The Hot Blog

The Hancock hate demonstrates once again that this Summer has featured two films the critics were simply not ready to understand. Nor do they even get the freakin premises of these flick.

Hell, you have to be bloody daft to not catch on to the over the top way the third act is established early on in Hancock. Seriously... all of this shit is whack, but Big Willy will make his bank. This is how he does it.

Well, IO, looks like you, me, Heat and a few others -- David Denby, Sean Axmaker and Larry Ratliff -- are in the minority. Right now.

Joe: these things seem to happen, but this flick really resonated with me. I have a hard time how it does not resonate with people or Tick fans. All I have to add is... CHA!

IO: Well, it's like I always tell my students -- if you're ever lucky enough to get a job reviewing movies, remember: You are a critic, not a pollster.

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

Me...

http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/hancock-rocks-house.html

I wrote an essay about a similar issue in May on the opening weekend of Speed Racer. Basically, the idea was that when visually inventive films are released, critics often find themselves unable to notice anything other than said visuals, even if they like the film. Beowulf, Matrix, Speed Racer - visually stimulating and groundbreaking films that also had rich characters and compelling stories.

Yet reviewers, both praising and panning, didn't seem to acknowledge anything other the the visuals. Worst of all are those who ignored all but the visuals, then panned the film for lacking the very things they didn't notice (story, character, etc). 9 times out of 10, the critics changed their tune when the films came out on DVD, being shocked and amazed as the thematic content that they missed the first time.

Dave is right that today's critics seem unable to comprehend challenging material in films that they perceive to be assembly-line crass commercial film making. Hancock does have a lot under the surface, but much of the dramatic potency is right there on the screen.

A theory? Perhaps today's critics are the same kids who, when we were younger, loved all the crappy, crass commercial garbage that yesterday's critics trashed. These were the kids who loved The Flintstones yet were confused by Mission: Impossible. Now, these people are all grown up and critics on their own, but their film vocabulary only includes crap and mainstream product because they rejected the critics of their day ('oh, those critics don't know anything!').

I can't think of any other reason why today's critics are so vapid and contemptuous of films that aspire to be something more, while heaping praise on true assembly-line mediocrities.

The original article (to be fair, I do link to this very site)... http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2008/05/wrong-about-beowulf-wrong-about-speed.html

Scott: You are showing your age. (Which, of course, is a bloody odd thing for a 55-year-old guy to say.)

yup, 28 years old, going on fifty-five. That I have a 10 month old doesn't help the situation, but she shares my tastes.

Slightly related note, and related to your 'Moment Of Zen' - In between college summers, I spent a few years on and off at a local Boys & Girls Club and, at the time (2004), I was stunned at the idea that there were kids I was 'mentoring' that were six or so, and they never even lived in a time when Seinfeld was first-run television. Four years post, it's even more disconcerting. People who are old enough to vote are young enough to have been born after the original Batman came and left theaters. Too young to ever appreciate Calvin & Hobbes as something other than the kid who pisses on things, too young to remember when Michael Jackson was justly admired. Yikes.

As I have posted here and elsewhere: When making pop culture references to my college students, I must remain aware that The Godfather is an older movie for them than Citizen Kane was for me when I was in college.

Scott does make an interesting point, that goes for all of criticism. Music critics fixate on one part of an album. Book critics love to cling to themese. Theatre critics are as quirky as they come. While movie critics come in a ridiculous of quality flavours that range from the rather obtuse to the incredibly vapid.

The best part of it is: critics seemingly shut down during the Summer now. They either all know or all feel, that their opinions mean very little during the Summer. So they deal with the films that they convince themselves to be shit in order to make it through to the Fall. When the REAL IMPORTANT FILMS come out. It's a tangled web, but it's the world we now live in.

IO: With all due respect, no, it's only the world you live in if you choose to live in it. I do not. This week alone, I have reviewed Hancock, Mister Lonely and Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson for the Houston Chronicle, where the editors think offbeat movies are worth covering all year long. And I enjoyed all three, each for different reasons. And I suspect that -- in Houston, at least -- my favorable reviews (especially of the latter two) might help. Yes, even during the summer.

Joe: you are the exception to the rule. It's not like you are alone in giving as many films possible a fair shake but for every critic like you. There's ten more who long for Toronto and getting past the Summer movie season. Hell, Heat has even stated such exasperations from time to time to hurry up and get to Toronto.

So it is what it is: critics want the time of year to come by where their opinion matters most. This is all conjecture on my part but I have definitely noted a difference in criticism between Summer and Fall over the last four years.

Just saw Hancock tonight, and thought it was pretty good, but so utterly different from what folks would expect in a typical summer blockbuster that I can see why some are disliking it.

VAGUE SPOILER COMMENT:

I could have done without the two coda scenes, both the "one month later" one and the mid-credits one. Smacked of studio interference.

Actually, IO, I very much fear the exact opposite is true: These days, many of those who pass for critics complain about all those serious "Oscar bait" movies during the fall and long for the Christmas blockbusters.

I haven't read all the other comments on this thread but I have a pretty strong feeling that I figured out the big 'twist' through references to a certain character in the opening paragraph. So...I guess we'll see!

The twist is rather decent. While the mid-credit sequence screams of Sony paying Mike Epps back for his character being killed off in RE:E.

Joe: could we go with "It's a fucked up situation"? It seems rather apt in this day and age.

I have to agree that the last third of the movie is disappointing, but not because of the twist. That part was fine (and pretty obvious from the time Theron appears and acts so strange around him and he makes his "I'm the only one of my kind" speech). The bigger problem, for a blockbuster wannabe film like this, is the movie didn't have the visceral payoff. The hand to hand combat with a hurt and staggering hero doesn't send you out with the "wow" factor needed for repeat viewings and great word of mouth.
I understand what Dave is saying, and thematically, there are some great things in this movie. But they set themselves up for Blockbuster status by releasing the film on Big Willie's 4th. Moviegoers expect something more from this movie...more action, more wow, more humor. Face it, the last third is a MAJOR downer. Trim the budget and scale back some of the flashier effects, and this could have been a great fall film that deconstructs the entire "Superhero" mythology. Moviegoer expectations would not have been that high for that film. I think most of the Summer Audience will be somewhat disappointed with what is on the screen right now.

Not many will go back a second time to gain the enlightenment Dave says is there (although I just might do that myself).

I agree the "twist" was not out of left field, but I still fill cheated as far as some of the character development goes.

I expected Hancock to open up more to the counseling group. When they cut to the prison, I expected to see Hancock. It was not a bad movie, but it could have been a great one.

I like the movie as well, and found some of the criticism puzzling. This is a superhero movie that tries to do something different. Most super hero movies follow a sort of formula, and no matter how well done it's (such as Iron Man), it's still a formula.

Hancock is messy and chaotic at times, but that's exactly what it's aiming for. If there is one complaint I have, it's that the movie should be longer. I wish I know more about Hancock, the origin of their power and even more character development from Smith+Theron(they got good chemistry together).

Oh well, hopefully there could be a sequel for that.

Spoilers -

I actually found the coda to be quite moving, with the 'final gesture' to be an emotionally potent pay-off to the idea of Bateman wanting to make a difference. Plus, after the emotionally grueling finale, it was an earned happy ending. I liked this movie a lot more than I was expecting and I'm glad I went in with no expectations due to the wildly bi-polar critical response. Truth be told, I'm becoming such a contrarian this summer that I'm terrified that I won't like The Dark Knight next week. Kung Fu Panda seems to be the only movie that I agree with most of the critics and audiences (loved Speed Racer, really liked Hancock, really liked Kung-Fu Panda, enjoyed Indy 4, kinda liked Wall-E, tolerated Get Smart, kinda disliked Iron Man, loathed Incredible Hulk). Though I have not seen Sex & The City or The Happening.

Question... what was the mid-credits scene? I had to leave at the credits.

Hancock descends from the heights in New York City to foil a crime. An "a-hole" insult is met with a fresh reaction.

"But at the core of it, to me, is the idea that so many mainstream critics don’t seem as interested on chewing on any film that isn’t branded as “arty” going in. "

This exactly how I have felt for a long time and you've nailed it. The majority of people in any profession are average by definition and no moreso than in film criticism. It is why I am now fearing I will not like TDK which was the film I was looking forward to most of all.

And Hancock - is - a good film. I do think it is flawed but perhaps for different reasons. I do not think the 3rd act revelation comes from nowhere but just that I questioned if this was the version of that story that was best to tell. What was for me, fresh and original up to that point, started to feel like a Highlander sequel with the old "There can be only one" mantra.

Once they started to explain the origin of Hancock it felt more traditional. This is the problem I had with the 3rd act. It felt like I was getting part 1 and 2 in a film that was already crammed.

Nevertheless, I liked it and the theme of personal sacrifice. As for the final shot of Hancock performing an act of heroics that took place during the closing credits; it felt like the sequence was shot to occur in the mid-section where Bateman first gives him the costume but was placed during the credits as a coda to show Hancock in his costume one last time and show his redemption.

All in all though, a good film and the film I am genuinely rooting for to be a hit this summer.

Also...as some people are reading 9/11 allegories into TDK, I thought Kyle Smith's 9/11 allegory of Hancock was actually much more original and thought out.

It made 17.3 million on Wednesday according to boxofficemojo.

I'm gonna defer to Billy Wilder's addage if you have problems in the third act the real problems are in the first act.

**Spoiler Warning**

Comedy can be successfully mixed with many different styles and genres. Romance, of course. Action/comedies, huge hits. Suspense and comedy ala Shallow Grave. Even horror & comedy like Scream - at least comical moments, like one of the greatest punchline in all of film from Aliens, "Have you not been keeping up w/current events?!" What cannot be done is mix multiple types of comedy and expect an even tone.

I don't know the origin of this film but I got the sense of a divided perception of how it should look. Most likely Sony wanting mass appeal, broad strokes, while Peter Berg who's done OK in the dark comedy world. Personally, I would've loved to have seen the total dark comedy vein explored but yeah, that prolly wouldn't have been the 4th of July film Sony would've wanted. What was the result was a thoroughbred bogged down for harness racing.

You go from an opening of a wasted Hancock rejecting his role as hero and role model in telling the kid to piss off, (reminiscent of the dark Bad Santa), to apprehending the nonsensically acting, randomly shooting freeway bandits in the high speed chase with of course cars and trucks and surroundings exploding all around. Once Hancock nabs the SUV it's an insert laugh track kind of broad strokes humor. And it's just more wearing mixed shades green from there on out.

The set ups for Bateman's character in the office and with his family are just that, set ups. They are so obvious in their delivery that I'm waiting for a punchline right as they occur that never happens. So now there are lulls. I could prolly go deeper into it but what I'll focus on is the wasted time spent. Through this time Charlize's character needs to be telling us who she really is or revealing portions of her inner feelings or something more about Hancock and/or her husband's action/re-actions to him. Nothing to tip off the reveal but enough to get us out of the needlessly long exposition throughout the 3rd act. Maybe some minor details will come out but we should understand everything that's happened with a renewed clarity.

But with a broad comedy brush, you just get over simplified character traits and side-of-barn plot points. When the immortal beings history and painful and tragic past are explained, it's shoveling of sawdust suffocation instead of log stacking on fire race toward the climax.

I hope the film does well so it might be a half step closer to breaking a studio's mindset of what kind of films it can support, as wishful thinking as it is, but the negative reaction the film is getting I can understand. We may think the movie didn't live up to potential/expectations for different reasons, but I didn't think Hancock was there.

Scott... you have absolutely horrible taste in movies :D! Sorry, I could not help but be silly after your rundown list. "KINDA LIKING" Wall-E is like "KINDA LIKING" anything bad to me. So you sir... are on THE PHANTOM LIMB'S SHIT LIST!

Hancock OWNED.

My favorite of the summer. Especially after all the solid-but-bland Marvel movies of late, just awesome to see a similar movie done by an inspired director, working from a quirky, edgy script that isn't being vaccuum-sealed and sanded down to appeal to each and every fanboy. I think not having the baggage of living up to an established comic-book mythos (and its picky fans) made all the difference. Laughs that are actually funny instead of polite titters, and action scenes with real energy and action instead of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA/AVP fights with no rooting interest.

Berg breaking out the theme to COLORS alone was a more delightful and loose artistic choice than most anything I've seen lately.

I wasn't as crazy on Wall-E as most people. I appreciated the artistic intent and it's certainly admirable, I just didn't enjoy it all that much. I actually liked the third act stuff more than the silent robot love story. Of course, the people around me in the theater were ruder than normal (even after I tattled on them), so that certainly didn't help me get in on the mood. It may be one I enjoy more on BluRay, but I far prefer the Toy Story films and the Brad Bird films in the Pixar canon.

A half-hearted film, through and through, with glimmers of greatness. Hancock looking out over the empty field, and back to the prison fences, contemplating his future was the high point. Bateman's son just enjoying being with Hancock was also quite sweet.

Can't wait to read Scott's & Nicol's take on The Dark Knight. I was sold on the film before it even began shooting, so I'm not likely the one to come to for a fair judge on that one.

I'm not going to be the fairest judge on The Dark Knight either, since I've been a hardcore Batman fan for a good twenty-years (the movies, the comics, the cartoons... encyclopedic knowledge of all of them, for better or worse). And since this one involves much screen time for my two favorite supporting characters - The Joker and Jim Gordon, I'll likely be in geek heaven even if I don't agree with the points Nolan may be trying to make. I'll probably be looking at it from three points - as a movie of its own accord, as a 'faithful' Batman story I want to see (the least important criteria), and as a geeky nirvana experience.

Still, I can't imagine out and out not liking it, although my 'contrarian' record this summer gives me pause (as does the lesson of Superman Returns in 2006... which got ecstatic reviews until normal critics actually got to see it). Still, there is a reason my handle is sometimes 'JckNapier' so I can't wait till Wednesday.

It's been years-- years!-- since I was as excited about any forthcoming movie as I am about Dark Knight. I've abandoned all pretense of impartiality. My fiancee can't wait for me to shut up about it. And I realized today that this is what I was like as a kid when I got really excited about a movie. I am not being ironic. It's pretty nice to be in this place again.

I can appreciate what the pro-Hancock folks are saying, but to me it's still just a giant mess. An interesting premise and a noble effort, but completely fucked up in the execution phase. The first half of the film, while entertaining in its own right, didn't do anything to set up the rest (sorry David). Yes, perhaps because I was hyper-aware of the hints that the big "twist" had to do with Charlize Theron, it was obvious that she was more than a normal housewife. But beyond that, *everything* to do with the core setup/mythology was sketchy at best. If you're telling the story of two 3,000-year-old "gods" who are drawn to each other yet are doomed to mortality if they're close, do you really spend the first hour of a 90-minute story on goofy shenanigans (however entertaining)? The idea is compelling, but instead of flowing organically from the story we're being shown, it's dumped slapdash on us in fits and drabs, often without setup, so that it simply feels like filmmakers are making up the universe as they go (I know they're not, but that's what it feels like).

The lack of any central villain hurts here too. I'm not necessarily one for a formal, rigid typical superhero story... but the "villain" breaking out of prison and randomly deciding to "take their powers" without the slightest sense of what they are or how to do it is awkward. And then you have random CGI fights between Charlize and Will Smith, which don't make sense from any perspective: not only are they supposed to lose their powers when they get close, but why would she, who's so concerned about keeping a low profile, suddenly be smashing shit up in the middle of the city?

I wanted to like this. And I liked the concept. But what was given to me was a giant sloppy mess.

Hancock spoilers -

Much has been said of the third-act change. It is not a twist per se, as it's obviously telegraphed from the opening scenes (as a friend said: "either she knows Hancock from somewhere, or she's really racist"). But it is a progression of story and that may be what is jolting the critics. It is rare in these days for mainstream movies to have stories that gradually unfold throughout all three acts. Usually, 90% of the story is told in the first act and the rest of pay-off. Not Hancock, it has a story, it has a plot, and it's a plot that unfolds over the entire movie. Even in the final scenes, we are still seeing character development and still learning new things about the world that we have been dropped into. The climax contains action, but it is brutal, unglamorous, emotionally compelling action, and the climactic violence is merely a means to allow character choices to be made and relationships to strengthen, weaken, or change.

How refreshing that Sony chose to withhold this information, to allow moviegoers to actually be surprised for once. How distressing that Sony seems to be getting attacked for not revealing the entire film in a three-minute advertisement. It's as if critics are taken aback at actually not knowing where the story was going. God forbid we actually not know every plot point before we see the movie. Sony should be commended for withholding plot points in the marketing. And, apparent tinkering aside, they should be commended for financing this $150 million tentpoler and allowing Peter Berg to make a film that is very much a distinct point of view and actually has a brain. It's not a perfect film, and I can't wait to see an extended version, but Hancock is far better than the critical buzz and is a completely compelling motion picture.

With due respect, T-Macho... and I appreciate your civility, but while you are saying how you aren't rigid about what you expected, you are also doing exactly what McCarthy and others did... with this third act, this is what the movie should have been. But it's not what the movie is. And it discounts all the things the movie is for all that it is not.

If the story of Hancock growing up from frame one to the last shot isn't a clear arc... well, it's a clear arc. It's not that complicated. Again, it reminds me of Speed Racer, where the thinking somehow shuts down as soon as it becomes about the shiny object or style. And amazingly enough, the same is true of Eyes Wide Shut, which was never explored by many critics because they are still wondering where the sex romp is.

I hate moviegoers who try to pick out little flaws in logic instead of taking in the entire film...but for the first time in a long time, I was one of them. I simply couldn't help calling bullshit scene after scene and it prevented me from engaging.
And by the time we get to the twist (I mean vague yet extremely expositiony backstory constructed solely to allow thematic yet boring action) I simply didn't care. Usually with DP on stuff, but I've seen every Peter Berg movie and I don't care for his work.

It's a common problem, people disliking a movie because it's not what they expected it to be. I have a coworker, a relatively intelligent guy, who didn't care for Flags Of Our Fathers because it wasn't the 'Saving Private Ryan for the Japanese portion of WWII' that the trailers made it look like. I wasn't super crazy about the movie either, but that was his primary annoyance, that the film didn't match up with the marketing materials. The film Bug got several pans around the office for the same reason.

Of course, as I've mentioned here and elsewhere, it's tough being objective if the movie you see isn't the movie you were expecting or wasn't the movie you wanted to see (I always use the Matrix sequels as prime examples of this).

But then, critics should be able to do that work as a matter of their profession. Or at least they should damn well admit in their reviews that it was an issue for them and thus their criticism should be judged accordingly (remember - as Roger Ebert likes to say, a good review doesn't just tell you whether they liked the movie, but whether you will).

Just got back from a showing. I knew there was a twist, but didn't know what it was - until about 10 minutes into the film, when it is clear as day. The movie spends a huge amount of time practically spelling out the gist of the "reveal," so much so I'm shocked anybody is the least bit surprised.

It's a very good film, not nearly Berg's best, but definitely in the top third of Smith's oeuvre (love the actor, don't like many of his films). Lowered expectations certainly help, but I wish it could have been longer.

I saw it last night and found it very funny (so did the rest of the audiences). I knew there was a twist and expected it. And as Josh said, I sort of guess. It was underdeveloped and, in that sense, too short but I think that the film doesn't want to be too preachy or too, well, serious (it's a July 4th film). I read in another thread that the original screenplay is totally different. Can anyone tell me what it is like or where I can find the script? I'd said I don't want to read scripts, but this is an exception...

I saw Hancock a couple of nights ago and thought it was quite good. Fascinating really. The twist did take me out of the movie for a few minutes, because it seemed like a ridiculous coincidence. Then they explained it and dealt with it, and I had no major problems after that.

The film takes the kind of creative risks almost guaranteed to divide multiplex audiences and, apparently, critics alike. It doesn't always succeed, but don't we want our popcorn filmmakers and stars to go out on a limb occasionally?

I think a lot of people will dislike it simply because it switches gears from a funny high concept to darker, more violent and dramatic material. I've also seen a number of reviews that seem to miss or misinterpret rather obvious developments, which typically happens when one isn't engaged by a movie.

nice assessment, yancy. 'hancock' was fucking weird...i liked it. most of it went right over the boy's head, he was either laughing or looked like a deer in the headlights through the whole thing, he loved it. i've already told him if he doesn't behave i'm gonna go hancock on his ass, so it's come in handy in that respect...but on the downside, i've had to contend with a lot of 'i'm gonna put your head up his ass' while he's playing with his transformers toys or the cat...lots of 'ass' stuff in general. thanks, hancock, bless ya

thanks, leah. And I hope your cat doesn't have to learn the hard way to start running when he sees your boy coming toward him with a Transformer. ;)

Telemachos, you hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps it is partly, as DP said, that we expect certain things from a movie- we basically expect certain things that make a movie work, and I agree with Tele. that the first half and second half of Hancock seemed like 2 different movies in terms of tone and focus (i.e. Jason Bateman getting shoved to the back), and that was what disappointed me on a personal level. I actually did enjoy the change in tone once Charlize Theron revealed herself.

I was dismayed to hear the f- word once, I think, in Hancock. I know that the MPAA allows its use if it doesn't have the sexual connotation. And there were too much 'ass'es and 'ass hole's for my comfort . Kids under 10 were watching it with me!

ditto, ployp! never were there so many asses and peoples heads therein...(i let 'hancock' slide so i got plenty of ammo for when 'dark knight' comes out and the boy starts tugging on my sleeve; he's mad keen on 'the joker' from the animated batman series but from what i hear ledger's joker is just too demented for the wee under-10 lads)

Saw it today. As others have said, the plot twist is obvious; just peer as intensely at the movie as Theron does at Smith the first time she sees him and you'll figure it out. I liked it, not least because it is ambitious and plays with the genre conventions. I think that's where people who've been thrown off by their expectations have reacted adversely, and where I think the third act doesn't quite come together. It's not because of the twist, but because I wasn't convinced there was any particular reason for those bad guys to go after Hancock. The final confrontation, as a confrontation, doesn't work. It does work as a resolution for the relationships of the three main characters, but I think there should have been a way to achieve a better balance. Not to mention I could not suspend disbelief long enough to wonder why the bank robber was sent to the same jail Hancock was sent too. Given the charges against him, he would have been sent to a maximum security federal penitentiary and kept under round the clock supervision. He wouldn't even have seen the prison yard, let alone been allowed in it.

Anyway, the movie, despite the comic book trappings, is really a psychological drama. The two never quite mesh, but they do enough that it succeeds more than it fails. Definitely it has more going on than the other comic book movies this summer. We'll see if that's still true after this Friday.

I also just saw it today. Overall I liked it more than I didn't, but the twist mid-way through takes what's been a movie about Hancock and his problems/redemption, drops that storyline, and goes somewhere different. That, on top of some pretty strong tonal inconsistencies, keep me from marking it higher.
And is it really _that_ ambitious?

Actually, Jeff, probably not. But that's mostly an indication of how little movies of Hancock's ilk try to look over their horizons, which are not high to begin with. Also, good point about the tonal inconsistencies. One more comment about the twist: in the end, it's more a detour than a change of direction. You still get to the same place, i.e., Hancock's redemption, but by a different route than the one you expect.

I also saw "The Fall" today. Now that is a truly ambitious movie. Probably my favorite so far this year.

More on Hancock (I really should think all this out first, then post once). The main theme was that of responsibility, specifically the relationship between responsibility to/for oneself and responsibility to/for others. Hancock at the beginning is not responsible for himself, and so not really responsible for others. Eventually he becomes responsible for himself because of Ray, who is also responsible for him. At the end, Hancock finally becomes responsible for himself by becoming responsible for others. It's a debatable philosophical proposition whether one can truly responsible for oneself only by being responsible for others. But it's an interesting one, and I credit the movie for introducing it, if not doing as much with it as it could.

They at least raised the issue even if it was then articulated and resolved in a pretty awkward, underdeveloped manner. I'll still take Spider-Man 1 over it by a mile.

I didn't care for The Fall, but I'm also reeling from some guido at Amoeba who just tried to pick a fight with me, so I won't pay it forward.

HANCOCK FUCKING OWNS SPIDER-MAN 1.

Among a zillion other reasons (more charismatic lead being the primary), Spider-Man is shot MARVEL-BLAND.

I don't read comics but I've liked many Marvel-based films, but WHY is the goal seemingly to shoot all their shit in the most boring flesh tones ever, the blandest compositions ever? Poland had some accurate throwaway line about the Marvel shtick being a couple of bland action scenes with a lot of talk-talk in between, and he's right.

HANCOCK throws that bullshit modern-comic template out the window; It's fucking LIBERATING that they don't have some fan-wank backstory to live up to so every fat guy with a goatee gets exactly what he's expecting. It's a superhero movie that feels modern, hip-hop, grimy, and funky.

I complain repeatedly that so many geeks are whitebread and stuck in, say, 1999... bland tastes and with complete blinders on to anything remotely urban, contempo, multicultural, gritty or with origins in the modern reality/viral world. For people who spend 22 hours a day online, most geeks are strictly fucking analog.

And HANCOCK isn't even THAT extreme or edgy or out-there, but it still feels fresh and loose; It flies by the seat of its pants and isn't beholden to these wack, etched-in-granite expectations/

I don't see how ANYONE finds the 2/3 "revelation" to be ANY kind of a "twist" -- A-list actresses aren't usually cast in third-billed hausfrau rolls for no reason -- but the last half-hour is like some awesome mix of Michael Mann aesthetics with Tony/Ridley Scott emotional cues. Obviously geeks and tweedy film critics resent that kind of thing, because they have to be TIRESOMELY IRONIC at all times, but that last act of Hancock is ABOUT SOMETHING and no matter how sloppy the literalist particulars (WHO CARES?), the longing and sacrifice angles should resonate for anyone who lives passionately, which we all know most fat-fuck, squeamish, bitch-ass tweed-fuck movie critics do not.

HANCOCK: BEST MOVIE OF 2008.

It's 'liberating' for the first half hour of Hancock, then it falls into self-help-cliche-ville - which is also when the backstory comes into play.

I mentioned Spider-Man 1 because it's not as good of a movie than Spider-Man 2, by the way.

You'd really rather watch two hours of Toby Maguire than see Will Smith as an AWESOME DRUNK and Berg using fucking SCOTTCAM and BUSTING OUT THE THEME TO "COLORS" on the soundtrack?

REALLY????

Spider-Man is about the squarest, un-hippest thing ever. That's like thinking My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a better movie than Fight Club.

Like I said, if the entirety of Hancock was as good as the first half-hour or so, then it would have been a contender.

Do I need to reemphasize that I hate as many Ridley and Tony Scott movies (Domino, Black Hawk Down) as I like (Enemy of the State, Hannibal)? "Scottcam" does not a good movie make.

I was about to own your ass for saying that about Domino and BHD, but if you're seriously recognizing the complete entertaining, Euro-chic, subversive and queasy Hannibal... well, there might be some hope for you yet, sir.

That said, the last half hour of HANCOCK OWNS YOUR FUCKING ASS. All those SCOTTCAMMED shots of Smith and Charlize just slightly askew when they're out of it, the tinkly piano music exactly like THE MOMENT OF TRUTH in any Tony Scott movie, the HEARTBREAKING backstory about their LOVE THAT COULD NOT BE in the RACIST 1920s.... there is SO much more going on there than you give it credit for; That bit where they talk about Smith's wounds is FOR THE AGES and had me FUCKING CRYING because I'M THAT INTO IT and EDDIE MARSAN IS THE FUCKING REAL GO SEE GANGSTER NO. 1 BITCH.

It is a fucking MASTERPIECE of awesomeness. Smith trying to run as fast as he can to revive CHARLIZE was fucking MIND-BLOWING and THRILLING and HUMAN and what these kind of movies SHOULD be all about. This movie has a SOUL and only pushes it, really, with that cornball MOON SHIT at the end, but instantly redeems itself with Smith's jump off the building AND the Mike Eppsilogue.

I CANNOT emphasize enough how much I connected with HANCOCK (probably because I'm a miserable alcoholic and wish CHARLIZE would show up OWNING.)

HANCOCK -- BEST MOVIE OF 2008.

Sorry, I thought it was sub-par. I also hate tinkly 'be sad now!' score, and I had no connection whatsoever to their alleged 'heartbreaking romance' since it happened to a crazy lady with a husband and a dude with amnesia.

Everytime I see Mike Epps in a movie these days, my thought is, 'Whoever that actor is, he must have asked for less money than Mike Epps did to be in this'.

I mean the second half was sub-par. I still give the movie as a whole a 6/10.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: