Hancock

Rate the movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just saw Hancock and it wasn't as bad as everyone was saying. The only complaint I have is the way they explained his origin. The reason why he has his powers is pretty cool in all but I felt they could've made the origin a little more detailed. With that said, the movie was awesome.:grin::grin::grin:

My rating for Hancock:

~8.5/10~
 
Peter Berg is gonna be a high demand action director and i can't wait to see what he's gonna do with a revamping of Dune and we know he can get a good cast for he is so well liked by actors.
 
Hancock International Poster:

hancockposter.jpg
Why wasn't that a green lantern movie instead?
 
This was the only movie where shaky cam fit. It fit the motif of him being a more "realistic" superhero, since in the real world people would probably gripe about him causing damage even if he was doing good.
 
블라스;15187561 said:
"Terrible"? "Mediocre"? "Poorly executed"?
I think I've finally had it with movie critics, and that goes for the idiotic "pros" out there and the internet armchair critic dorks in here. If I was a rude person, I'd wish them all to eat a certain substance that comes out of a certain part of the body, but I am very polite.

It's like they just don't want to have fun watching a movie, but whatever.

I loved this movie, and I had a lot of fun, and I understood everything (Btw, people crying "PLOT HOLE!!!" should really start paying attention to the movie instead of thinking "clever" smartass little phrases to post on the internet later).

I'm kinda pissed Berg wanted an R movie, and had to cut a lot of stuff, but that just tells me they'll release an extended DVD or a director's cut or something.

Point is, I was expecting a lot from a Peter Berg superhero movie, and I got it.

Anyway, 9/10.

Yes, yes and thank you. People are really making big deals out of small issues in these reviews... making the reviews more entertaining than informative. I guess its fun/easy to take shots at big movies, regardless of how good they are. Well said. 4/10? Really? 1.5/5? I'm sorry, but that's just plain old ridiculous.
 
Saw this movie last night.

Excellent start...HORRIBLE middle...TERRIBLE finish.

I never wanted to see this flick in the 1st place, but friends wanted me to go. I'm going to have to decline going to just any movie from now on simply because my friends want to hang out.
 
Okay, here's my full review:

As I sit here, trying to sort through the scattered details of my experience watching Hancock, I’m left with a simple question: What happened? We have Will Smith, arguably the biggest movie star on the face of the planet, playing a conflicted superhero. We have a solid supporting cast featuring the always engaging Charlize Theron and comically gifted Jason Bateman as a husband and wife team who help the mighty-louse achieve respectability. There’s even an emerging hot-shot directorial talent, Peter Berg (The Kingdom, Friday Night Lights) running the show. So why is Hancock such an incomprehensible mess? No really, I’d like to know.

It can’t be because the script was hopeless, because it has been a hot property in Hollywood for a fair number of years. Sold and produced under the title Tonight, He Comes (*tee-hee*), then given the slightly less porn-centric moniker Hancock, the film was initially intended to be a blackly humorous deconstruction of the superhero genre with a thoroughly unlikable protagonist. My guess is that that’s where the Hollywood heavies stepped in and made some drastic changes in the name of the kid-friendly PG-13 rating and the guarantee of summertime dollars. The hell with logic or narrative focus, not to mention artistic integrity!

As it stands now, the Fresh Prince’s titular character isn’t even that much of a scoundrel. He’s more of a surly alcoholic with a bawdy streak and a penchant for leaving bedlam and destruction in his wake. After saving nice-guy Public Relations executive Ray Embrey (Bateman) from a train-wreck (Ironic, much?), the struggling professional decides to take on Hancock as a project. The drunken crusader, initially resistant, humours Ray and allows himself to be incarcerated for his numerous crimes against the city’s architecture. After a montage of therapy/prison life scenes, he’s in reluctant hero-mode, uneasily helping the police stop bank robberies, and donning a goofy black costume. However, hidden complications soon loom, and when they come into play, Hancock and Ray’s lives are irreversibly altered, and the film itself veers off into Looney-land.

The plot synopsis above really only covers the first half-hour of this ninety-minute snoozer. Whatever impressions you’ve gotten from the movie’s marketing campaign should be dismissed, as Hancock is not the comedic hero flick you’ve been expecting. Each of the three acts manages to take the film into a different genre: The first section is a foul-mouthed comedy in which the word “*******” is uttered, perhaps, more than any film in the history of cinema. Then there is a clunky transition, and we’re suddenly in action-thriller territory, with a predictable surprise development and a truly dismal attempt at a superhero battle. Finally, after we’ve grown frustrated and tired from being jerked around, the movie develops into a tragic romance that is so overblown it’ll likely draw titters from the peanut gallery and mass watch-checking from everyone else.

Through it all, Will Smith stands tall and strives valiantly to entertain. He’s actually quite good here, fearlessly kidding his family-friendly image and being pretty darn winning in the process. Jason Bateman is equally on par, essentially holding the film together with his well-executed straight-man routine. On the other hand, I don’t really know what to say about Charlize Theron. Half of the film consists of her giving ridiculously over-the-top reaction shots in the presence of Hancock, hammering home that a “Big Plot Twist” is on the horizon. I half expected her to jump off the screen and plop down into the seat next to mine, where she could then nudge me knowingly in the ribs every ten seconds. Her work in the latter part of the film, when she is actually given dialogue, is passable, but was overshadowed by the story sending my Preposterousness Meter screaming into the red.

By all appearances, Hancock wreaks of the work of a desperate studio who, needing a July 4th tent-pole film, have taken an edgy comedy and cut and slashed it into something resembling bland family entertainment. When one observes the abundance of plot-threads and ideas shoe-horned into such a scant running time, you know something is rotten in Tinseltown. If anyone ever decides to assemble a detailed behind-the-scenes expose on the backstage politics going on during Hancock’s production, it’ll be a worthwhile Amazon purchase.

Hancock is a complete belly-flop of a film that lacks a single justification for its own existence. This season has already seen two superior super-powered epics in Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and with the impending Dark Knight and Hellboy II, Hancock is utterly outclassed. At this point in the game, the super-hero film bar is at such a lofty level that franchise hopefuls have a zero margin for error. The people behind Hancock shot themselves in the foot the second they fired it out of the gate half-cocked.

1.5 out of 5

So, let me see if I understand your complaints:

1) The movie was around Hollywood a long time it should have been polished
2) The plot twist was "preposterous."
3) They foreshadowed the plot twist too much
4) You believe the studio was desperate
5) There are so many superhero movies to compare Hancock to.

So, your only problems with the movie contradict each other, and the rest of your problems don't seem to have anything to do with the actual experience of watching film. Interesting. Sounds like standard critic fare to me. I really love the fact that you think a twist is preposterous in a movie who's very premise (superhero) is preposterous. And can give a movie a 1.5 despite great performances by its two leads. That's incredible.

Another thing the critics say is the "genre-changing" which I can understand how that might put some people off who, i dunno, don't like change or something, but there's no reason changing tone should keep a movie from being entertaining or meaningful. It sure didn't for me.

This is a movie who's box office could potentially be ruined by the poor reviews. Most people who see this movie, that I've spoken with, enjoy it thoroughly- those who don't like it sometimes sound like they didn't see the film at all to me. It would be a shame if the masses are robbed of a great experience by a few gripers.
 
You feelings catchers are so funny regarding the people who didn't like this. Will Smith or Peter Berg is that you?!?

Yeah some of us want to be entertained don't be mad we can't be entertained by an unfocused piece of cinema. Iron Man, Wall-E, Incredible Hulk and even Step Brothers all the movies I've seen this summer were far more entertaining cause they were consistent and focused in what they were doing. This movie had an identity crisis all throughout and it hindered the final product in my eyes. I don't need a summer blockbuster to be thought provoking I just needed to be coherent and well directed this movie was neither and is sadder when you realize all the talent that was involved from actors to director. Get over yourselves.
 

:Takes bow:

Thank you, thank you :woot:

Yes, yes and thank you. People are really making big deals out of small issues in these reviews... making the reviews more entertaining than informative. I guess its fun/easy to take shots at big movies, regardless of how good they are. Well said. 4/10? Really? 1.5/5? I'm sorry, but that's just plain old ridiculous.

You're getting on me for posting a low rating for this movie. THAT'S just plain old rediculous. If I said this was an easy 10, I guarantee you'd use my rating to further your agenda of promoting how good the movie is (in your opinion)

Shocking fact here: Not everyone agrees with you. I know, this is hard to believe :whatever:

Instead of complaining and insulting other people who disliked the movie by calling their views rediculous, try making a rational argument to debate these people you disagree with.

I thought this movie had a mess of a third act and flat out lost the momentum it was gaining. This does not make me wrong or right, it simply makes me not like the movie.
 
This is a movie who's box office could potentially be ruined by the poor reviews.

Oh please poor reviews didn't stop the National Treasure movies from being hits. Like Hancock those were tailor made for the general public and their word of mouth made them hits. I said it before the general audience is going to eat this one up like cotton candy somehow I doubt poor reviews will make it flop.
 
Yes, yes and thank you. People are really making big deals out of small issues in these reviews... making the reviews more entertaining than informative. I guess its fun/easy to take shots at big movies, regardless of how good they are. Well said. 4/10? Really? 1.5/5? I'm sorry, but that's just plain old ridiculous.

Well, I wouldn't call them "entertaining" :csad:
If I were you, I wouldn't bother anymore. Let's just ignore these people and talk about the movie.

Man, seeing Hancock with his
pet eagle at the very end
was so awesome :up:
I really hope they make a sequel with a proper
supervillain
.
 
The fact that this is not based on an earlier property, fanboys really don't have anything to gripe about. What can you compare and contrast it to?
 
The fact that this is not based on an earlier property, fanboys really don't have anything to gripe about. What can you compare and contrast it to?


Movies that are good?
 
The fact that this is not based on an earlier property, fanboys really don't have anything to gripe about. What can you compare and contrast it to?

Quite the generalization there. I know it's hard to grasp but some of us don't have issue with change in adaptations cause that's what adaptations are supposed to do. So long as it's plausible and well handled and still retains themes from the source I see no problem with something not playing out like my comic books that's what I have the comic books for.

Here's my gripe and only speaking for myself I've been following this project since Mann was attached. It was always pitched as an everyday flawed person with superpowers but never mentioned any redemption point or none of that. And yes you could make a movie about a derilict flawed superpowered being he could still be drunk and destructive but give him a superpowered antogonist and the city sees why he is so valuable. There are many directions to take a satire on modern superhero fare but this went from satire early on to just another generic superhero story. I compare it to what it could've been and what it ended up being only. The first 30 minutes clearly roll with the original premise but the rest feels like bits from different movies spliced into it and it feels like it has no identity.
 
The fact that this is not based on an earlier property, fanboys really don't have anything to gripe about. What can you compare and contrast it to?

I don't care that he is a non-established superhero. I was very open to this movie. Had the 2nd half been better, I wouldn't be complaining. In fact, I'd be praising it.
 
Movies that are good?

:whatever: Well you can only class it in its own genre which is the Superhero Genre, and as stated it doesnt have the history a lot of those heroes have so geek...........sorry I mean fanboys seem to be angry for nothing. The audience I saw this film with loved it and many of the GA love it, besides this wasnt meant to be some masterpiece just a good fun movie which it was.
 
A solid 8

This movie was NOT what the previews made it seem to be AT ALL. I would have been really pissed off if Smith and Theron had just died at the end, not how you end a summer blockbuster flick lol. The scene where Hancock was attempting to fly away from Theron as her heart rate got stronger was amazing. It was the most powerful scene I'd seen since Black Snake Moan where Sam was playing the guitar during the thunderstorm w/ Ricci at his feet. :up:
 
This was the only movie where shaky cam fit. It fit the motif of him being a more "realistic" superhero, since in the real world people would probably gripe about him causing damage even if he was doing good.

That's what the spidey movies should have had.
 
I honestly think a lot of the one liners he had could have been said by Spidey, only more PG in nature. His insult towards the fat guy as well as his banter with the criminal in the bank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"