Hancock

hancock

…actually kinda sucks.  i know, i know.  it seems like such a cool premise.  and we all love will smith.  he really showed off some acting chops the first three quarters of i am legend.  i was expecting a super hero style follow up.

but i got hancock instead.

it’s like the producers all sat down around a table having drinks and said we got a hundred million bucks and will smith to make kind of a new spin on super hero movies.

then instead of going out and getting a writer, they sat there and made a list of all the cool things they would do if they had super hero powers.

and then they only had 45 minutes of movie and a couple really cool trailers.

someone said, hey you ever see my super ex girlfriend?

and someone else said, yeah, yeah.  let’s throw something like that in there for our second plot twist.

i really should have gone to see Wall-E and tried to talk to that smoking hot milf that was taking her kid to see it in line right in front of me.  i even had the chance to jump behind her in the pop corn line.

screw you will smith.

Cal Reed

Hancock

Basic Premise:

John Hancock -- usually referred to as just Hancock -- is a has been superhero. His help is usually more of a hindrance -- an expensive one at that. One day, he saves a guy who turns out to be a PR man. To show his gratitude, the PR guy is going to make the public love Hancock the way a superhero should be loved, whether Hancock wants to cooperate or not.

Note:

There is an "after credits" bit but it's not at the end of the credits. The credits will roll for about a minute (maybe a little less) then there is a nice little tidbit (that is funny as hell) then the rest of the credits roll. So, don't leave too soon after the movie ends.

Review:
Make no mistake, this movie is not as campy as it seems and it does have a plot. It is funny and in some cases wrong. Except for one glaring plot hole that could have been explained away with maybe a half hour more of footage, the movie was great.

Will Smith is, as ever, a great actor. He's one of those rare actors that makes you believe and that's part of what made the movie great. I'm anxious for the DVD so I can see the outtakes, because something tells me they cut out something they probably should have left.

Will there be a sequel? Not if they're smart. But, when has Hollywood ever been smart. There is room for a sequel, without a doubt. But they'd be better off not pursuing it.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Star Trek (2009), Avatar, 300

D. Renee Bagby<br />
Building New Realms of Passion<br />
http://dreneebagby.com

Hancock

Hey this movie's pretty funny. We  got Will Smith being awesome, the guy from Juno and the ass of Charlize Theron. Yeah I like this film a lot.. hey wait.. Wait what? What are you doing? No stop this! This isn't funny anymore! What are you-- NOOOOO!!



Hancock is about a man named Hancock who has superpower but he's pretty much a bum and causes more trouble than he actually solves. In comes Jason Bateman, a PR guy who wants to turn Hancock's image around and make him someone that is useful to society and ultimately a better person. The film had a good idea and I really liked it in the beginning but then Hancock just turned into a piece of shit!



This movie did something similar to what I hated about No Country For Old Men. It starts out with a nice story, it's builds up the characters and I start to get attached with how this movie is going to go.. and then it just ends the first half of the movie and picks up with a completely different story. Watching Hancock was like watching 2 different movies in one. First we have the comedy superhero movie and then the whole thing turns into one big romance film.



It was as if the writers couldn't think of anything else to further the plot of Hancock trying to be a superhero and gain the trust of the people. All of a sudden, the movie switches gears, changes the mood and even the goddamn genre to crowbar in a love story between Hancock and Charlize Theron. And that wouldn't have bothered me so much if I hadn't liked the first half of the movie where it was just one heck of a funny superhero film.



Will Smith and Charlize Theron were uninteresting to me. I did like Will Smith in the first half of the film where he's just this hag of a slacker that really doesn't give a shit about anything. But then he changes into some ole Casanova at the end of the film and I'm like WTF?



But the best one here was Jason Bateman who is playing the same kind of character he does in Arrested Development only this time he's dealing with a drunken superhero instead of a family of crazies.And besides Will Smith in the first half, Jason Bateman is the second funniest person in the movie.



The other problem this movie has is that it didn't really have a good villain for Hancock to play off. Sure we had Eddie Marsan who was pretty funny in this, but the second part of Hancock focused so much on the sitty relationship between Will Smith and Charlize Theron we don't get to see any development with his character which ultimately makes the climax of the movie less interesting.



They should have stuck with the original part of the story and saw the whole thing through instead of making such a cop out at the end which left me really angry at the end.

RATING: 5/10

NicholasC

Hancock

Superheroes should be top of list as far as Stuff White People Like; they’re mostly rich; neurotic; obsessed with crime; they practically liveat the gym; and they’re kinda nerdy. Even the concept of a superhero is white; it’s not enough for them to be heroic, they have to be super-heroic (talk about an exaggerated sense of self). Black superheroes are almost an oxymoron given this definition. That’s why Hancockcomes as such a relief. It’s not exactly that he’s a role-model when we first meet him, but… he’s not preppy, fretty Peter Parker either. Hancock looks (and acts) like a superhero that has sex once in a while; he likes a drink and he swears with authority. Screw Spiderman.

Los Angeles hasn’t had a hometown superhero up till now, so Hancockgives it one. His name is John Hancock. He is black, drunk, surly and instantly likable. True, the movie doesn’t trust us to like him. Even with Will Smith playing Hancock, his re-birth as someone less interesting is nascent from the start. But for those first twenty minutes, Hancock is white America’s nightmare, and the movie is tremendous fun. Unshaven, alcoholic and brawling crime –as opposed to fighting it – Hancock wreaks havoc wherever he goes and the insurance claims are mounting. L.A. has fallen out of love with its Superman, and it’s up to P.R. whiz Jason Bateman to save the day.

While Will Smith is drunk, Hancock is a block-party. Smith has the build to be a superhero. He could be Superman, if he chose. And how much more fun Superman is when he’s swearing at people. Remember how Christopher Reeve smiled more easily as the bad Superman inSuperman III? That’s the key to Smith’s performance here. Smith, like Reeve, isn’t letting out his inner-demons. He’s just enjoying what generations of actors have enjoyed – the chance to act drunk. When Hancock is wasted, he liberates Smith. He doesn’t have to be the paragon of virtue who drags a superhero movie down. Instead, he’s that aspect of the superhero which excites us the most: He can do anything! And no-one can make him answer for it! It’s why we root for villains even when Hollywood won’t let us root for villains; why Alan Rickman gets the applause in Robin Hood… because we spend our lives trying to be goodies. At least if we had super-powers, we like to think we’d use them to break the rules.

Jason Bateman’s role should that of the straight man. It is – for the first twenty minutes, but after that Hancock forgets to be a comedy. That’s a pity. Bateman knows how to underplay and he uses his knowledge wisely for twenty minutes. He winds up being the one constant in Hancock; the only character that isn’t thrown for a loop after the Big Secret is revealed half way through. Not so poor Charlize Theron – who looks great, but whom Hancock doesn’t know what to do with. Theron is asked to waft sex Smith’s way and then… nothing. She’s asked to be Someone Very Important and then… nonsense. And it isn’t even that she’s bad, she’s just… ballast. She’s shoehorned into the movie just when Smith and Bateman have got the comedy working and, through no fault of her own, the movie unravels around her. Call it Catwoman syndrome.

The trouble with Hancock is that it sobers up too quickly. The movie seems afraid of its protagonist when he’s not acting like Superman, and it’s as if a bunch of white producers (and a very responsible black star) got the jitters about the premise of drunken superhero that happens to be black. But I think they miss the point. It isn’t Hancock’s drunkenness we respond to. It’s the fact he doesn’t take shit from anybody. Superheroes aren’t “white” because they’re good; they’re “white” because they’re so damn starchy. The world needs at least one superhero who isn’t crying inside as he saves the world. So fine – take away the drink, if you must. Just don’t make him a pussy.

(Read Less...)

HANCOCK (2008)

BOTTOM LINE: Will Smith does his best to elevate this film beyond its extremely mediocre script and direction but unfortunately he is only able to do so much, leaving us with a D-grade, un-dynamic superhero film that could have had the potential to deliver so much more than it does.

THE GOOD: We've been inundated with superhero flicks in the past decade, and it won't be long before every single comic book ever written is transformed in to a movie because some producer will think they can make five bucks out of it (and they probably will). Along comes "Hancock", a film that takes a different slant on this genre by making the hero character a complete jerk. He's careless, inconsiderate, rude and obnoxious. In a great opening scene, Hancock stops a bunch of bad guys in a chase sequence that ends with Hancock depositing their car on a pointy tower, while causing nine million dollars worth of damage. In the end, the police don't want his help because he causes more problems than he solves. These characteristics work in the film's favour, and as played so charismatically by Will Smith, creates the potential for a number of very comedic scenes involving Hancock's interactions with people. Will Smith has come a long way since being the Fresh Prince, and the surprising thing that I've found in his recent movies is that he seems to have improved his presence within a film dramatically. I was never a fan, but with films like I Am Legend and Hancock, he's single-handedly able to hold your attention and make his character very watchable. Hancock is bad, but he's good bad and you enjoy watching it.

THE BAD: It's not all good for this movie, which on the surface, has so many good things going for it. There's a different take on the superhero genre, there's an anti-hero character, there's the potential for sarcastic and witty comedy. So where does it go wrong? Aside from Will Smith's great presence, this film doesn't deliver on any of its potential. It's short, skimming over any development of story or character, relying solely on Smith's star power to drive the film. Smith has some great one-liners, but they're few and far between. The script is a mess, leaving a story that doesn't really go anywhere and doesn't give you much access in to the character or the scenario at all. Jason Bateman is unfortunately very naive and silly in his role, and this detracts from Smith's presence. Charlize Theron fares better but the direction her character takes, although good if it had been done properly, is a convoluted mess and the filmmakers spend more time explaining the elaborate backstory between her character and Hancock to the point that there's no room to even get Hancock fighting the villains which are almost an afterthought in the story. When Theron's character is revealed to be just like Hancock, the film degenerates in to an embarrassing mess of bad CGI and clunky dialogue. In the end you're wondering what is this film about? Is there any journey at all? There is a journey but it's badly executed. A lot of these criticisms you could find in many movies, but I think the sad thing for me is that I saw the potential for a great, funny, sarcastic superhero movie and unfortunately all I got was a completely wasted great idea turned in to an extremely mediocre movie.

RATING: 4/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Hancock

This movie would not have made commercial nor story sense say, ten or fifteen years ago. After we were all intoxicated with (un)healthy dosages of superhero movies, starting from Spider-man (with a hyphen, thank you) moviegoers have now accepted the superhero concept in films. Thus Hancock becomes relevant because it explores the possibility of an antihero possessing not only super powers but also habits of a lousy American, like being drunk, horny, swearing cuss words and have total disregard for public property. Thank goodness, for the first time we get to see Will Smith’s departure from being Will Smith. It is indeed a refreshing change and he does it well too. This was also the first time I heard him say the F word (thanks to sloppy censorship). Yes, I want to see more of him in the future! Charlize Theron looks hotter than ever! Nope, I do not think she was a miscast. The second half of the movie took me to a worse turn when they started revealing secrets of Hancock’s powers and origin. The ending somehow felt like M Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable at many points. All in all, if Hollywood keeps running out of ideas in the future, then there is a Hancock prequel and sequel for the sake of making risk-free money.

Rating: 7/10

(Read Less...)

Hancock

The superhero genre gets flipped on its head with the release of Will Smith's new blockbuster Hancock. It is widely known that putting Will Smith in a lead role leads to box office gold, and with Hancock that trend continued as it grossed an estimated $63 million dollars in its opening weekend. But did this movie really deserve that business? After last years mediocre box office hit I Am Legend, I started to feel that maybe studios realized they don't need to make the movie good, just as long as Will Smith was headlining. I'm afraid the situation is the same with Hancock. The intriguing storyline follows Hancock (Will Smith), a booze-soaked superhero that has become a nuisance in the public eye. Every effort he makes to help fight crime ultimately leads to even more disaster. But Hancock's luck begins to change when he saves Public Relations representative Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) from being hit by a train. Although the community isn't happy about the destroyed train, the grateful Embrey invites Hancock to his house to discuss a proposition. Embrey wants to help Hancock become a beloved figure because that's what heroes deserve. Much to Ray's wife Mary's (Charlize Theron) chagrin, Hancock agrees to work to better his image. Using a mix of dark comedy and drama, Hancock sounds great on paper, but the transfer onto the screen is far from impressive.

There are a laundry list of problems that plagued this movie, but the number one reason Hancock suffers is the direction of Peter Berg. It is possible that Hancock could have succeeded as a straight up comedic superhero film that didn't take itself too seriously, but a heavy reliance on drama gave this movie the kiss of death. With such a clever and amusing plot, it is simply nonsensical to focus mainly on the serious aspects of the script. Berg seemed to realize this a little bit, as he did try to sprinkle as much comedy into the film as possible, but the execution was weak and altogether shoddy. It felt like when he was planning it he said, "OK we will have 5 minutes of comedy, then we'll do 15 minutes of serious, and then another 5 minutes of comedy, and then maybe 10 minutes of serious comedy, and then 5 minutes of just serious...." It did not feel authentic is the point I am trying to reach. Boring cinematography paired with cartoonish special effects turn Hancock into not only a visually unappealing film, but a dull film. A summer movie-goer will not be pleased with the scenes of destruction, as the film (despite Hancock's unruly nature) was very tame as far as action goes. Peter Berg messed up big time. (An even bigger mistake than agreeing to star in Corky Romano. God that movie sucked.)

As always Will Smith puts forth a major league effort to make the movie the best that he could. That is something that I have no problem crediting him with. Every film I have seen him in he gives it his all, which is more than I can say for many actors. The problem is, pretty much exactly what I said in my I Am Legend review, Will Smith is a GOOD actor but he is not a GREAT actor. He cannot carry a film on his shoulders without some support. Some may contest that The Pursuit of Happyness negates my opinion, but I have not seen that movie so my opinion stands. I am yet to see a film that Will Smith single-handedly overhauls, and that includes Hancock. Despite his huge effort, Smith's performance is really only enjoyable for the first half of the film. I was entertained as Hancock lackadaisically trudged around being an irritable, unfriendly character. It was when he became a reformed, traditional superhero that I began to lose interest. On top of this, Smith does not get the support he needs from the cast around him. Jason Bateman is always fun to watch, and I did like him in this picture. But there wasn't enough done by him to make the film itself better. The same goes for Charlize Theron, whose character of Mary was just boring. And much to my dismay, Mary becomes an important piece of the films plot. Performances: strike two for this movie.

It was probably difficult work coming up with a completely new superhero to base a movie off of. You can tell the writers had trouble making Hancock unique because his powers are flight, strength, and invincibility. Basically, he's a second rate superman. Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan are the men responsible for this screenplay, and they came very close to making it great. But with the inclusion of a twist that is downright silly and unsatisfying, Hancock's story takes an ugly turn as it tries to be intelligent and creative. Perhaps Peter Berg doesn't deserve the brunt of the blame, and the writers should be chastised for the missteps of Hancock. After a promising start, the story debilitates into incoherence and leaves us with below average fight sequences and an ending that is far too abrupt to be stimulating.

Running at a mere 92 minutes, Hancock does us some good by not dragging out its existence. Any longer, and this movie would be receiving an even lower rating from me. There is a line in one of the commercials for this film where Hancock says "Does it look like I care about what people think?" I think that was filmed accidentally, and it was just Will Smith talking to somebody on the set. Someone told him "You know Will, this movie isn't very good. People are probably going to think you lost your touch", and then he responded with "Does it look like I care what people think? They'll pay to see me and that's all that matters." Only the camera cut before he could include that second statement. I'm kidding of course. I have nothing but respect for Will Smith. I just found it ironic that his character says that line, while critics everywhere are bashing this film. OK it was a stupid joke, let's move on. Hancock is a good idea that is marred by bad direction, performances, and plot development. The only thing saving Hancock from a rating of 2 is an entertaining first act. My rating (4/10)

Hancock

It’s good to see that Hollywood is capable of coming up with something on their own without going back and remaking a film, taking a classic TV show and attemtping to bring it to the big screen, or using a comic book for source material (very loosely, I might add).
This film starts out very strong, as we see Will Smith drunk and laying out on a bench as some things are basically going on a road rage shooting rampage. Problem is, not long after the film really gets started, they decide to take away this gruff Hancock, and turn him into your typical superhero. Nothing wrong with that, but it just seems that would better if that saved ot for the end of the film. After they do this, though, somehow we get this weird immortal god storyline that confuses the audience, and for me, is really the only flaw this film has. I’ve heard talk that the second half of the film was written by a different team of writers. If so, then they didn’t tie the stories together well enough, because it feels like two completely different films, not to mention the whole immortal part is unnecessarily confusing.
Will Smith is money when it comes to summer blockbuster films. This film didn’t exactly get the best review from critics, but audiences turned out for and loved it. Aside from his name carrying the picture, Smith gives his usual spot on performance. He’s the snarky, cocky guy that he tends to be in most, if not all, of his films. On top of all this, he is incredibly believable as a drunk.
Jason Bateman plays the, I don’t want to say sidekick, but in a way he kind of is as Hancock’s PR Agent. Don’t ask me why a superhero needs PR Agent, but he does. Mix this in with Hancock’s "other", who just happens to be Bateman’s wife and he has to contend with two superhero lead characters while maintaining same kid of voice of reasoning. Amidst all this, he keeps a level head and really is quite impressive from an acting standpoint.
Charlize Theron got on my everlasting nerve in the early part of this film. She came off as the nagging wife who watches the news all day and every little thing that happens freaked her out, so when Hancock shows up at her house after destroying half the city, you can imagine she’s none too happy. Then the next day when she comes home and finds him talking to Ray, she rushes to turn on the news and show them that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. After it is discovered that she has the same powers as Hancock, though, Theron appeared to go from little to no makeup to the whole raccoon eye look. I didn’t understand it. Her character just seemed to be there as a female counterpart to both Ray and Hancock. She nearly dies at the end of the film, yet you don’t really feel anything for her.
What would a superhero movie be without a villain? Eddie Masan fills those shoes as Red Parker, a crook that Hancock defeats and cuts off his hand after getting released from prison. Parker becomes the ring leader for a gang of inmates who break out of prison to get Hancock using psychology. This guy seems to have all the makings for a pretty awesome villain. Problem is, his origin and bio were given to us via newscast and he doesn’t really get to develop. It’s such a shame.
As I said earlier, this film doesn’t gel together, not because its a bad picture, but becuse the different stories are segued well and causesa disconnect. The trailers and ads pumped up the fact that Hancock was a drunk superhero, yet, we only get that for like the first 15 minutes. I felt this should have been more of a focal point of the film, with him getting rehabilitated by film’s end, but that’s just me. Still, I would watch this over and over again, and hope you will, too.

http://thankyounetflix.wordpress.com

(Read Less...)