. He drinks hard, swears at children (who curse him in turn), rarely shaves, never smiles. Worse, he has lousy superhero style, with sneakers and shorts (no cape), a grubby watch cap pulled over his forehead and buggy sunglasses that hide his (X-ray?) eyes. His takeoffs and landings are a mess: sloppy and violent, they invariably leave a heap of trouble and general rubble in his wake. He’s Pothole Man, Train Wreck Man, but mainly he’s Seriously Ticked Off Man, which, given that he’s also a black man in Los Angeles, suggests that this superhero story comes with some bite, even a few nibbling sharp teeth.

    Although whatever teeth it had have mostly been pulled, “Hancock” makes for one unexpectedly satisfying and kinky addition to Hollywood’s superhero chronicles. Touching and odd, laden with genuine twists and grounded by three appealing lead performances, it was ably directed by Peter Berg and written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan. It’s a curious movie for the week of July 4, when the air is traditionally filled with the rockets’ red glare and muscular box office heroics. There’s a real jolt in the choking, splenetic exhaust of a disgruntled blockbuster anti-hero, especially one played by the affable Mr. Smith, who 12 years ago this very week helped save the world in “Independence Day,” a movie that made blowing up the White House into a joke.

    That was then, this is now, and while it would be a stretch to say that this summertime amusement has much on its mind, it does have a little something percolating between its big bangs and gaudy effects. Most of that something isn’t overtly political, despite the setup (Super Angry Black Man), a few winking asides and Mr. Berg’s downbeat tendencies. Mr. Smith may be playing a provocative role in a city famous for its troubled race relations, but he’s also a megastar and largely shielded from everyday stings, which, as it happens, is also true of his character. Hancock kicks back in a couple of derelict trailers (the Shack of Solitude) instead of a mansion, but his pain is existential, not material. He suffers at his leisure.

    Engineered for broad, knowing laughs, with lots of kablooey, “Hancock” is principally a comedy and for a while plays out that way, notably when Mr. Smith is interacting with Jason Bateman. Their characters meet cute when Hancock saves Ray (Mr. Bateman) from being flattened by a freight train. In typical fashion, Hancock botches the save. He plucks Ray from death, but in the process derails the train and, also true to bad form, receives an invective-laced earful from the gathering mob. Struck by the crowd’s hostility, Ray, a public relations guy with a do-gooder streak and a knockout wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), decides to rescue Hancock in turn by giving him a superhero makeover, one that follows a course blazed by many a fallen star (contrition, redemption, fabulousness).

    Mr. Berg, who explored heroism of a different stripe in his poignant high school football movie, “Friday Night Lights,” and showed off terrific action chops in the underrated flick “The Kingdom,” is not a comedy natural. He squeezes laughs out of “Hancock” — Mr. Bateman needs no goosing — though some of its biggest yuks are fairly yucky, like a cringing bit involving a bizarre variant on prison rape. (That’s entertainment?) For the most part, what Mr. Berg does is bring gravity to “Hancock,” a heaviness that can feel lugubrious even in midair though it often seems just right for a lonely, walking-if-usually-flying, seemingly self-loathing question mark. Mr. Berg takes the character’s complications to heart, and Mr. Smith, his charm and smile dimmed, does the same.

    The extent of that complexity doesn’t emerge until the big reveal, which involves Ms. Theron’s character and is so surprising that I heard several grown men loudly gasp. (“No way!”) I was more struck by Ms. Theron, an actress who, I think, is capable of greater depth than most of her performances require, even those that try to rub the glamour off her. She helps Mr. Smith enrich the story’s emotional texture, which is no small thing, since the movie itself starts to falter just when it begins to deepen. That’s too bad because while “Hancock” is far from perfect — it feels overly rushed, particularly toward its chaotic end — it has a raggedness that speaks honestly to the fundamental human fragility that makes the greatest heroes super.

    “Hancock” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Big bangs, bruising battles and movie blood.

    HANCOCK
    Opens on Wednesday nationwide.

    Directed by Peter Berg; written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan; director of photography, Tobias Schliessler; edited by Paul Rubell and Colby Parker Jr.; music by John Powell; production designer, Neil Spisak; visual effects designer, John Dykstra; produced by Akiva Goldsman, Michael Mann, Will Smith and James Lassiter; released by Columbia Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 32 minutes.

    WITH: Will Smith (John Hancock), Charlize Theron (Mary), Jason Bateman (Ray), Eddie Marsan (Red), Johnny Galecki (Jeremy), Thomas Lennon (Mike) and Atticus Shaffer (Boy at Bus Bench).
    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...i_cinema_denby

    The Current Cinema

    Desperate Men

    “Hancock” and “Tell No One.”

    by David Denby July 7, 2008


    After “Speed Racer,” “Iron Man,” “Indiana Jones,” “The Incredible Hulk,” and “Get Smart” (which is so innocuous that you forget the jokes before you hit the street), it seemed clear that this year’s big summer movies, however spectacular, had lost all interest in making even a minimal emotional connection to the moviegoer. But “Hancock,” starring Will Smith, is a surprisingly resonant spectacle that places three people with recognizable feelings in the middle of a wild fantasy. For one thing, “Hancock” has the grace to acknowledge the audience’s increasing impatience with digital wonders. Hancock (Smith), a lonely superhero in Los Angeles, can’t fly anywhere without making a mess. Carelessly, he punches holes in glass-tower office buildings, and, when he lands on the street in some pleasant suburban neighborhood, he tears up the pavement. The public hates him, and the Dickensian TV lawyer Nancy Grace, of the curling lip and ferocious eye, is on his case. Consider this: A fellow named Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is stuck in his car at a railway crossing, and Hancock saves him from an oncoming train by putting up his hands and bringing the locomotive to a jolting halt. The trouble is, the piled-up cars behind the locomotive jackknife and fall off the tracks. Hancock doesn’t mean any harm, but he’s out of it—a heedless, drunken-slob nihilist who just happens to have supernatural abilities. Unlike a comic-book hero, he has no “normal” placid self; he’s always an airborne bum. The grateful Ray, however, has a scheme for saving him. A good-hearted P.R. man, he insists that Hancock “interface with the public.” He persuades him to wear tight-fitting rubber suits, like a proper comic-book hero, and to make smiling appearances at West Hollywood clubs.

    “Hancock” was written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, directed by Peter Berg (“The Kingdom”), and produced by such shrewd Hollywood talents as Michael Mann, Jonathan Mostow, and Akiva Goldsman (among others), and, like the people who made “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” these filmmakers realize that it’s time to transform digital into meta-digital. If everyone knows that digital has tossed realism overboard, then why not turn that knowingness into a joke? Hancock flips an obnoxious neighborhood kid into the sky and, looking up now and then, carries on a conversation with Ray, only to put out an arm and catch the howling towhead as he falls to earth. That’s a pretty funny trick, and there are others just as good, but when Ray introduces Hancock to his wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), the movie, adding sexual tension and emotional power to its visual gags, reaches a new level. Theron looks at Smith with an uncanny mixture of alarm and attraction. What’s going on with her? He may be a superhero, but he smells of booze. We’re also puzzled by Berg’s visual style, which, in these intimate scenes, depends on a handheld camera, restlessly moving yet pinned to the actors in super-tight closeups. It’s as if he were making a Cassavetes psychodrama.

    Suddenly, we realize why he stays so close. We are watching genuine actors at work, not well-paid hired hands filling up the space between agitated zeroes and ones. For the first time in his life, Will Smith doesn’t flirt with the audience. He doesn’t smile and tease and drawl; he stays in character as a self-hating lonely guy, and, in Berg’s closeups, the planes of his face seem massive, almost sculpted. Charlize Theron undergoes her own kind of conversion. In such recent movies as “Monster,” “North Country,” and “In the Valley of Elah,” Theron has drawn on rage—perhaps the anger that a beautiful woman feels toward an industry that initially wanted to confine her to decorative roles. In “Monster,” she covered her face with prosthetics and tattoo ink, and in “Elah” and parts of “North Country” she was severe and drab. But Theron isn’t running away from her good looks anymore. Wearing a simple sleeveless red shift, her blond hair hanging around her shoulders, she’s a knockout in “Hancock,” and she gives the sexiest performance of her career. The currents flowing between her and Smith are reminiscent of the heat generated by Gable and Harlow, say, or Bogart and Bacall. It turns out that there’s a bond between these two (which I won’t reveal), and the rest of the movie, which includes some superb comic invention as well as scarily turbulent scenes, grows out of it. “Hancock” suggests new visual directions and emotional tonalities for pop. It’s by far the most enjoyable big movie of the summer.
    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...0,508312.story

    MOVIE REVIEW

    'Hancock'

    The Will Smith vehicle is as self-destructive as its superhero.
    By Kenneth Turan
    Times Movie Critic

    July 1, 2008

    WHERE IS it written that superheroes have to be selfless? What would happen if an individual with supernatural powers was surly, self-absorbed and acid-tongued? Would he still be a hero? Would people still want him around?

    “Hancock,” the new Will Smith vehicle, asks those smart questions, but after initial moments of success its answers get dumb and dumber. It's a strange feeling to see the summer's most promising premise self-destruct into something bizarre and unsatisfying, but that is the "Hancock" experience.

    Probably no one but Smith, possibly the most likable actor in the world, could have breathed the right kind of life into this unusual character, first met sleeping off a monumental binge on a bench in Los Angeles.

    Being hung over, we soon learn, is business as usual for Hancock, a superhero who hangs out in dive bars, drinks from the bottle and wears ragged clothes and a wool cap that has seen better days.

    Yes, Hancock has all of Superman's talents -- he is ridiculously strong, invulnerable and able to to leap tall buildings in a single bound -- but because he is often drunk and/or hung over when the call to action comes, he causes as much trouble as he prevents.

    When Hancock stops a car full of gun-toting gangbangers, he destroys assorted vehicles and a freeway sign and defaces a local monument in the process. When he tosses a beached whale back into the ocean, he capsizes a boat. Hancock is clearly the guy the term "collateral damage" was invented for.

    Worse than that, Hancock has a blistering tongue, something the film's trailers have taken care to avoid revealing. That a film with dauntingly profane diatribes that would make a stevedore blush got a PG-13 rating, while the much sweeter "Election" was saddled with an R a few years back, will be catnip to those who think the MPAA ratings board (which reportedly twice gave "Hancock" an R before further cuts changed its mind) invariably gives away the store to major studio releases.

    Things might have gone on like this forever for Hancock -- who knows how long a superhero's liver can hold out -- if he hadn't one day saved the life of a man named Ray Embrey (an agreeable Jason Bateman), whose car was trapped on railroad tracks with a train bearing down. Embrey turns out to be a good-natured public relations man who believes in making the world a better place and specializes in image consulting. Though his wife Mary (an initially underutilized Charlize Theron) takes a visceral dislike to Hancock, Embrey decides nothing will do but that he will help this reluctant superhero to clean up his act.

    Some of this stuff, like training Hancock to ask politely before rescuing someone and to say "good job" even when people are not doing one, is amusing. But when Hancock agrees to go to jail for the damage he's caused, the result is an anatomically challenging encounter with a pair of inmates that makes an even further mockery, if that's possible, of the film's puny rating.

    As written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan and directed by Peter Berg, "Hancock" up to this point takes misanthropic glee in its deconstruction of the conventions of superheroism. It's abrasive as all get out, but Smith's charisma and the cleverness of the concept keep us in the picture.

    But then, just about without warning, "Hancock" makes a completely unexpected and head-shaking plot turn that derails the film in a way that it never recovers from. This second part of "Hancock" has the further disadvantage of coming up with its convoluted rules as it goes along, making it especially hard to understand what is happening to its characters or the reasons for its events.

    Theron has more prominence as things progress, and, also out of nowhere, gives one of her strongest performances. But this part of the film also reveals a weakness for standard-issue violence and savagery that comes from a much more conventional place than the film's initial concept.

    The creators of "Hancock" truly had a tiger by the tail with their primary idea, and once they let go, the beast turned around and swallowed them whole. This is Hollywood, after all, a town without pity. Or, for that matter, anything resembling good common sense.

    [email protected]

    "Hancock." MPAA rating: PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language. Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes. In general release.
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...-hancock_N.htm

    Muddled 'Hancock' can't save the day, even with Will Smith

    By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

    Hancock (* * out of four) might have been more appropriately titled Hodgepodge.

    What starts out with a sense of quirky fun loses direction and devolves into a mishmash of story lines. The finished product is so poorly conceived and misguided that even Will Smith, with all his charm, can't save it.

    It's a shame, because the antics of a slovenly, snide and misunderstood superhero might have made for a fun summer movie. But Hancock deviates from the original concept and goes astray in the process.

    For the first 45 minutes or so, the story works. Hancock's offhanded efforts at saving lives and stopping bad guys leave so much damage in their wake that most of Los Angeles turns against him. The notion of public relations pro Ray Embrey (a likable Jason Bateman) spinning his image has plenty of comic potential. Smith's surly Hancock is a lot more fun than the earnest side that surfaces later.

    The film changes its focus about halfway in, growing almost philosophical. The story becomes a contest of wills between Hancock and Charlize Theron, who plays Ray's wife, Mary. What seemed pretty straightforward becomes convoluted. And Theron, so good in serious roles, doesn't quite nail the tone here.

    Then, a cardboard cutout of a villain is introduced. It's as if the filmmakers decided that the Smith-Theron subplot was not working and decided to make it a generic good-guy-vs.-bad-guy tale.

    The premise has been so muddied by this point that it almost feels as if everyone involved just gave up.

    Perhaps the high concept with its comic nugget — a loser superhero who annoys more than inspires awe — couldn't sustain a full feature.

    What could have been a perfectly enjoyable blend of comedy and action blows up in our faces trying to be a heavier, larger-than-life romance with historical, spiritual and sci-fi implications.

    Basic logic is jettisoned as well. As a superhero, Hancock has bullets bounce off him. But at key points, they pierce him. Then they bounce off him again. Sure, it's a fantasy, but the internal logic should have some consistency if we're going to get caught up in what happens. Who wants to struggle to keep up with a popcorn movie? (Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence and language. Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes. Opens tonight in select theaters and Wednesday nationwide.)
    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/140273658
    Hancock
    A superhero with a super-hangover
    Release Date: 2008
    Ebert Rating: ***
    / / / Jun 30, 2008


    By Roger Ebert

    I have been waiting for this for years: a superhero movie where the actions of the superheroes have consequences in the real world. They always leave a wake of crashed cars, bursting fire hydrants, exploding gas stations and toppling bridges behind them and never go back to clean up. But John Hancock, the hero of “Hancock,” doesn’t get away with anything. One heroic stunt ran up a cost price tag of $7 million, he’s got hundreds of lawsuits pending, and when he saves a stranded whale by throwing it back into the sea, you can bet he gets billed for the yacht it lands on.


    “Hancock,” the latest star showcase for Will Smith, has him playing a SkidRow drunk with superpowers and a super hangover. He does well, but there ar always consequences, like when he saves a man whose car is about to be struck by a train, but causes a train wreck. What he needs is a good PR man. Luckily, the man whose life he saved is exactly that. He’s Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman, the adoptive father in “Juno”), and Ray has a brainstorm: He’ll repay Hancock by giving him a complete image makeover. If this sounds like a slapstick comedy, strangely enough, it isn’t. The movie has a lot of laughs, but Smith avoids playing Hancock as a goofball and shapes him as serious, thoughtful and depressed.

    Embrey the PR whiz brings Hancock home to dinner to meet his wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), and son Aaron (Jae Head). The first time she meets him, Mary gives Hancock an odd, penetrating look. Also the second time and also the third time. OK, OK, already: We get it. One odd, penetrating look after another. They have some kind of a history, but Hancock doesn’t know about it, and Mary’s not talking.

    She has a lot to keep quiet about, although thank goodness, she eventually opens up or the movie wouldn’t have a second half. I will not reveal what she says, of course, because her surprise is part of the fun. I am willing to divulge some of the setup, with Ray coaching Hancock to start saying “thank you” and “you did a good job here,” and stop flying down out of the sky and crushing $100,000 cars. Ray also gets him a makeover: Gone is the flophouse wardrobe, replaced by a slick gold leather costume, and Hancock gets a shave, too. Does it himself, with his fingernails.

    He appeared some 80 years ago in Miami, as far as he knows. He doesn’t know very far. He has no idea where his powers came from, or why he never grows any older. He can fly at supersonic speeds, stop a speeding locomotive, toss cars around, and in general, do everything Superman could do, but not as cleanly, neatly or politely. Part of his reform involves turning himself in to the law and serving a prison term, although the chief of police has to summon him from prison to help with a bank hostage crisis. (In prison, there’s a guy named Man Mountain who must not read the papers, or he would never, ever try to make Hancock his victim.)

    It’s not long after the bank hostage business that Mary reveals her secret, Hancock starts asking deep questions about himself, and the movie takes an odd, penetrating turn. This is the part I won’t get into, except to say that the origin stories of superheroes consistently underwhelm me, and Hancock’s is one of the most arbitrary. Even Mary, who knows all about him, doesn’t know all that much, and I have a shiny new dime here for any viewer of the movie who can explain exactly how Hancock came into being.

    Not that it matters much, anyway. I guess he had to come into being somehow, and this movie’s explanation is as likely as most, which is to say, completely preposterous. Still, “Hancock” is a lot of fun, if perhaps a little top-heavy with stuff being destroyed. Smith makes the character more subtle than he has to be, more filled with self-doubt, more willing to learn. Jason Bateman is persuasive and helpful on the PR front, and it turns out Charlize Theron has a great deal to feel odd and penetrating about.


    Cast & Credits
    John Hancock Will Smith
    Mary Embrey Charlize Theron
    Ray Embrey Jason Bateman
    Aaron Embrey Jae Head
    Red Eddie Marsan
    Man Mountain David Mattey

    Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Peter Berg. Written by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan. Running time: 92 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence and language). Opening tonight at select locations and opening wide Wednesday.

  3. #3

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,206

    Re: Hancock

    This has been getting really bad reviews for a Will Smith movie, but since I'm the only person in America that isn't a Will Smith fan, I wasn't excited for it anyway. I do like Men in Black though.

  4. #4

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • Prince Ali
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Agrabah
    Posts
    11,041

    Re: Hancock

    34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.

  5. #5

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,206

    Re: Hancock

    Quote Originally Posted by Aladdin View Post
    34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.
    Ecspecially considering that this is a very high profile project.

  6. #6

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA and Woodland Hills, CA
    Posts
    923

    Re: Hancock

    I saw it last night and I enjoyed it!

    My best score ever!

  7. #7

    • Look Right, Pick Up Phone
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: Hancock

    Quote Originally Posted by Aladdin View Post
    34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.
    Eh...might be a dud as a film, but it's still going to rake in money. The bad press reviews may keep people away, but your common moviegoer probably doesn't care about Rotten Tomatoes.

    Granted, these aren't exactly critical successes, but I seem to recall them making money and being marketed about just as much:

    Shark Tale-34%...$160.8 million BO
    Bad Boys II-24%...$138.4 million BO
    Men In Black II-38%...$190.4 million BO
    Wild Wild West-21%...Box office unknown (going by RT's numbers)

    Sure, he's been around the 70s since 2005, but I'm curious if anyone can give me a cliffnotes version of the poor reviews. I mean, sometimes critics go into a summer action flick expecting some breathtaking dramatic masterpiece and then review the film as such. Sure, sometimes a film can and does capture both (See: the upcoming The Dark Knight), but I don't know why anyone thought the press reviews would come out that great.

    For those interested, out of almost 1900 votes, Hancock has a 6.4 on imdb.com, which is a better pulse (IMO) of public opinion than RT.

    Whether it will open big and sustain some money making remains to be seen, but it will open big this weekend.

  8. #8

    • The Yodelin' Cowgirl
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Anaheim (Finally!)
    Posts
    1,700
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Hancock

    I saw it Tuesday night and left the theater almost mad.
    Firstly because of the preview for Day the Earth Stood Still with F'in Keanu Reeves!! (WTH Hollywood!!! WTFH!!)

    If there are spoilers here, I'm sorry. I'm warning you now just in case but I'm trying not to have them

    This film was just okkay.
    The first like 20 minutes were hilarious. Watching this jerk of a superhero go around saving people and causing general mayhem. I mean honestly there's no reason to like this guy but for some reason you sypathise with him.
    At the same time he got a little annoying. the whole joke (that was repeated like 8 times) about "Call me an A' hole one more time" just became annoying to me after the like 2nd time. It was funny once but so overdone. I felt like a lot of the movie was overdone
    Then we have Charlize Theron who I don't hate but if she gave him one more "OMG I know you" look that was I guess just suppose to be a subtle "OMG I don't like you" look I was going to smack her.
    They didn't spend enough time setting up the big bad guy and why he was so evil. (Yes he tried to kill people and broke out of prison but they didn't give him enough motivation IMHO)
    Then there's the "twist" that honestly I don't understand how people didn't see it coming. Like yes, I'm pretty good at guessing movie twists.. it's just something I do, but come on. It was so obvious we were going there, there was like no hiding it.
    Then we get bogged down in this "origin" story that never gets fully explained and is just kind of there to further complicate things and it's like what the heck?!

    Yeah, so I went into the film with no expectations and it basically met that. I was hoping that I'd go in like "meh it'll be okkay" and then maybe be blown away by how good it turned out.. but not the case.

    So in summary: First act pretty freaking hilarious. I laughed out loud a lot! Second act what the? where'd that come from? Who the? Nevermind I'm just mad now!


  9. #9

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    636

    Re: Hancock

    BREAKING news:THIS JUST IN!!!

    Critics don't know crap and basing whther or not you see a movie based on reviews from newspapers is a bad idea.

  10. #10

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,820

    Re: Hancock

    It was barely okay, it never really felt like it went anywhere.

  11. #11

    • Look Right, Pick Up Phone
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: Hancock

    I'm starting to get the feeling, hearing what people think, that the studios made a very, VERY poor decision to get this cut down in rating. It sounds like it's suffering from what some of this summer's other comedic movies have suffered from: Good first parts that fade away into bad second parts.

  12. #12

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    JSC
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Hancock

    Quote Originally Posted by draybook View Post
    BREAKING news:THIS JUST IN!!!

    Critics don't know crap and basing whther or not you see a movie based on reviews from newspapers is a bad idea.
    So's basing it on rottentomatoes.com.

  13. #13

    • Look Right, Pick Up Phone
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: Hancock

    Quote Originally Posted by Retrocool View Post
    So's basing it on rottentomatoes.com.
    Which is essentially a compendium of critics' opinions all rolled into one percentage rating...

  14. #14

    • Waiting for my E-Ticket
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hanging out at The Attic with Johnny Dakota
    Posts
    19,630

    Re: Hancock

    The trailers I've seen look beyond stupid, so I have no interest in seeing this movie.

  15. #15

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    JSC
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Hancock

    Quote Originally Posted by Twist_of_Fate View Post
    Which is essentially a compendium of critics' opinions all rolled into one percentage rating...
    Along with site members.

    Face it, movie critics are just people who are paid for their opinions. The only reason some of them have slightly more sophisticated opinions than the average film viewer are because they've seen (in many cases) a LOT more movies than the average viewer, and/or have studied film as an art form to some degree. So their opinions are somewhat better informed, but they're still just opinions, and those are so variable and depend so much on personal taste and preferences that it's literally impossible for anyone to rely on critics en toto for advice on which movies to see, because, obviously, one man's trash is another man's treasure. While there are certainly films that are critically acclaimed that I enjoy (regardless of whether audiences did or not), there are also films critics hated that I enjoyed, and films critics adored that I either despised or had no interest in at all.

    So the opinions of film critics are like the opinions of educated, informed friends - valuable to a certain degree, and they might or might not influence me as a viewer, but ultimately, just another opinion. And it's foolish to live one's life based solely on the opinions of others. Am I interested in seeing this particular film? Yes. Am I going to rush right out to see it? Well, if I had the spare change to go see it this weekend or next, I probably would, but I don't, so I'll likely just wait for the DVD. Do the various critiques of the film influence me one way or the other? Not really, but I will keep them in mind when I see the film, to see if I agree with them or not.

    I'm not one of those people who wrings his hands ruefully over having wasted two hours of his life seeing a movie that wasn't that great. I usually can spot a movie I'm not going to like a mile away, and I might confirm that hunch years later once it shows for free on TV (today the local MyNetworkTV station showed Robots, a movie I hadn't seen in theaters, for example. I watched about 5-10 minutes of it, then changed the channel. Didn't keep my interest. So my original hunch that it wasn't going to be too hot was just about right). But sometimes I'm wrong about that, and that's when I get to enjoy the Pleasant Surprise™, long after any media hype has quieted down.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •