July 2, 2008, 10:07 p.m. CST
July 2, 2008, 10:07 p.m. CST
by Speed Fricassee
I liked this movie! It hurts to see it getting such hate. Oh, well.
July 2, 2008, 10:08 p.m. CST
by The Marquis de Side 3
July 2, 2008, 10:10 p.m. CST
July 2, 2008, 10:10 p.m. CST
by The Marquis de Side 3
excuse me, "HANCOCK"... if you just want to do something to get out of the house and pass the time, then sure, it's okay with some fun moments. Don't expect it to be deep or important like "DARK KNIGHT" or stunning like "HELLBOY 2". think of it as a spectacle like watching fireworks, but it's not more than that...
July 2, 2008, 10:12 p.m. CST
It is a really good idea for a movie. <p>Hope Berg brings his A game for Dune.
July 2, 2008, 10:12 p.m. CST
Overall I thought the film was real uneven and ran out of gas pretty fast, but I was able to get some enjoyment out of it.
July 2, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST
It's called the long play. He's a good actor, Will just needs a good director to guide him.
July 2, 2008, 10:16 p.m. CST
Thanks for not pulling your punches.
July 2, 2008, 10:16 p.m. CST
they keep being okay to good.
July 2, 2008, 10:18 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
Getting drunk is a failure of your liver to process alcohol fast enough. If he's immortal, I'm guessing he has a perfect body (that sounded really gay) so how would booze have any effect on him? Why am I asking this?
July 2, 2008, 10:18 p.m. CST
if i remeber right, JB gal was once with slick willy, oh and also she also has powers like handcock
July 2, 2008, 10:20 p.m. CST
Not that I'm psyched for this unnecessary remake or nothing, but I did catch it before Hancock. Usually when shit hits theaters it hits the web soon after.
July 2, 2008, 10:23 p.m. CST
with Bill Cosby making a cameo again as some homeless guy!
July 2, 2008, 10:28 p.m. CST
by Magic Rat
it IS a fun summer blockbuster. It's not meant to be deep or have any meaning other than seeing Will Smith fly around, be a jerk, and squeeze out a few laughs. <br> <br> It accomplishes this. The movie is a solid summer film. I actually enjoyed it more than The Incredible Hulk.
July 2, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST
I can't for the life of me see where all these negative reviews are coming from. It was more entertaining than the incredible hulk (which was pretty good, but doesnt deserve all this jizzum you guys throw at it) , yet you people shit on this movie for no good reason.
July 2, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST
"it IS a fun summer blockbuster. It's not meant to be deep or have any meaning other than seeing Will Smith fly around, be a jerk, and squeeze out a few laughs. "<brake> so it should be like wild wild west?
July 2, 2008, 10:36 p.m. CST
eventually it's just another over-hyped movie in a summer filled with over-hyped, trashy super-hero flicks? <p> Wake me up when The Dark Knight comes out, at least that one seems OK.
July 2, 2008, 10:37 p.m. CST
Like he drinks the bottle and tries to pop his shoulder out of joint while casting it downwards and curling his fist? <p> No thanks.
July 2, 2008, 10:37 p.m. CST
by Magic Rat
This was quite enjoyable. I actually walked into the wrong theater at first, I ended up walking into WALL-E but walked out and ended up at the right theater in time to see the Day The Earth Stood Still trailer (looks alright). <br> <br> This movie will have the same effect on you that Iron Man would have for someone who has no idea who Iron Man is. Since there's no backstory with Hancock that people have read about for years, they feel like there's no there there with Hancock, and I think there is. It's not the greatest superhero movie of all time, but it's better -- well, maybe better is not the right word -- it's more fun than just about 90-percent of them. If it had been an animated Pixar movie, everyone would love it, it's on that level.
July 2, 2008, 10:39 p.m. CST
...that I've ever wanted to see a movie less than I want to see HANCOCK.
July 2, 2008, 10:40 p.m. CST
I better save some money for the IMAX screening of TDK (here in Argentina)
July 2, 2008, 10:41 p.m. CST
Despite all the bad reviews, this still looks like it might be kinda fun to sit through. The trailer is enjoyable. I think I will just try to avoid paying $ to see this, but I'll download it for sure.
July 2, 2008, 10:41 p.m. CST
I just realized a few weeks ago that she was even in this! She's not even in the trailer! You'd think with a big name sexy chick like Charlize, you might want to throw her into the trailer, at least for a second or two! I guess having one of the best actresses in your movie doesn't really matter much?!
July 2, 2008, 10:42 p.m. CST
I think he'd say: I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is back on the scene! I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is my name, and fuckin' up motha fuckas is my game!
July 2, 2008, 10:57 p.m. CST
July 2, 2008, 11 p.m. CST
Seriously, they are fundamentally different movies. All they share are the basic concept of a boozing superhero and some names.
Why I keep hitting enter instead of tab. ANYHOOS, there was a spoilery review awhile back that described a scene in which Hancock is screwing some chick and blows her through the roof or something when he cums. Now, my kids have been laughing at all the viral video stuff that has been going around the internet leading up to this film and were getting excited to see it. After I read that, I thought to myself that maybe this would be a bad film to take them to. That earlier review didn't like the film as a whole and a review on the radio said that the "hidden plot twist" was forshadowed like crazy. I'm still curious but I doubt that the kiddos will get to see this one til I rent it.
July 2, 2008, 11:06 p.m. CST
by Mullah Omar
That sounds like the problem here. And that's too bad, because the concept admittedly sounds pretty interesting.
July 2, 2008, 11:08 p.m. CST
you are completely wrong, sir.<p>this is not Bad Boys 3, the filmmaker horrendous attempt at making this more than just a silly summer movie is exactly the REASON that reviewers are faulting it. how many of them have said that the first 2/3 are fun, and then it derails? well what happens in the last third? it tried to make a statement, and bring about some meaningful and epic finale, and it fails. hard.<p>no one is being too harsh on this movie. it made an attempt to be something more than fun standard summer fair, and that's admirable, but it failed, and reviewers are saying so.<p>this is not someone reviewing The Naked Gun, and going "the plot is ridiculous, it's unrealistic, blah blah", THAT would be missing the point. but Hancock thinks it's smarter than it is.<p>Will Smith's opening weekend is bulletproof, his 2nd weekend is not...
July 2, 2008, 11:14 p.m. CST
July 2, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST
...and then torpedo's the film by the end of the review. That was great! I know the feeling. I ranted about how Superman Returns was gonna rule the world...and then left the theatre feeling ver unsatisfied and by weeks end saying "What the fuck was THAT?!" Haven't had the desire to revisit it once. After this review...the 3rd or so pointing out it's flawed execution...I'm deciding to call it a rental.
July 2, 2008, 11:17 p.m. CST
by My friends call me Killjoy
about the comedy not hitting the mark. I was just not interested in anything this movie was giving me until Jason Bateman showed up. He saves the movie from being unwatchable. Charlize looks great, but other than a few meaningful glances, isn't given much to do. Will Smith is too likeable as a movie star to succeed here. He's simply miscast. We need someone in the role that we just know couldn't be reformed into a clean cut hero (Think Bad Santa). If Hancock was a straight comedy, it would have been fine for these choices, but it veers into dramatic territory, which makes the transformation from unlikeable drunkard to straight laced Superhero simply ridiculous. Also, the villians are terrible. Here's hoping that the upcoming Director's Cut will be better.
July 2, 2008, 11:18 p.m. CST
And I wonder if casting is going to be the problem here. This sounds like a job for Nick Cage, he knows comic heroes well and nobody plays a better loser drunk. Given the concept I think Cage could chew the scenery while making sure the character was given a chance at some comic hero glory.
July 2, 2008, 11:18 p.m. CST
by andrew coleman
Tools. Who just eat shit without complaining. The movie was horrible, first half was fine and kind of funny but the studio editing or whatever happened ruined the movie and it just was stupid. That and all the "cool cultural references!!!" like youtube and solja boy... I'm sure twenty years down the road when this movie is on at 3a.m. on tnt stoners will go "Who the fuck was soulja boy?"
July 2, 2008, 11:20 p.m. CST
might have been an interesting choice. He can play an alchoholic who doesn't give a fuck. <p> Mind you, I'd have gone with someone who looks genuinely menacing, just to play against type. Think Michael Madsen in his Resevoir Dogs days.
July 2, 2008, 11:24 p.m. CST
...is just lame. Yeah, that's great family fare to take the kids to see on 4th of July weekend. Does anyone think that's humorous? It's just lame. Why not have repeated scenes of him taking a shit and destroying every sewer line in the city while were at it? Oh sure...comedy gold!
July 2, 2008, 11:26 p.m. CST
I saw the twist coming a mile off. I couldn't believe what they were doing. Here is a movie whose script clearly didn't have all the back-story laid out, because there are times when the actors just don't know what they're supposed to be thinking. But when they do know, they play it well. Theron especially, who played it TOO well. On some of those closeps prior to the big reveal, I knew precisely what she was thinking, and thought shit they're giving too much away. With the info Smith give (in expo so bald they might as well have brought in pipe-fitters to deliver it), you just knew Theron's character couldn't be thinking anything else. Or at least you knew because of how well she played it. I am not as convinced that her comedy chops reach the heights that some reviews imply (though she was better than I'd expected), but she pulled of some very complex reactions, so well that I was certain that she was giving too much away. I was stunned, not by the twist, but by the fact people on the audience seemed to be surprised. Oh, and aside from that and a few other things, and despite the fact my kids liked it, he's right. It did sorta suck. I think deep down the filmmakers know they swung for the fences and hit a ground ball that barely got em to first. Sorry. Shouldn't go to ball games and movies back to back.
July 2, 2008, 11:28 p.m. CST
...is a bit of wasted advertising dollars on this site. As if we don't all have July 18 burned into or brains already.
July 2, 2008, 11:38 p.m. CST
The bastard "lubes up" WALL-E and "goes down" on Hancock with "lots of teeth". Tell the truth, shame the Devil: Has Harry been writing your "reviews" for you lately?
July 2, 2008, 11:55 p.m. CST
he gets drunk, you're not alone. I had exactly that conversation today at work, and was told that I think about shit like this too much. Probably correct.
July 2, 2008, 11:56 p.m. CST
That there is no non-white male star who can have sex in a movie without poisoning the box office? With the single exception of "Crouching Tiger", there isn't a single movie that has earned over 100 million with a black or Asian star being sexual. Its one of the biggest open secrets in Hollywood. Not Will Smith, Denzel, Eddie, or anyone else has EVER been able to break this. Go ahead. Name one. Because no one admits it, they are forced to write in circles, vamping, trying to find an alternative story spine. Remember the beginning of "Spiderman"? "This, like any worthwhile story, is about a girl." But you CANNOT do that with a black star, or the box-office stays below 100 million. Studios swing for the fence with every Smith vehicle--Hancock was doomed unless someone was willing to address this with some honesty, but everyone pretends not to notice. Go ahead: go to IMDB and see for yourself. And then ask yourselves why none of you super film mavens ever noticed it.
July 3, 2008, midnight CST
Like this one... (Warning Major Spoilers) (Warning Major Spoilers) (Warning Major Spoilers) (Warning Major Spoilers) (Warning Major Spoilers) (Warning Major Spoilers)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I’ve been debating whether or not to send this review in. As I did have an opportunity to go to the premier and meet some of the cast who were all gracious and welcoming, it just doesn’t seem right to throw a negative spin on the movie. I have read the positive review of the movie posted earlier this week and many of the aspects of the movie pointed out as positives I do agree with. The problem is the many negatives that were ignored. First and foremost, the 2nd movie made me look at the 1st differently. It made me realize something substantial, John Hurt was an extremely integral part of the movie and that once he was killed, the movie simply wasn’t as good. The Father Son dynamic was one of the most interesting parts of the first film with the exchanges and interaction between Pearlman and Hurt being spot on. The 2nd movie attempts to recreate this, albeit briefly, with an opening scene that flashes back to a young Hellboy with his father on Christmas Eve. The flashback is meant as a foreshadow to the balance of the film and it serves its purpose. This movie certainly missed that interaction and dynamic overall. As the previous review pointed out, the action sequences and alternative world scenes are stunning. They are vintage del Toro. Pearlman is spot on and Jeffrey Tambor has his moments. I couldn’t quite get my arms around what Tambor was being used for, in the first movie he was the comic heavy, in this one he is mostly quirky comic relief, but for the most part it works. He plays off of Macfralane’s Dr. Kraus well. He’s there to be a government tool and no one plays a tool better than Tambor. I will say that I missed David Hyde Pierce as the voice of Abe, his tone fit perfectly. Though the Myers character in the first movie was mainly a tool for a love triangle, I did find it interesting that he was dismissed with one line in the 2nd movie. He was apparently sent off by Hellboy to the Arctic. I found this odd as he had been hand picked by his Father and I think that the history with Liz (Selma Blair) and the other two men may have been an interesting carry over. This brings me to Selma Blair. She is significantly under/misused in this movie. Giving away a major spoiler (she has 2 tails in the oven) the majority of her interaction is either to get mad at Hellboy for being Juvenile or wait out in the van during action sequences and look worried about the pregnancy. The movie is called “The Golden Army” and that is the main plot, but the subplot is the outing of Hellboy and the team and the public reaction to them. I can see where del Toro was going with this, almost an X-Men type angle, but it simply was not executed very well. One scene in particular sticks out where Hellboy is fighting a monster while attempting to protect a baby whom he had just rescued out of a car prior to it being demolished. Throughout the whole scene he is going out of his way to protect the baby, at the end he tries to hand the baby back to its mother only to have police draw guns on him and attempt to arrest him. It really didn’t make much sense to me. Naturally you would expect public curiosity and fear, but after saving an entire city block and protecting a baby in the process, the reaction was a little extreme. The public seemed to turn on a dime, really without any reason and contrary to the initial reaction when the team is revealed. Then there’s the Golden Army plot line. Though the sequences are dramatic and visually appealing, there are serious problems with this as well. Without getting too deep into it, the plot is similar to a Lord of the Rings type of deal. A mythical race of elves battle humans and end up creating the Golden Army which slaughters many. Filled with guilt, the King decides to stop the Golden Army, break the crown which gave him the power to control it, keep 2 pieces himself and give one to the humans. One crown to rule them all type of deal… The elves are to live unseen in the forests and the humans can have everything else. Eventually the King’s son (The Prince) gets fed up with hiding and what humanity is doing to his beloved forests and decides to put the crown back together. A public confrontation with his father the King reveals that it is in the human’s nature to destroy and it is in the elves nature to tolerate (with a hint that it is because they have the moral high ground). It seemed like a stab at environmentalism to me, but it wasn’t overly done. At this point (spoilers) the Prince proclaims himself and the elves better than the humans and his Father who agrees have a problem. The Father want the crown kept separate and the Prince wants it back together. These tolerant Elves who are superior to humans then do something that made me go cross-eyed in the theater. The Father orders his son put to death. The prince fights off the guard and kills his Father. Go figure… The Princess, the twin of the Prince, who shows the same scars as he does and is linked physically to him so that any damage done to him hurts her and vice versa (wanna take a stab at the ending), then runs away with the final piece and ends up with Hellboy’s team. She and Abe have a romantic interaction which leads to an interesting chemistry between elf and whatever the hell Abe is. There was a scene which hopefully will be shortened a bit where Abe and Hellboy get drunk and sing along to “I Can’t Smile Without You.” It’s a great idea, but even at the premier it didn’t get the laugh it should’ve. The outcome of the movie is predictable; the plot is loosely held together and has numerous flaws. Overall, it’s worth seeing for the visuals, Pearlman, a fight scene between Hellboy and a wall of lockers which he looses, and del Toro doing his thing, but there is a reason Red is showing up on American Gladiators. They’re going to need a big opening weekend.
July 3, 2008, 12:05 a.m. CST
You should, I sent it in but they refuse to post it. Its really not that bad... I swear. Just know it is full of spoilers, but the plot is so predictable it doesn't really matter...
July 3, 2008, 12:06 a.m. CST
And calling it rambling without reading it is a bit of a dick move
July 3, 2008, 12:08 a.m. CST
I coulda just said the movie sucked...
way to give the entire movie away. now there's no point in me seeing this film anymore.
July 3, 2008, 12:11 a.m. CST
But the spacing didn't copy over... Sorry
July 3, 2008, 12:12 a.m. CST
You're not a dick, I see your point, I should put breaks in there for the paragraphs, my bad.
July 3, 2008, 12:14 a.m. CST
but there is thought in there, though I did type it fairly quickly...
July 3, 2008, 12:16 a.m. CST
i just pass out literature and have my kids in a scientology school, cuz they dont need to be edumicated....and while the concept of hancock is ok...you cant sell this shit on the 4th of july as a will smith vehicle without dumbing it down...and then cutting out a ton, reshooting whole scenes, etc....this film is a bigger disaster then the happening...and again, hollywood fails at making a superhero film without a the comic book canon to guide them...they fail because they refuse to hire comic book guys to write this shit...thats right, most screen writers cant write comics
July 3, 2008, 12:16 a.m. CST
I have no faith in this director after sitting through that middle eastern borefest. Now the general consensus is he's given birth to another turd. How bad of a director do you have to be if you have Will Smith, and a practically unlimited budget? Peter Berg sucks Capone. So why are you surprised he dropped the ball on this one? He's never knocked it out of the park on anything he's ever done.
July 3, 2008, 12:19 a.m. CST
didn't see the Kingdom.
July 3, 2008, 12:24 a.m. CST
Fuck Peter Berg
July 3, 2008, 12:43 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
One of the 10 best movies 2007.
July 3, 2008, 1:02 a.m. CST
It's got some interesting back story. I'd like to see where they go with it from here. I like sentimentality, so, I liked the second half. It left me wanting to see a sequel. I really look forward to Hellboy 2 next week.
July 3, 2008, 1:16 a.m. CST
XENU GOTTA EAT!
July 3, 2008, 1:16 a.m. CST
by The Guy Who Slept Through Everything.
I think I'll save my dollars for that day, and Hellboy 2 next week.
July 3, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST
July 3, 2008, 1:34 a.m. CST
I thouroughly enjoyed it. Also the previous review of it was completely wrong. It said things like, "There is no villian." I'm pretty sure I saw a villian. Did we watch a different movie or something?
July 3, 2008, 1:46 a.m. CST
by Han Cholo
I remember some idiot reprimanding me for being honest about Smith and his acting ability and movie roles. Also that he almost went to MIT or some shit but quit to be a rapper. Sorry but the guy is a one-note actor. Can he go beyond playing the wise cracking, arrogant hero that he always seems to play? I got a sense of that as well in Ali, but modified a bit so as to do justice to the real man. <p> If Smith were ever able to go method and play a role in a movie, perhaps movies directed by David Fincher, like a serial killer or something like that and pull it off with some gravitas, he might actually impress me. But for now, this is the extent of Smith's career. Quantity over quality eh?
July 3, 2008, 1:56 a.m. CST
by Boba Fat
Spoils the decent ideas in all Smith's genre efforts. Unfunny one liners jammed in and probably an arse / shower shot
July 3, 2008, 2:02 a.m. CST
Unbreakable and Bad Santa are good flicks. Hancock ain't.
July 3, 2008, 2:41 a.m. CST
by andrew coleman
The movie sucks ass. SPOILERS only if you've seen the movie should you read on... Seriously I'm about to talk about the second half of the movie SPOILERS... Okay, yes as someone posted before there is a bad guy in this, a pointless, stupid villain with no back story or character but there is a bad guy. He is a bank robber who sucks at robbing banks because he robbed a bank and couldn't get into the vault. He then has his hand chopped off. He later shoots Handcock says a line and has his other hand chopped off and I guess he is also killed. Why this movie sucks is because they had a villain at their feet... Chalize Theron. SPOILER WARNING AGAIN Instead they made her a super powered ex-love interest. That would be fine if it was in a different movie. Handcock runs around 90 minutes and we get two completely different stories jammed together. Think Spider-man 3 but worse. The movie originally is drunk superman figuring out how to be a hero. Then it turns into what I assume is Adam and Eve meeting up once again and realizing they have super powers. Now the movie never claims they are Adam and Eve but there are lines in the movie like "We were created as a pair" and "we've been around since the beginning of time" and Theron's character lightly at the end speaks about meeting Egyptians and what not. This story line would have been cool but in another movie. Hancock tries to grind two different stories together just to make another superhero flick. Seriously don't waste your money it is HORRIBLE. Save it for Hellboy 2 or pre purchase your Dark Knight tickets.
July 3, 2008, 3:07 a.m. CST
I'm a sucker for the reluctant or cynical Superhero concept..but Aww hell naw!I guess I'll wait for TDK. *sigh*
July 3, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST
Hollywood's go to guy to make mainstream, 5/10 safe movies. Evrything he's done is in the range of 4-6/10, no awful crap, but nothing you'd ever want to watch again.
July 3, 2008, 5:02 a.m. CST
I disagree with the assessment that Smith isn't able to play an "asshole". It's not that he can't. It's because the script won't let him. Nearly the entire city labels Hancock as one, but ya never really buy it. Sure he cusses a few random shmos on the street, but that's not what's being broadcast or getting out on the web. What most people end up seeing of the guy, is the property damage and the destruction he causes. Without including some sort of interview clips where he defends his method of doing things, how he's fed up with people taking him for granted, and him reminding L.A. he doesn't have to help out, to hammer in the fact that the guy really lives up to the title, it just doesn't end up working very well.<br><br> And given how much penis innuendo is going on with this film's current and original title, as well as nicknames of it's star, you would've thunk that instead of "asshole", it'd be "prick".<br><br> *pulls cigar from mouth and makes a headline motion with hands* <br><br> HANCOCK...SUPERPRICK!" <br><br> They really should have made him some overly pompous son of a bitch that doesn't give a shit, thinks he's better than everyone else, and is above the laws and regulations the regular joes have to abide by. Really make you despise him. Of course given how anti-heros are so popular in this day and age that might be easier said and done. But if they were successful, it would've made Bateman's role much more important. Actually, basing the entire film soley around Ray's attempts repair Hancock's image would've been a smart move. And to be honest, from only catching the first few trailers, I thought that's what this film was going to be. That's what got me into the theater. And I'm willing to bet I'm not alone. I can't be the only person that assumed this was a comedy. <br><br> Boy was I wrong. <br><br> Having the film centered on Bateman as the Jerry Maguire of superheroes, and then branching out from there would've been much more satisfying than what we got. The first flick, Hancock & the PR guy. The second, Hancock & the therapist to deal with all of his cliched-I'm all alone and nobody understands me-bullshit. So much could have came from the pairing of Bateman and Smith, but no, Ray's just used as a lame plot device to get Hancock and Theron's character together. <br><br>And speaking of Theron, her character didn't need to exist at all. There was no need for an origin. Why does Hollywood seem to think every new superhero flick requires an origin??? And to have yet another be burdened with the same old coincidental "we're connected" meet up is beyond frustrating. Especially when the initial concept doesn't call for it. <br><br> Just Bateman, Smith, the PR transformation, a date sequence with some random chick, and the escapees, that's all ya needed. And because Bateman is pretty much neglected once Theron shows up, you don't feel for the guy when the big revelation comes about regarding his "marriage". Now sure, without the inclusion of Ray's family, something else would have to be used to as the catalyst for Hancock's transformation, but I'm fairly certain just about anything would be satisfactory as long as they used that freed up screentime to make the Smith/Bateman relationship actually enjoyable. <br><br> This film is full of missed oppurtunities. <br><br> For instance, why wasn't there a courtroom scene of some sorts for Hancock before he was "imprisoned"? That'd seem like a perfect chance to up the comedy factor by carting in a parade of victims of his superpowered carelessness. Videotape evidence would've been the perfect alternative to Ray's constant "lemme pull up some of your clips on YouTube" comments as well. This scene would seem like a given. But no, it's straight to jail, and that tedious montage of prison life. Ya damn right "pass". <br><br> Oh, and Peter Berg is a gawd damned idiot for thinking that by giving fucking Nancy Grace screentime, it's somehow a sufficient alternative for exploring the possibilies of Hancock's legal woes. <br><br> Too many things are introduced but never explored or fleshed out. <br><br> The escapees are the perfect example. The lack of a breakout scene is inexcuseable, as well as no explanation as to how they got into the hospital which should've had the tightest security in the world considering the most powerful man on the planet was a patient. No origin for a superhero is perfectly acceptable, but no setup for the film's climax? Not so much. Fuck the villians, it's all about those flatline shots that have NEVER been done before, and are SO fucking compelling. <br><br> I'm not expecting an Oscar worthy screenplay out of flicks like this, but dammit, there should be enough character development included to warrant the film's effects budget. <br><br>This shit could've been The Galaxy Quest of superhero flicks. But instead they get stuck in the same trappings nearly every single movie in this genre is plagued with. In a summer jampacked with "by the number" (but still mostly enjoyable) comic films, this could have really stood out as something special. Unfortunately, it stands out as a complete mess. And most certainly not the film they initially marketed. And because of that, given how ugly it gets during the closing moments, I'm sure it will receive flack from parents that cart their youngin's to see it this week. <br><br> So sad to see such a great premise wasted.
July 3, 2008, 5:09 a.m. CST
July 3, 2008, 6:15 a.m. CST
Jesus Christ, if I hear one more time about there being "no villain", or how another God should have been the villain, or this movie needed a Lex Luthor, etc... I'm gonna puke. Why are these talkbacks always coming up with weird 'rules' about how Bond movies/action movies/horror movies/sports movies are only as good as the villain, etc...Says who? I for one was glad to see regular thugs be the bad guys. Hey, it's better than a mentor turned bad who gets hold of a bigger suit. And to the idiot who says we needed a supervillain so there could be hilarious "speeches". Huh? Go watch Mystery Men or something again dude.
July 3, 2008, 6:38 a.m. CST
Will Smith should have played half of Quantum and Woody. There's comic movie gold in that franchise.
July 3, 2008, 6:51 a.m. CST
by Iowa Snot Client
July 3, 2008, 6:53 a.m. CST
by spud mcspud
Fuck... What WERE you expecting? Will Smith plays a drunk superhero. Obviously they weren't going for an R rated movie, as that's a BIG budget they have to make back, and there ain't enough 18+ viewers to make back $150 mil+. Superhero movies also draw in the kids, so they toned it down. As ofr mythologies and back-story... it's a fucking COMIC BOOK MOVIE, you have whatever fucking mythology you want! The internal rules / world of the film (diagesis for the film school grads) DID work - think about it: I'd say more but don't want to spoil. When you think about it, scene for scene, what happens at the end DOES work according to the rules. Which is also why, when Hancock uses the phone at the end of the movie, you don't know where (ie which city) he is. Halfway round the world maybe?<P> This movie won't change the way we see superhero movies forever- and neither, for that matter, will DARK KNIGHT, not that anyone will listen (I fully expect a fortnight of "It RUUUUUUUUULES" followed by, a months later, "Ah... yeah... it kinda sucked in parts") - but it doesn't set out to. About the CGI / SFX being average - well, I enjoyed the slapstick of it - never seen a flying scene where the hero runs into a flock of seagulls before, or like the bit with the hoods on the freeway - and Will Smith, as ever, makes it well worth your while to watch. I never for a minute thought I had wasted my money. Granted, I hadn't hyped it up in my mind to be the next DARK KNIGHT - just a funny, slightly profane, odd angle on the classic superhero movie. And that's EXACTLY what I got. So stop bitching.
July 3, 2008, 6:53 a.m. CST
by Dr Gregory House
July 3, 2008, 6:55 a.m. CST
by Iowa Snot Client
What with it's suggestion of nonconsensual penile chewification.
July 3, 2008, 7:10 a.m. CST
It's said he is interested in dating some beautiful woman there. It's said she is interested into dating wealthy young guys there. you are an idiot! He is dating someone currently on wealthy mingle.c om. This guy is cute. Seems saw him before on a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthybeauty.com.
July 3, 2008, 7:16 a.m. CST
I'm all into Charlize involved in anything named Hand Cock. I just wish that I was involved too.
July 3, 2008, 7:35 a.m. CST
I'm ready for ads embedded between talkback posts. council estate scumbag's post, then a post from Froot Loops, then yackbacker, etc. Make it happen, Harry!
July 3, 2008, 7:44 a.m. CST
I like your review, its very simple and edgy, not pretentious or long winded. However you should read through it to catch the many spell-checked-into-wrong-words problems and syntax errors. I don't know if you guys are paid or whatever but you should get a (better?) copy editor.
July 3, 2008, 7:49 a.m. CST
And they both loved it. Awesome, they said. Of course, they're both ten years old.
July 3, 2008, 7:50 a.m. CST
Jeff Wells has an undated draft of the script linked from his page -- www.hollywood-elsewhere.com. It's linked in the article "Who Da Bad Guy?" and is (frustratingly) missing the second-to-the-last page. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to do the tinyurl thing.)
July 3, 2008, 7:50 a.m. CST
And we all know how good that film was.
July 3, 2008, 7:52 a.m. CST
lol that's great keep up the good work darquelyte
July 3, 2008, 7:57 a.m. CST
My friend told me that i can find tjat sort of him on "wealthybeauty.c o m". Has anyone find him yet on that site?
July 3, 2008, 8:06 a.m. CST
July 3, 2008, 8:16 a.m. CST
by Magic Rat
The worst aspect of the film is it's constrained by it's running time of 90 minutes. To make the film everyone wanted to see it be would have meant adding an extra half hour to it. Maybe all the stuff you guys want will be in the director's cut. <br> <br> All I can say is that I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it because Will Smith and Jason Bateman carried the film. <br> <br> I liked it better than The Incredible Hulk because, while I appreciate Edward Norton as an actor, he's kinda boring. It's the same way I feel about Christian Bale, another fine actor who, if he had been cast in this, the film would have suffered. Smith can't make meh films great films, but he can make meh films enjoyable films, and he did so in this.
July 3, 2008, 8:32 a.m. CST
Thats why this film doesnt work.Its a combo of abunch of things and its lazy filmmaking.
July 3, 2008, 8:48 a.m. CST
before you publish it? Dear god, man. I watched Hancock last night, and while I am by no means fellating his performance in Hancock, Smith put far more effort into his role than it would seem you put into your review. shit, you might as well have written this with a crayon.
July 3, 2008, 8:58 a.m. CST
...sort of like Bruce Willis in The Last Boy Scout. Then Hancock's redemption would have had more impact.
July 3, 2008, 8:59 a.m. CST
Hancock = candy Superman Returns = meat and potatoes
July 3, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST
I was bored by the end of the trailer... Is it true that Big Willie is a scientologist? Damn, thats another brainwashed American that'll I have to start boycotting...Oh well, no huge loss on this film...
July 3, 2008, 9:20 a.m. CST
by Biggie Kaiju
That's two in a row for Big Willie flicks that started great and ended shit.
July 3, 2008, 9:25 a.m. CST
off Dune now?
July 3, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST
I am sure this is exactly like Capone's review says it is.....and I can't go to these wasted films anymore. It's expensive and encourages the studio to keep 'em coming. The process shows disdain for the people who love "Sin City", Iron Man, Bat Begins, Both Hulks and even the Spiderman(s). Like those or not, the people involved in making the respected their material and as result thrilled their audience. You cannot make a movie by studio executive committee. Ok Spider 3 was likely screwed with horrible, but I still think Raimey tried.
July 3, 2008, 9:41 a.m. CST
by Sappers Forward
Just saw this last night. I laughed my ass off. Although towards the end it sort of got a little more serious. I really didn't like that transition. It was a good fun flick. My buddy and I were laughing our asses off. I had only one other issue and that was with the main bad guy. Not really sure where they were going with that character. Or what that character knew about Hancock. For all those being hypercritical about this film and writing 5 page reviews about it...take a chill pill and just try to have fun at the movies.
July 3, 2008, 10:04 a.m. CST
by Magic Rat
who pan this movie. <br> <br> Is it Oscar worthy? No. But then again, neither was Iron Man or Incredible Hulk. What did those films have that this film doesn't? Nothing. Same level of voilence. Same level of humor (probably moreso). Better actors. The only difference is people aren't invested in Hancock the way they are with Incredible Hulk and Iron Man, so they probably went into the theater looking for a reason to like the film, rather than going into this looking for a reason not to like it. I'd rather watch three Hancock movies than three Spiderman movies, but that's just me.
July 3, 2008, 10:35 a.m. CST
Obviously you've never seen Will act in a dramatic role.
July 3, 2008, 12:09 p.m. CST
by One Nation Under Zod
Smith and Cruise are more than just friends... Gossip gossip gossip...
July 3, 2008, 12:54 p.m. CST
...so I expect it to do better than I would if I was judging by my own somewhat disappointed reaction. Think the wife just responded to the unusual take on the story, which gets a tip o the hat for not being formulaic, but a kick in the nuts (from me, anyway) for doing it badly.
July 3, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST
Hackiva Goldsman was a "producer" on the film.. I'm willing to bet that Will had the Hack rewrite this script to turn it into crap.
July 3, 2008, 2:57 p.m. CST
Overall i agree, Handcock is not a good movie. There could have been so much more to do with it...however, one thing I really dug about this flick was the showing of power of this super-hero. See, most superhero movies have the superheroes lifting huge trucks slowly, or big boulders slowly, or just doing something too grand. But, i liked how Will Smith flew through the air kinda hap-harzardly, i like him tossing cars around in the air like they were pebbles, i liked when he landed and crumbled the street below him, and I like when he stopped the liquor store robbery and through that guy through like two or three walls. It's kind of a down-scale way of showing his muscle....what would his muscle look like against everyday things, not just huge threats. I hope they do something similar like this, not story wise, but effects wise, in the next Superman flick.
July 3, 2008, 2:59 p.m. CST
by Magic Rat
But I think there is a certain bias in films that star actors people here like - like Christian Bale or Edward Norton. I think the love for those actors oversells a movie that isn't that great - like Hulk - and skepticism for a movie starring someone like Will Smith undersells a movie.
July 3, 2008, 3:09 p.m. CST
I'd take Smith over Bale and Norton anyday. He's much more likeable, and that goes a long way, even stacked up against the acting chops of those two...even though Will's no slouch in that department either. Hulk was a much better film than this, simply because it had a focus on what it wanted to be. It had nothing to do with Norton starring.
July 3, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST
"It just doesn't feel authentic. He throws back bottles of whiskey like a cartoon wino, swears at little kids, and just acts curmudgeonly. And I wasn't buying any of it." "We need someone in the role that we just know couldn't be reformed into a clean cut hero (Think Bad Santa)" That was the whole point. It was a trick. You thought you were going to see a movie about a drunk who made a terrible superhero, but it was really about a superhero who made a terrible drunk. This point is emphasized multiple with the lines "It's what you were meant to do." And at the end, when she was giving him the speech, where she called him the god's trick, destined to save mankind... seriously, did you guys not pay any attention?
July 3, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST
You're absolutely right, when Norton's stuck in a shit film, he mails it in. <br><br> At least Will tries to salvage the material...most of the time.
July 3, 2008, 3:43 p.m. CST
For all the WHINING that goes on between here and Digg about the lack of original material coming from Hollywood, you guys sure did tear this one apart. So it didn't have a supervillain, who cares? Every other comic based movie has a super villain. You wanted something different, here it is. Yes, there was a lot crammed into this movie, yes it lost focus half-way through, but maybe that's not so bad. Maybe they didn't WANT to have to make a sequel to this movie, containing all the ideas they had. Maybe they didn't WANT to make the entire movie one superhero gag after another and turn it into the Nutty Professor, or anything with Martin Lawrence. And why do superhero movies always have to have a theme? Why does it HAVE to be about something? I don't want to be lectured again. I'll go watch Superman or Spiderman if I want that. Whatever. You people are all bitter at life.
July 3, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST
"No, you don't think too much. You just found out a dumb plot hole which clashes badly with the movie's own internal logic" He heals quickly, not immediately. So bullets don't hurt him, big deal. Superman gets hurt by the wrong kind of tan and little green rocks, nobody's running around demanding explanations for that are they?
July 3, 2008, 4:11 p.m. CST
I Am Legend was good. And the main reason was because of Smith's performance.
July 3, 2008, 4:15 p.m. CST
...were variations of his Fresh Prince persona, you obviously are insane, or just didn't watch the show. <br><br> And yeah, I can understand some of you guys frustration with his Scientology involvment, but I always try to concentrate on his and Tom Cruise's work rather than the idiotic things they may be spouting in real life.
July 3, 2008, 5:05 p.m. CST
It's actually entertaining at times, but it's totally underdeveloped and slapdash and really bizarre in all the wrong ways. I can't complain too much but I wouldn't recommned it to anyone.
July 3, 2008, 5:07 p.m. CST
That yawner submerged into the arthouse ghetto, the BBC-esque Drawingroom Housing Projects to be specific, never to be seen again. Norton and Bale get flogged when they deserve it - remember Bale getting roasted for that crappy Captain Corellis Mandolin? Believe me, he did.
July 3, 2008, 5:26 p.m. CST
I can't stand those of kind of blanket statements because they take a legitimate issue - the underrepresentation of blacks in noncomedic roles - and undermine it with ignorance of facts. Right off the top of my head, guess you forgot about "Dreamgirls", which grossed over 100 in 2006. And there was no sexuality in "Wild Wild West"? Tried to purge that garbage from my head so I can't say for certain. "Traffic" notoriously featured black male sexuality, though in a negative light, and grossed way over 100. If I can think of 2, maybe 3instances off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.
July 3, 2008, 5:42 p.m. CST
I just don't let personal gripes with the anyones personal views overshadow that person's talent.
July 3, 2008, 6:10 p.m. CST
There was no love scene in "Dream Girls" or "Wild Wild West" (Smith was kissing a woman at the beginning, yes). If you count the drug-addled rape of a minor in "Traffic", and not realize I was speaking of the star of a film having a love interest, you are completely missing my point. It wasn't a blanket statement, it was a precise and carefully considered one.
July 3, 2008, 6:13 p.m. CST
look the movie is ok. there is no real villian - the bad guys are a bit tacked on. clearly many scenes that were to be in it are not. hancock does not have an affair with the pr dudes wife (though he is clearly attracted to her). He does not have sex with groupies and jizz a hole in the wall. plenty of jokes fall flat but the movie is ok.
July 3, 2008, 6:26 p.m. CST
i saw it yesterday,i liked it..of course i work in a hot ass kitchen 6 days a week,so mabye i was just loving not standing up for a few hours and the freezing cold air conditioning,lol,but i thought it was pretty funny,but i can see why ppl could get really pissed about the narrative...it seemed rushed the last 3rd,i was sitting there thinking"this would make a great tv show" way to many ideas to stuff into a movie..like to see bateman and smith work together again
July 3, 2008, 6:33 p.m. CST
There's at least two, admittedly short, love scenes in the film. On quick perusal, with the fast forward at 30 second intervals, I found one thats being cut to in James Thunder Early's performance and a short one lounging on the bed between Beyonce and Jamie Foxx. If you're going the "it's not a love scene unless its got tits and ass, bumpin and grindin" you're playing with semantics. And quite frankly, I get the feeling this is an unwinnable arguement cuz I bet, as others like to say about black women in love scenes, depicting black sexuality in films supposedly objectifies the "hot African blood". Sorry - the original statement simply doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.
July 3, 2008, 7:07 p.m. CST
It was difficult (aka unable for me to easily google it) to get a full listing of R-rated (since that seems to be the only acceptable sex scene... ) movies that grossed over 100 million, but near as i can gather it is 74. Of those 74, and that ain't many, by my count less than half, 33, have sex scenes more intense than Dreamgirls. If Dreamgirls has no sex scene, than neither does Juno, Scream, etc. So, is it a shame no black male actor has a sex scene in those 33? Yup. Is it pretty trifling? Um, yup.
July 3, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST
are you fucking serious? usually if a movie pushes a few button and is good popcorn fare i'll give it a pass but i am legend pushed no buttons at all. in particular when you have a movie made twice before, neither time using the name of the book and you then use the name of the book you are signaling that you intend to more faithfully reproduce it. I rarely wish i hadn't bothered with a movie - most have something in them but i am legend is a notable exception
July 3, 2008, 7:30 p.m. CST
1)will smith is billed most of his movies as a sex symbol and this usually features in the film. Look at him in i am robot. 2) it doesn't make much sense that he would get drunk on the same amount of grog as me (though that is my superpower) 3) spoiler ##### the distance he traveled away at the end in order to help out would indicate that by being in the same town as his opposite number they both would have lost their powers.
July 3, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST
Nope, I don't mean R-Rated. Any Bond movie has the kind of scene I mean. I saw "Dream Girls" and have no memory of what you say, JackRabbit, but I'll certainly rent the DVD and take a look. I'm not trying to play games with you--I'm pointing out a serious gap in the way non-white males are presented. If I blinked and missed something, I'm actually grateful that you pointed it out to me. We'll see.
July 3, 2008, 9:03 p.m. CST
random overweight pedestrain: that lady should sue you!! hancock: yeah?....well you should sue McDonalds cause they fucked you up...
July 3, 2008, 10:36 p.m. CST
by Magic Rat
and how does Hancock get drunk if he's a superhero - in case you haven't seen the movie, he drinks two or three BOTTLES of Hennesey at a time. if you or I were to drink like that, we wouldn't be drunk, we'd be dead.
July 4, 2008, 1:39 a.m. CST
by board shitlez
Really enjoyable flick. It was interesting in that it condensed the usual blockbuster into the first hour and then took off somewhere else into backstory - utterly admirable and actually innovating. Best big money blockbuster I've seen in years - and it pissed all over the plodding ineptitude that was Batman Begins but we should all lather up for the impending wankfest that will accompany the crapulent sequel to that no doubt.
July 4, 2008, 1:49 a.m. CST
by Gap Toothed TV Boy
Wasn't as bad as I thought. The first hour is really quite good (with the exception of Charlize's 87,000 closeups of her looking at Hancock with worry.) but they totally ruin it in the third act. They should have made Charlize's character the villain. Charlize is the most beautiful woman in the world and to see her all made up and looking hot beating up on Will was fun. It would have made more sense than what they came up with, which was LAME LAME LAME!!!
July 4, 2008, 8:35 a.m. CST
Star Wars. Darth Vader was a black guy, and he knocked up Natalie Portman with Luke and Leia. Check IMDb if you think I'm wrong.
July 4, 2008, 8:41 a.m. CST
Shit, that reminds me of how fucking good Tom Cruise was in COLLATERAL, but nobody gives the happy bastard a break because he made the mistake of believing in a silly load of utter bullshit a couple of thousand years younger than the most popular load of utter bullshit...<p> Yeah, Will Smith needs to be a bad guy. Seriously. I'll call his agent.
July 4, 2008, 9:59 a.m. CST
Wow! I can see that this is the wrong place to ask serious questions about film. If a 1/2 second subliminal flash in "DreamGirls", or James Earl Jones voicing "Darth Vader" or two people lounging in bed without touching qualifies as "a love scene" or "sex scene" with a black actor for you guys, I think it reasonable to suspect you don't care about the issue. But why should you? The situation works very much to your advantage. After all: black WOMEN like Halle Berry, Thandie Newton, or Whitney Houston have sex onscreen--as long as it's with white guys. Quite a social advantage. If I were white, I'd pretend not to notice, too.
July 4, 2008, 1:08 p.m. CST
seriously. I honestly enjoyed this movie at least twice as much as the hulk.
July 4, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST
not bad. totally totally different. almost no similarities. does anyone know what happens on the second last page. dammit.
July 4, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST
For a summer popcorn flick, which was what I expected, I think that this works. But the concept could have delivered a much better film. First, it needed to be longer. 90 minutes was not enough to get this done. Should have been at least 2 hours, maybe 15-30 minutes longer than that. Second, it should have been made as an R-rated film. Hancock should have been telling people to fuck off and talking like early-80's Eddie Murphy at the beginning before his transformation. It would have made people hating him much more believeable. Last, they should not have thrown in the storyline from the second half of the film. They should have stuck with the trying to reform himself and become a great hero storyline from the beginning. He could have gotten his redemption throughout the second half of the film and they could have used the second storyline as a sequel where he finally learns about what and why he is a superhero. But instead of what could have been two great films, they smashed together an entertaining film, but one what isn't anywhere near what it could have been.
July 4, 2008, 11:16 p.m. CST
It kind all fall apart in the third act, but I was really buying into up until the Theron secret came out. I agree with the poster that said she gave it away WAY to well early in the flick. You knew something was coming...I thought she'd turn out to be the villain. By the way...What the hell with the villain? Did they cut something out. Why in the hell would he think him and a couple of chuckleheads would be able to take Hancock down with some guns after the mid-movie raid where he clearly walks through hails of bullets to put him the joint in the first place.
July 5, 2008, 3:30 p.m. CST
until they fucked it up with some sappy plot device in which Smith and Cheron were married back in ye old days, and to top it off whenever one is near the other, they become more vulnerable?@?<p>what fucknut decided this would elevate the Movie's synopsis?I loved the idea of a reluctant hero with a I-don't-really-give-two-shits attitude.And not to mention the humor which many may find fault with seeing as how the movie is schzophrenic, half comedy half serious .IMO it would have worked more as a spoof with the take no prisoners violence left intact. (the prison head up the ass scene was comedic gold not to mention the theme from sanford and son.) Overall I still thought it was good. atleast not as shitty as Meteor Man or to a high extent, superman returns.
July 5, 2008, 8:56 p.m. CST
Sometimes I think we get different movies here in KY, than the rest of you see. Hancock was ok (It's not nearly as bad as folks on here are making it our to be), Wall-E was boring drivel even for a kid's flick, and Hellboy SUCKED ASS and there is NO WAY in hell I would spend money to see the second one. That being said I am looking forward to Dark Knight.
July 5, 2008, 9:27 p.m. CST
What Jazz is to the Blues, "Hancock" is to the modern superhero movie. We've seen the story conventions - Superhero comes to grips with who he is, the responsibility to save the world, yadda yadda yadda. Now, with "Hancock", we see the inevitable alternative, the antihero, the superheo who doesn't want to be super, who could care less about saving the world or the people in it. Given, at first I didn't like the film. The handheld style, the constantly racking focus and losing headroom, the gritty nature of the technical aspects. And I admit I went in having read a few reviews, so I was a little turned off as to this "twist that throws the movie off its tracks". However, the twist is a nice one, and blended well with the story. It kept things fresh by not letting the "this isn't the guy we want saving us" story stagnate. Sure we've seen this type of thing before, but not like this, and not in a superheo movie. Tying into mythological conventions about the nature of humanity and finding our soulmates, it attempts to reveal more than unfortunately it delivers on. But by the end, I was on the edge of my seat wondering just what would happen. Will Smith, man, can't be hard on him for anything. This isn't his typical role, in fact it's quite the opposite of his typical role. It was a bit hard to watch, being used to his suave, sateric leading man role, but it was nice to see him stretch. This was the complete opposite direction from "Pursuit of Happyness" but in a good way. Charlize Theron in a superhero film, good choice. Great eyes for the dramatic parts. And well played, albeit the casual glimpses of "this woman has a secret" were far overused (not her fault). Even Jason Bateman gives a good performance... and he hasn't been my favorite since, like, Teen Wolf 2. But all message aside, this is a great antithesis to the all-to-common superhero movie.
July 6, 2008, 3:36 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
As appeared on Nikki Finke's Dateline Hollywood<BR><BR> Hi Nikki, <BR><BR> I just saw Hancock. Not a great film, but a fun film. It uses Jerry McGuire as a framework for its story...with Jason Bateman playing the McGuire role, and Cuba Gooding Jr's star football player, now cast as a drunken super hero in need of a makeover. The story shifts away from the image consultant/agent over to the troubled icon, Will Smith, cast in the Gooding Jr. role. Yes, this is a super hero remake of Jerry McGuire...alright, with the tv series Greatest American Hero thrown in for good measure...and the audience I saw this film with loved it!!! They screamed, cheered, and laughed at all of the right places...and clapped during the end credits, even staying for a brief end scene that appears as the credits roll. The audience, freezed in the isles when they realized there was yet another scene awaiting them...and they stood in place, desperate to watch it. <BR><BR> I have read puzzled comments on many web sites, comments made by those in the general public who have seen Hancock asking, begging to know, why critics seem to hate this movie...and unfairly so, these advocates say. The only reason I could see, is the obvious reason, the implications of a wholesome interracial relationship between a black man and a white woman has brought out the racist in many critics...they won't say it openly, because they can't, that is, and hope to keep their jobs, yet it is true, or at least, that is my honest belief. I suspected it all along, but when I saw this film with a audience of every age range and color...and to see/witness, and hear their collective enjoyment of this film...while recalling the critical bashing of this film, the only logical conclusion of this anger, had to be, has to be, a heavy racial component...and that is just sad. <BR><BR> So again, I raise the question: Is this a great film??? No!!! Is it good??? Well, I would call it fun. A fun entertainment on a lazy summer's day...and isn't that what a big loud block buster is supposed to be??? Not every big film is going to be the next Star Wars, but I must say...Hancock was better than Superman Returns, Ang Lee's The Hulk and Spiderman 3 by leaps and bounds...and that is saying a lot...since all 3 of those film had significantly better reviews...which should tell you all you need to know about hidden motives in regard to Hancock's almost universal bad reviews and the critics behind them!!!
July 6, 2008, 3:44 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
As appeared on Nikki Finke's Dateline Hollywood<BR><BR> Hi Nikki,<BR><BR> I just saw Hancock. Not a great film, but a fun film. It uses Jerry McGuire as a framework for its story...with Jason Bateman playing the McGuire role, and Cuba Gooding Jr's star football player, now cast as a drunken super hero in need of a makeover. The story shifts away from the image consultant/agent over to the troubled icon, Will Smith, cast in the Gooding Jr. role. Yes, this is a super hero remake of Jerry McGuire...alright, with the tv series Greatest American Hero thrown in for good measure...and the audience I saw this film with loved it!!! They screamed, cheered, and laughed at all of the right places...and clapped during the end credits, even staying for a brief end scene that appears as the credits roll. The audience, freezed in the isles when they realized there was yet another scene awaiting them...and they stood in place, desperate to watch it.<BR><BR> I have read puzzled comments on many web sites, comments made by those in the general public who have seen Hancock asking, begging to know, why critics seem to hate this movie...and unfairly so, these advocates say. The only reason I could see, is the obvious reason, the implications of a wholesome interracial relationship between a black man and a white woman has brought out the racist in many critics...they won't say it openly, because they can't, that is, and hope to keep their jobs, yet it is true, or at least, that is my honest belief. I suspected it all along, but when I saw this film with a audience of every age range and color...and to see/witness, and hear their collective enjoyment of this film...while recalling the critical bashing of this film, the only logical conclusion of this anger, had to be, has to be, a heavy racial component...and that is just sad. <BR><BR> So again, I raise the question: Is this a great film??? No!!! Is it good??? Well, I would call it fun. A fun entertainment on a lazy summer's day...and isn't that what a big loud block buster is supposed to be??? Not every big film is going to be the next Star Wars, but I must say...Hancock was better than Superman Returns, Ang Lee's The Hulk and Spiderman 3 by leaps and bounds...and that is saying a lot...since all 3 of those films had significantly better reviews...which should tell you all you need to know about hidden motives in regard to Hancock's almost universal bad reviews and the critics behind them!!!
July 6, 2008, 5:38 a.m. CST
Hancock is a decent movie but it is not nearly as good as Spiderman 3...maybe its as good as Ang Lee's Hulk movie and the Superman movie but even thats stretching it.
July 6, 2008, 6:48 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
When Peter Parker starts having dance offs in the middle of a Spiderman film, you know that Sam Raimi has run out of any real creative integrity. There were too many villains in Spiderman 3...so much so...that none of the villains paid off. We also had to waste valuable story time setting up the origins for each these foes??? And how many love interests does Peter need and love rivals? Gwen Stacey and Mary Jane are great characters...but unless you are going to play-out the real Gwen Stacey storyline, for emotional effect, and story advancement, what is the point of introducing the character at all??? The refusal to go there, hurt the movie, along with Harry's obsession with Peter Parker which is now bordering sexual homo-eroticism!!!<BR><BR>And the biggist fault of Ang Lee's The Hulk is that it forgot about trying to entertain the audience??? There was no humor in the film...and no light moments to allow for audience participation. No moments to clap or route for the Hulk, Bruce Banner or anyone??? <BR><BR>Lastly, Superman Returns forgot about the fun also??? Superman was a dead-beat dad and a stalker. With the murderous super kid hampering the story...and his step father also in the way, so many moments that we could have added to the Superman mythos were lost. Adding to that, Superman was stiff...and aloof...a yuppie metro-sexual super hero??? We could have used a Clark Kent who is not a nerd but a real man, ala the way George Reeves played him...and one with a sly and realistic sense of humor, where appropriate...like any regular joe. Instead, the movie was slow...had almost zero action, played flat...failed to advance the characters...or the story mythos, save for the kid that nobody wanted???<BR><BR>Although flawed, and certainly a film that should have been better, Hancock beats all 3 of these films without so much as an effort.
July 6, 2008, 7 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
When Peter Parker starts having dance offs in the middle of a Spiderman film, you know that Sam Raimi has run out of any real creative integrity. There were too many villains in Spiderman 3...so much so...that none of the villains paid-off. We also had to waste valuable story time setting up the origins for each of these foes??? And how many love interests does Peter need, and love rivals, the latter, from Harry to his fellow photo journalist who became Venom? As for the fore, Gwen Stacey and Mary Jane are great characters...but unless you are going to play-out the real Gwen Stacey storyline, for emotional effect, and story advancement, what is the point of introducing the character at all??? The refusal to go there, hurt the movie, along with Harry's obsession with Peter Parker which is now bordering homo-eroticism!!! This was more like the sexually fueled anger of a rejected lover, than that of someone seeking revenge over the death of a loved one.<BR><BR> And the biggest fault of Ang Lee's The Hulk is that it forgot about trying to entertain the audience??? There was no humor in the film...and no light moments to allow for audience participation. No moments to clap or root for the Hulk, Bruce Banner or anyone??? <BR><BR> Lastly, Superman Returns forgot about the fun also??? Superman was a dead-beat dad and a stalker. With the murderous super kid hampering the story...and his step father also in the way, so many moments that we could have added to the Superman mythos were lost. Adding to that, Superman was stiff...and aloof...a yuppie metro-sexual super hero??? We could have used a Clark Kent who is not a nerd but a real man, ala the way George Reeves played him...and one with a sly and realistic sense of humor, where appropriate...like any regular joe. Instead, the movie was slow...had almost zero action, played flat...failed to advance the characters...or the story mythos, save for the kid that nobody wanted??? <BR><BR> Although flawed, and certainly a film that should have been better, Hancock beats all 3 of these films without so much as an effort.
July 6, 2008, 8:59 a.m. CST
Despite my gripes (albiet minor) with the second half of the movie, Hancock was far more entertaining than Superman Returns. Thanks to messiah for pointing out the obvious flaws of SR and not to mention that silly bulletime effect in which supes take one in the eye sort of speak.Yeah Raimi got carried away with himself in regards to spiderman 3, but it did't go far from the canon path as did SR. Stalker+Dadbeat dad+Superkid does not make for a good Superman film. I mean how could you fuck up the grandaddy of all superheroes?!?I mean seriously, WTF were you thinking Singer?
July 6, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST
by Mace Tofu
Studio heads ask for more COCK.
July 6, 2008, 2:06 p.m. CST
by SID 8.0
This is the stuff summer movies are made of. great story, great acting, great action what more do yuo want. I thought it was one of the better superhero movies period. Very funny in the right places especially the save at the train sequence. Ray showing his stuff on Youtube at the ice cream truck. The bank robbery scene funny and action packed. Hancock telling the cops good job. And cutting the guys hand off with a lamp shade too cool.
July 6, 2008, 3:08 p.m. CST
Glad I went. Just had a good time at the movies. Had a better time with this than some of the other superhero movies mentioned.
July 6, 2008, 3:58 p.m. CST
Fun first half. Shitty handling of the second half. Smith ain't the problem. The problem is that nothing makes a lick of sense and I don't mean to say I didn't get it. I mean to say that the story developments are ARBITRARY. Everyone who is saying "it should have continued on with Hancock's PR makeover" is right.
July 6, 2008, 4:47 p.m. CST
...it hardly warrants any extreme hate. It's an alright flick.
July 6, 2008, 4:50 p.m. CST
The Nikki Fink lady quoted above is on point with that. That said, I wouldn't call any of those movies "bad" either, but Hancock was definitely more enjoyable.
July 6, 2008, 5:41 p.m. CST
wasn't that bad....
July 7, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST
This movie SUCKED! #1 reason why: this was an obviously R-rated movie toned down at the hands of MPAA lobbyists and MBA's who run movie studios. The suits should have just said "screw it" and kept it R. This is a textbook example of lazy, by-the-numbers summer movie schlock. "The Dark Knight" will swallow up this SOB whole!
July 8, 2008, 5:21 p.m. CST
by Second Try
Comedy sucked, drama sucked, story sucked, action and effects the best parts