The Hot Blog

Hear hear!

Would these be the same knives that were applied to Speed Racer?

I wanna see Hancock, and have largely avoided reviews of all types. I did notice the Onion's AV Club gave it a B+...and they have some sharp reviewers over there. Probably go see it during a matinee sometime next week.

I'd be far more interested in "Last Action Hero for Superheroes" as a plot narrative than whatever it was that we were given with Hancock. However, applying the business stature of LAH to Hancock was always a ridiculous position.

The only critic a critic who enjoyed Hancock should be attacking is himself.

Didn't Pauline Kael review the work in progress version of Apocalypse Now? Part of her motivation to do so was petty jealousy. She had a revolving stint at The New Yorker and the film was scheduled to come out when she was not writing. I seem to remember something in Steven Bach's book, Final Cut, about his being so disgusted with her actions (and those of her editor) that Bach wondered why she didn't go ahead and simply write a review of the film simply based on the script. And as we all know, the script with which Coppola went into production...

I read the script for Kill Bill well in advance of its releases. And I thought it was a hoot... but wow, was I incredibly disappointed with the finished product. Why? Because I had a different movie in my head and it didn't measure up. That said, I still think they're poor films.

You know, DP, I actually like Hancock. (I was posting as Bartholomew last week, and I think you noticed my comments) But I lump it in with Indy in that is a film with a lot of flaws, but it's still fun and I still recommend it.

SPOILERS

I noticed that Berg laid off the "mundane conversations in shakey cam" technique, but there was still too much handheld. They shouldn't have made Will Smith be "uncharismatic" (it's impossible).

The story needed more running time to breathe. I wanted more of angry Hancock, he was entertaining. I also wanted more than one action scene to make the public image of Hancock change from pariah to role model. (A montage may have been the best way to go there). When Hancock gets into a fight with Theron, shouldn't we see how the public responds to what must be the first "super-villain" they've seen?

Hancock's relationship with Bateman seemed too strong for Hancock to go after Theron like that. I would have preferred the film if it had the balls to be R-Rated. As it was, it seemed a little cut up, especially with the final fight, the head up the ass, and cutting off the dude's arm. The film would have benefited from being a little more mean-spirited.

Also, when Bateman talked about how no one knew where Hancock came from, I couldn't help but yell "BULLSHIT". Come on, in the age of Wikipedia, everyone would know his origin (the amnesia story, not the angel story). It would be a fucking legend

That said, Smith carried the movie. I liked that they tried something different with the ending, and Bateman's saving Hancock's life actually seemed meaningful.

END SPOILERS

Basically, I think your "knives" theory is kind of wrong. There are a lot of flaws with this film. I liked it regardless, so did you. Don't get mad at the critics for pointing out their opinions. Even if you don't think my points are "flaws", you must see how I can see it that way.

I read NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN two years before it came out and you knew the film would be great because the script was great.

Just a nitpick, but there's no "The" in the title of "Last Action Hero."

Also, Last Action Hero is a lot better than people remember.

a_loco I believe the issue isn't that critics dislike the movie, critics are allowed to like or dislike movies as they see fit. The major issue that I believe Mr. Poland keeps focusing on is that many critics, in their critique of this movie, fail to prove that they've even *seen* the third act of this movie, let alone understood its ramifications.

Think about this -- Hancock and Mary were created to love each other. It is their most intrinsic aspect, more ingrained even than their superpowers, for even as those powers wax and wane, that emotion remains. In thinking about this movie I believe that their creators imbued them with true love in order to create a reference point that would serve to connect them to each other living being. Without the emotion of love, how can you create beings that exist to protect others?

The sadness of this tale is that their creators have charged Mary and Hancock with an unending and perfect purpose -- to protect, to save, and in creating that charge they have imbued these two (and the others, presumably dead) with the only emotional capacity necessary to understand this charge on the most basic, fundamental level -- the immortal love of each other. To give in to this love, to accept it as their own rather than as the mission statement of their lives, is to fail in their purpose, and with that failure comes the loss of their powers, and they become as their charges, vulnerable, but together. To succeed against the lure of both desire and emotion (Yes Todd, both, not just lust) is to remain immortal and inviolate.

The true tragedy of these beings (and presumably the reason that they are all dead) is that it is their duty to remain apart, but the very existence of the reference point makes it impossible to deny their nature. The end of the movie perfectly illustrates this paradox: the correct choice for Mary is to fly away, but instead she rushes to Hancock's side. No matter the scope of their powers, the fact that they love is what makes them human, and the emergence of that love whenever they are together occludes all other powers. Their love is both fundamentally necessary to ensure their duty, and their only weakness. Even their creators could not escape the most quintessential and fundamental truth -- without love, there can be no humanity.

This piece lands just a few days after Wells posted the script on his site and you feel the need to make sure everyone understands that "Tonight He Comes" has been "sitting in an email...for months." Weird.

Anyway, I disagree with the idea that reading scripts before seeing films is a bad idea. They aren't mutually exclusive aspects of the process, unless drastic changes take place, of course. Seeing a sketch of Guernica wouldn't have made seeing the final product any more or less moving, and if so, that says more about the final product than it does about the early peek, I'd say.

Best part about Hancock: Michael Mann gets his SAG card.

This piece lands just a few days after Wells posted the script on his site and you feel the need to make sure everyone understands that "Tonight He Comes" has been "sitting in an email...for months." Weird.

Anyway, I disagree with the idea that reading scripts before seeing films is a bad idea. They aren't mutually exclusive aspects of the process, unless drastic changes take place, of course. Seeing a sketch of Guernica wouldn't have made seeing the final product any more or less moving, and if so, that says more about the final product than it does about the early peek, I'd say.

Best part about Hancock: Michael Mann gets his SAG card.

Sorry for the double post. It didn't seem to go through the first time.

Love like Cage and Shue in Leaving Las Vegas? Berg thought, "The original draft by Vincent Ngo was really dark" ... "A scathing character study of this suicidal alcoholic superhero. It was like 'Leaving Las Vegas.' For real - if Nic Cage was able to fly, it was in that zone. We thought the idea was cool, but we did want to lighten it up. We all did."

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/fanfare/ny-ffmov5741377jun29,0,2822590.story?page=1

Anyway, I doubt Bart read the script, the coverage, maybe. Dave's got a point, is he holding back on any Sony/MGM history? Maybe.

1. Mann already had a SAG card. So did Akiva.

2. I haven't read Wells in about 18 months... nice theory. Couldn't be happier about it. The reason I indicated when I had the script is that it spoke to my point... that reading this stuff ahead of time is stoopid and bends your brain.

3. Movies aren't Guernica - far more complex, actually, if not nearly as permanent - and if film critics spent the kind of time thinking about movies that fine art critics do when considering serious paintings, we wouldn't be having this conversation. (I'm sure there are hacky exceptions to that rule too)

P.S. If you saw the Mona Lisa with a sexy, toothy smile on her face and you loved the painting, then got to the unveiling and she looked like she now looks, would you be reacting immediately to what you were seeing fresh or would a significant part of your reaction be about the change from what you had seen?

We all like to believe we would have the former reaction. But 95% of human beings would have the latter.

And no, T Holly, I don't think Bart read the script. Worse. I think he listened to buzz about the original script and prejudged based on that.

"if film critics spent the kind of time thinking about movies that fine art critics do when considering serious paintings, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

SPOILER ALERT! The Mona Lisa is a chick smiling!

Yes Dave, got that. I was name checking you to see if you had any more amo.

And with the theme of your post being the original script and commenter Michael explaining the love story so thoroughly, I found Berg's "Leaving Las Vegas" quote more interesting now than when I first read it.

Where it gets tricky is when films are adapted from books. Then you have three very different mediums: the book, the script, the film. If you read a book and then it is adapted into a film, then that would naturally color your opinion of that film much in the same way that a script might. But, if you've read enough books and seen enough films, then you should be able to determine whether or not the film succeeds on its own merits.

I remember reading Alex Garland's The Beach and not being a particularly big fan of it, then I read John Hodge's script for the film and thinking it was incredible and then ultimately being disappointed by the final product. So, I wound up reading/seeing three different versions of essentially the same story and having three very different reactions to it. But I can keep them separate.

So I think that if someone reads Tonight, He Comes...he or she might be disappointed that the story was changed in the translation, but ultimately if the film was different but much better, I'm sure the person who read the script wouldn't mind so much. Personally, I tend not to read scripts anymore so I can keep myself fresh and not be disappointed by the film; but I still read books that I know will be turned into films and I'm able to compartmentalize my reactions to each. So I think if someone reads enough scripts, they'll be able to do the same.

Good post, Noah. I read a lot but I tend not to read books that are adapted or being adapted to films because I don't want to have two versions of it in my head.

I haven't read a script and don't plan to, but, out of curiousity, is it similar to a play, albeith with more detailed sceneries?

For the record, I happened to quite enjoy TLAH when it came out.

Was the main character still called Hancock in Tonight, He Comes. Cause, really, I know it's immature and such, but daaamn. The porn connotations just don't quit with that movie.

David, you're example regarding a different version of the Mona Lisa with "a toothy smile" is just that -- a different version. More akin to seeing an early cut of a film, many aspects of the final piece put into place, and then upon release finding that a lot of that was tinkered with, leaving a much different product. Drastically different, in fact.

My sketch idea still holds up, I think, because in a screenplay you're left to your imagination. Nothing has been tossed up on a screen to guide your idea of what the film would be. If that changes, so be it, but reading a script -- for the educated, hopefully -- comes with the understanding that it is a document left up to the interpretation of the eventual artist commissioned with making it a cinematic reality.

Didn't know Mann had his card already. He should make better use of it. He sure knows how to deliver a line!

Anyway, as for the film, I quite liked it. I thought the script had some issues, though. (I'll probably read the earlier draft this weekend. I understand it's incredibly different.)

My problem isn't with the twist or the ideas being put forth in the subtext, and I enjoyed your podcast with Rocchi, in which you tossed out a number of ideas with which I agreed. But I don't think it's unfair to say the script could have used another re-write or polish, because however ambitious, there were some ideas that needed more time, more fleshing out.

I am, however, continuously impressed with what Berg is willing to do and how he is willing to do it. He's one of my favorites, even when he fails (as he did, in my opinion, with The Kingdom and Friday Night Lights...though certainly not with the television show, the best thing on the tube as of late).

Uh Pope...

Pauline Kael never formally reviewed APOCALYPSE NOW and certainly not before it was released. She wrote about it in passing in her anti-studio screed "Why Are Movies So Bad, or The Numbers," but that was in 1980, almost a full year after its release.

Keep in mind, also, that Copolla screened the work-in-progress version at Cannes in 1979 (much like Soderbergh did with CHE this year), where it won the Palme D'Or, so writing about it, assuming she had done so, would have been fair game.

When she wrote about a work-in-progress, most famously with NASHVILLE, it was for precisely the opposite reason that you ascribe: to praise a film that might otherwise get buried or re-cut by a nervous studio and shame the suits into keeping their hands off it. Rather noble, if you ask me.

So basically, to answer your question, NO SHE DIDN'T. As LexG would say, KNOW YOUR SHIT.

Kael saved NASHVILLE. Score one for the critic.

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: