SimpleCap wrote:

I haven't seen it yet, but after all the hard reviews i don't know if i want to pay to watch it now :)

I like to read reviews before I see a movie, but usually I dont base my judgement on what someone else thinks. I really dont want someone to decide something for me then leave it at that. I will still take in mind some of the stuff they said, but If I really want to see a movie I will judge for myself.

i agree

It's either $60 with family/friends at the movies or just $4 on video when it comes out three months later...and I can wait for a bad movie.

If I want to see a superhero smash stuff up, I'll go see HULK again.

I agree, and for sure, PLEASE don't base your decision on my reviews. ;) Basically, if I already want to see a movie, I'll see it either way...but if I don't have a major opinion about a movie and its getting terrible reviews, then I will wait for video. Although now that I've decided to try and write a review each week, I have to pay to see every major release, even if its crappy. :?

Anyway, I invite discussion on Hancock. I saw it alone and its one of those movies that was enjoyable enough, but the more I thought about it the more it let me down. It had so much potential and then just crumbled.

On a side note, GO SEE WALL E. I saw it to review it and then lost my internet for a week. Its REALLY tough to live without internet. Anyway, I would have given it 5 stars. Absolutely wonderful.

I've read a lot of reviews of Hancock that seem to repeat this same analysis. However, it is my opinion that anyone who feels this way about the film, and I don't mean this disrespectfully or condescendingly, either wasn't paying attention or just didn't get it.

*SPOILER WARNING* (ADDED BY ADMIN)
Quite a few people seem to be of the mind that the movie takes a complete left turn in the second half. However, if you noticed, when Hancock first meets Charlize Theron at Jason Bateman's house, there is a glimmer of recognition in his face, as if he has the feeling that he has met this woman before. You can see this same awkward shared tension between them when she visits him with Bateman's son in prison. Also, the guilty look on her face as he telling Bateman his story at the restaurant as though she already knew the story speaks volumes. Therefore, there is a set-up for the basis of their relationship in the first half of the movie.

Also, I don't think the story of them being super-beings designed by the gods is entirely unrelated to the story developed in the first half. As you say, in the first half we see Hancock as a dysfunctional, depressed, emotionally self-destructive and lonely alcoholic, which triggers a good portion of the comedy in the movie while at the same time establishing a character desperate to know who he is and how he fits in. He is a depressive alcoholic because he is lonely and unaware of who he is. The second half of the movie tells us who he is through Theron, who is his "mate" and still remembers their story.

However, I do agree there were some flaws in this story. For starters, I do find it odd that after Hancock discovers who Mary really is and she agrees to meet with him that she is suddenly all decked out in black and has a seemingly complete personality change. It almost seemed as though the writers were setting her up to be the villain to his hero, willing to fight him in order to cling to her "normal" life. Then they suddenly decided to scrap that in order to establish the storyline of making Hancock have to make a choice, either stay with her and live a mortal life with his destined mate, or keep his powers and protect the innocent. That was a little loopy.

And there were some logical flaws as well. Theron's character claimed that when they were near each other, their powers faded and they became mortal. Then why was it that they were fully powered when they fought each other and were within the immediate vicinity of each other, but then the bullets penetrated him when he was nowhere near her? Then, in the hospital, she was near him again, but he was regaining enough of his powers to fight the escaped convicts, then got weak again, but then as he moved away from her he was regaining his strength even though he was still relatively close to her? The whole loss/re-emergence of power story seemed to fluctuate to suit the situation.

However, I disagree with the being drawn to each other yet losing their powers as they got close being a design flaw. I see it as a way for them to earn their powers. They had to make a choice: either enjoy the life of a mortal filled with love and happiness or remain an immortal and wander the earth alone. They couldn't have it both ways. At least that's how I would see it.

All in all, I think Hancock deserves better reviews than what it's been getting. It has plenty of comedy, and heart to boot. The origin story is original and refreshing IMO, and as you stated, the actors all play their parts very well. I think the story is stronger than what everyone has been saying about it. And I would have no problem recommending this movie to a friend, as it is decent summer blockbuster fare.

However, I by no means feel that my opinion is more valid or "true" than anyone else's, so if you dispute my views, I'd be happy to debate.

Although I appreciate your in depth analysis of the film, please put spoiler alerts on your posts if your gonna discuss specific plot elements. It will get erased next time.

Welcome cmo2308 and thanks for sharing your thoughts on the movie!

SPOILERS

I pretty much agree...there was definitely well established tension between Theron and Smith in the first half of the film, so you knew there was going to be something between them. I definitely get it, I just don't think it was done very well, and for most of the reasons you mentioned in your post: they seem to abandon logic and switch gears with their reasoning. It was inconsistent. It could have been done a lot better, but they seemed to sacrifice any chance of that to throw in some action and drama. I think that's really weak writing.

So basically, I saw the reveal coming, it was definitely forshadowed, it was just a major letdown. I thought they had an opportunity to make a much stronger story and they just let the script fall apart.

I think when reviewers say the story took a huge turn, it has something to do with the mood of the film. It was a strong personal character story and then it got a bit cheesy, with a lot of action and drama that didn't seem to fit logically with the rest of the story. I honestly thought about "My Super Ex-Girlfriend", which is probably not what a film-maker would want. :)

All that said, I agree that it was an entertaining blockbuster that I'm sure people will probably enjoy. I certainly didn't hate it, I just wanted more from it because I really thought it had more potential and I like all the actors involved.

That is a great review of a really bad movie.

Thanks Ken. I was dying for another forum regular to see this movie and tell me what they thought.

Well I just saw it...I was very dissapointed. I had a hard time understanding some of the plot situations and I think that some of the movie was just filmed for a really good preview. It had seemed throughout the movie that the writers and director had a this really great idea going on but they didn't think over it enough before producing it. The begining of the movie was decent, but you I got really bored during the middle just telling myself to finish it. Personally I think if you want to see this movie I'd rent it for $4 at any Blockbuster.

The first half or so is funny. The second half has no jokes whatsoever. And that's all I need to say, about that. What a shame.

Just saw Handcock...and I echo what has already been said, in fact despite my best efforts to avoid the reviews I knew that there was a horrible twist coming. You pretty much have to live under a rock not to know that.

I kinda figured at least in part what was going to happen in the trailer, but I have to say that it was an even worse tacked on at the last second twist then I could really imagine. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Red on this, while the logic was way off...it was really how the whole mood changed that threw me for a loop.

Also, what hasen't been mentioned is the horrible direction here...I felt dizzy for half the movie watch these crazy angles and never end camera looping around the characters. Half hearted performances, half witted logic, and yet somehow you still have to pay full price.

My 2 cents on the script: The story should have played out completely prison, with him overcoming his personal demons and then to bank scene and then right to the closing scene. No twist.

Yeah, I agree with how you think it should have ended. I felt like the therapy and such in prison was really growing into a neat personal triumph story and then they just switched gears.

I did briefly mention the direction in my review, but I was kind of shy about it. My Entertainment Weekly, which I'm always a good two weeks behind on reading, said it PERFECTLY.
Quote:

To further confound clarity, director Peter Berg and cinematographer Tobias Schliessler favor a visual style that can best be described as Serious Focus on the Eyeball. Arty, randomly inserted, extreme close-ups on a quadrant of Smith's lovely face, or Theron's, or Bateman's, are meant to convey intensity of emotional content. Really, what moviegoers hanker for is a hero to step in and adjust the depth of focus to something suitable for a cute movie about a magical dude who smashes tall buildings with a single bound.

I couldn't have said it better. :)

Red, I would like to say that I loved the first part and that the twist just ruined it for me. Yet, the wacky dizzy Blair Witch camera work and lets admit some poor performances all around here.

And should we get started on the logic of the twist?

I just think Hancock was two good movies and one kind of cheesy movie that got smooshed together.

The first good movie was about an alcholic super hero who finds redemption and acceptance blah blah blah.

The second good movie was about two super powered imortal lovers who's only vunerability is being with their soul mate. Blah blah amnesia etc etc...

Then the cheesy movie is where we get:

Heads litterally up peoples asses

People iin prison who have no short or long term memory and therefore think they can beat up an ancholic superman who used his super powers to put them in jail.

Hancock tossing a little kid a mile into the air and then catching him without killing him despite the fact the kid has surely reached maximum velocity and should have snapped his neck/broke his back with the sudden stop when being caught.

Hancock putting a giant heart on the moon (because he's able to fly to the moon and withstand the elements of deep space?!?!?!?)

Jason Baetman trying to explain to the sherif from Reno 911 that his company should just randomly give all their profits away and he'll give them a logo no one has ever heard of.

A villian with a pirate hook for a hand and two henchmen that seem to lhave a fetish with getting beat up by super heroes.

Basically what i'm trying to say is, Charlise Theron was really hot in that movie.

You Know, I just heard that the movie is going to be released on DVD in november with an Unrated Special Editon.

Ummm, what was in that movie that exactly needed it to be on an unrated DVD?

Well obviously since the theatre release wasn't unrated, we haven't seen what caused it to be unrated!

Jadeshark wrote:

Well obviously since the theatre release wasn't unrated, we haven't seen what caused it to be unrated!

Yes, thats true, but my point was: I dont see where anything in that movie could of possibly have been unrated.

I think the term Unrated is more of a marking ploy to get people interested in a dvd release. It could be a scene where two cute fluffy bunnies play in a field, but since it wasn't given to the MPAA it's unrated.

biglazy wrote:

I think the term Unrated is more of a marking ploy to get people interested in a dvd release. It could be a scene where two cute fluffy bunnies play in a field, but since it wasn't given to the MPAA it's unrated.

Yeah thats the way it could be. Kinda like how they say "Based on a True Story" It could "BASED" on some guy shooting a gun in a river, then film director imagines: What if he was shooting at a sea monster?

Then it becomes a movie based on a true story.

Bliss wrote:

biglazy wrote:

I think the term Unrated is more of a marking ploy to get people interested in a dvd release. It could be a scene where two cute fluffy bunnies play in a field, but since it wasn't given to the MPAA it's unrated.

Yeah thats the way it could be. Kinda like how they say "Based on a True Story" It could "BASED" on some guy shooting a gun in a river, then film director imagines: What if he was shooting at a sea monster?

Then it becomes a movie based on a true story.

yeah i know what you mean

the first half was pretty good. it was funny, lots of action, good effects... until they brought that B**ch super women in. that part just destroyed the plot, killed the story and messed up the entire movie
which is the reason i give it 2/5. i would be 0/5 if it werent for the first part of the movie

I havnt seen it yet, might get it on dvd. Most times movies that people think are bad i think are good(Except Prom Night, THAT MOVIE WAS HORIBLE!)

I saw it and i have to say despite it's flaws, it's a pretty good film. I mean will smith is a great actor and he really played this role good. The story though was a little weird and a lot of plot holes. it was good though. 3/5

The movie was spoilt when they introduced the woman. If they just kept showing Hancock like against the army or something, a big fight against humans or something, it would've been good. But oh no, they had to introduce ANOTHER superhuman. That ruined it for me. I would give it 3/5. :shock: :shock: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :? :?

But the kid was an ass-hole. :)

TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOVIE

i totally agree with thepointless dude, the movie started out so great, but they totally F***ed it up when the supergirl >_<
not that im sexist....
i hope you didnt get that idea