Hancock

[BloodyWolverine]

I like the whole a$$ hole theme of the movie. It kinda was a character part you will remember from the movie. And we know we like new cool catch fraises and lines. I be surprised if Hancock makes 200 million domestically for its not gonna make Iron Man or Indy numbers. I again state liked the movie and if i didn't think i would i wouldn't have went. I have not walked out of a movie i have went too. My selection about a movie has worked out for me so far.

 

[Warhammer]

I give this movie a solid 8. The film was different, and I liked it. The plot twist and superhero mythos/backstory did not bother me, though I wish it was a bit more specific. Sure, it was out there, but it wasn't like it wasn't plausible. It is fiction and about a superhero, after all. The shift from comedy to serious drama did not bother me, as that is not an automatic indicator that the film is bad or not focused/sloppy.

Rating:

- 3 out of 4 stars
- 8 out of 10

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.

If all of the fanboys on this site realized that, then this site would be a better place. It's a damn shame that some here are too dumb to realize that, whether it's a comic book or any other form of literature.

:

 

[Warhammer]

I'd say Will Smith gets too much love at this point.

His tendency to crank out lazy and forgettable junk is growing tiresome: Bad Boys II, Wild Wild West, Men In Black II, Hitch, Shark Tale... This travesty...

Even his more enjoyable films, such as I Am Legend, I, Robot and Pursuit Of Happiness are wildly uneven. They're watchable, but far down the totem pole from similar films in their respective genres. He has yet to contribute anything truly great to the world of cinema, other than box-office sales, which tend to be short-lived.

Its time for him to ditch this whole blockbuster thing and start working with some directors who pack some substance. Jeez, a lot of top-notch filmmakers would kill to give him some ace material as his name guarantees easy funding, distribution and box-office.

Here is one thing that I don't understand. By the way the first part of the post reads, I get the notion that you actually blame Will Smith primarily for a bad film. Now, I understand that the actors (primarily the lead actor(s)) can be partly responsible for a film being bad, but it is almost never solely the lead actor's fault for a film being bad unless the performance was B-movie horrible. I mean, you mentioned Shark Tale, yet Will Smith only provided a voice in an ensemble cast. How is that Will Smith's fault? If anything, the blame for a film being bad goes to one (or all) of the following three: the director, the writer, and the production studio.

I fail to see what kind of point you are trying to make in this entire post.

...Hitch was well-received by the critics, by the way.

 

[terry78]

I think actors that people don't like will always be blamed regardless. Even a good actor that's hated will have vitriol tossed their way.

 

[Warhammer]

It's a damn shame, too, because many people fail to realize exactly why a film is bad. The actors always get the flack.

 

[Varient]

Well hookhand heard he was in the hospital and I am sure went from there. But no, it wasn't explained very well. I am very interested in seeing the original uncut version. I truly thought Charlize, Bateman, or the kid might die but I knew Hancock wouldn't die...or more figured as without Hancock there is no more money for the studio.

I was thinking the same thing as I watched it,.... They cut alot of story out to lower the rating and I'm Sure Hook-hands knowledge was part of that.

I enjoyed this more because Like Those who paid attention I realized that Hancock was twisted because he had spent decades not knowing who he is, what he is, where he was from.

You spend almost a hundred years being so different watching ANYONE you grow attached to grow old and die, Only knowing that you are so much more physically than those around you WITHOUT the grounding that ANY other superhero seems to get, (The Kents? The Parkers? etc,...), and many would BE WORSE.

All these folk complaining about the movie in most cases are just put out of their comfort zones. they don't look for anything deeper than the superherorics and because of this they call it a poor film.

Heck compared to Superman returns,... Hancock is Oscar material.

V.

BTW,.. I rolled @ "You are not going to hit me with that

Spoiler

Cement Truck.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Will Smith is not why I dislike the movie. Will Smith gives a great performance, as does Bateman. The script/ story is where the error of this film lies.

 

[carrrnuttt]

Heck compared to Superman returns,... Hancock is Oscar material.

I found that I enjoyed this movie so much more than I did Superman Returns and...dare I say it...Spiderman 3. At least I didn't have anything to roll my eyes over.

That is, unless I was some over-critical comic book geek that looks to compare a superhero story that only has a 90-minute movie to introduce itself to comic book superhero stories that span years, even decades of backstory.

The way this movie went, it actually opened up some interesting possibilities for a movie or comic that covers more of the backstory.

 

[Midnight Black]

I enjoyed this movie for many reasons, primarily because it showed a man with gifts who chooses to neglect his gifts and how the public scrutinizes an outcast and someone different than them, but then changes by becoming "human" in the sense and learns to be a better Superhero for this.

Irony, Irony, Irony!

P.S. As a Black Man I have to say this. I find it hilarious and very saddening as f***, that a Black Man's Kryptonite would be a white girl.
Watch Undercover Brother
*Laughing in shame at irony and social taboos*

 

[DACMAN]

I like the whole a$$ hole theme of the movie. It kinda was a character part you will remember from the movie. And we know we like new cool catch fraises and lines. I be surprised if Hancock makes 200 million domestically for its not gonna make Iron Man or Indy numbers. I again state liked the movie and if i didn't think i would i wouldn't have went. I have not walked out of a movie i have went too. My selection about a movie has worked out for me so far.

You really need to work on your grammer and sentence structure.

 

[DACMAN]

I enjoyed this movie for many reasons, primarily because it showed a man with gifts who chooses to neglect his gifts and how the public scrutinizes an outcast and someone different than them, but then changes by becoming "human" in the sense and learns to be a better Superhero for this.

Irony, Irony, Irony!

P.S. As a Black Man I have to say this. I find it hilarious and very saddening as f***, that a Black Man's Kryptonite would be a white girl.
Watch Undercover Brother
*Laughing in shame at irony and social taboos*

Racy much?

 

[carrrnuttt]

You really need to work on your grammer and sentence structure.

Pet peeve: People who correct other people's GRAMMAR, by referring to their GRAMMER.

 

[Gilpesh]

It was an enjoyable movie. It would have been a lot better if they had picked the right tone so it did not shift so much toward the end. Also the ending was a little bit meh.

 

[K.B.]

My review of Hancock

(INCLUDES SPOILERS SO BEWARE !!!)









I have gone back and read what you folks have had to say on this film and have seen so much bashing, both unnecessary and over blown (and one contradicting "review"), that I feel it is time to throw in my two cents on it.

I give this movie a 5/5 (voted 10/10 on here)

This was a really great movie and truly delivers where MANY films based on already existing comics fail. Basically they took 4-5 differnt comics (Superman, Luke Cage, The Eternals) mixed them all together and gave us an original take on the superhero genre and not some bland retread.

Hancock has made it onto my list of "great comic book films NOT based on a comic book" (Unbreakable, Donnie Darko, Children of Men, The Incredibles, Hancock).

Many people here are complaining about the "shift in tone" which I feel is just a b.s. excuse. Whats the problem? The film has moments of comedy, romance, handles superheroes in a realistic and smart way and gives us some of the best action seen in a movie in a long time.

There isn't really any "shift in tone". A film can only be pure action or pure jokes? Bull. Every film shifts gears and Hancock was no different. The characters all came off very realistic and believable. Yes there are times like the end where things get a little "darker" but it isnt a jarring jump and it still stays within the context of thier universe.

"Plot holes": I've seen many claim about plot holes which honestly there arent any. Sure the film was supposed to be R rated and they cut a lot out but Berg still trimed it down and got this film tight enought that none of the information is lost. If you follow you can still connect the dots. In a world where Han***** all over youtube and sightings of him are al lover the t.v. 24/7, why is it hard for fanboys to grasp that Red could track him down to the hospital (especially considering we see a news report on it)?

The origin: I cant beleive people are both confused or complain over this. Han***** origin is simply put: fantastic and original. We arent given info right away and things are alluded to and once we get to the twist, oh boy what a twist! We arent given a lame genetic experiment, radioactivity, or alien origin which would have been lame.

We love our heroes because they are wrought with tragedy which makes them more human and Hancock is no different. Here we have a man who cannot love who he is destined to love otherwise they both die. This is something I think the fanobys here are taking for granted and seem to overlook.

The villain: The bad guy in this is just awesome and is another point where the filmmakers were pure genius with. We could have gotten a lame corrupt c.e.o. with super powers or even worse, Batemans character getting/having powers and him and Hancock duke it out over Charlieze. This would have been a pretty bad way to go and you can't deny that. Fans have said "how did he know about the hopsital?" It was all over the news so it would not have been hard to put 2 and 2 together especially for a man smart enought to rile up the prisoners and cause a riot.

The one liners: Arent annoying at all. Usually in the summer blockbusters they are advertised like crazy and the one liners are super annoying, not so in Hancock (prolly cuz most of the one liners cant be advertised on t.v. )


For me this film did not fail. There was not one thing I hated about this film or one thing that made me roll my eyes. If anything, the last scene I would have changed. After Hancock jumps away we see more of Theron coming back to life and Bateman/son relieved. Fade to black. We see "3 months later" on the screen (cuz sorry, after all that, one month is not enough to reconcile) we play out the same scene we have in the film of her and Bateman discussing, maybe throw in a line about Hancock not being seen since,them celebrating thier anniverssary, Charlieze looks up and we see the moon shot, Batman looks up with a smile. We then pan up to see Hancock in the sky unseen by them watching solumly at the one thing he so wants but cant have a la Superman returns.

 

[Mr. Credible]

how are people not liking this movie? i mean, maybe it's not your cup of tea, but it was in no way bad.

i loved it, i gave it a 9. and i can't wait to see the unrated director's cut.

but seriously, this movie was hilarious in parts, it had a great story, good effects and action, the performances, especially smith, were great, and the ending was not as big a change of pace as i'd been lead to believe. i would say this was one of the best movies i'd seen this summer, had it not been for iron man, hulk, wall-e, forgetting sarah marshall, and wanted.

but still, this was a damn good flick. i mean, screw the studios for taking so much from it, but if they can eff with the movie this much just to get a lower rating, and it still comes out this good? forget about it.

i can't see how anyone gave this lower than a 6. will's performance alone makes this worth viewing.

 

[Episode29]

Here is one thing that I don't understand. By the way the first part of the post reads, I get the notion that you actually blame Will Smith primarily for a bad film. Now, I understand that the actors (primarily the lead actor(s)) can be partly responsible for a film being bad, but it is almost never solely the lead actor's fault for a film being bad unless the performance was B-movie horrible. I mean, you mentioned Shark Tale, yet Will Smith only provided a voice in an ensemble cast. How is that Will Smith's fault? If anything, the blame for a film being bad goes to one (or all) of the following three: the director, the writer, and the production studio.

I fail to see what kind of point you are trying to make in this entire post.

...Hitch was well-received by the critics, by the way.

I don't dislike Will Smith at all. In fact, how can anyone not like the guy??? He's the Fresh Prince, dagnabbit!

What I do feel, however, is that he has a tendency to choose very poor films to be in. Yes, he is usually engaging, but the films fall far short. I would like to see him seek out some smarter, and more distinctive material that such audience-manipulating generic junk. I Am Legend was a good start, but buggered by a lousy second half. Yes, it's the more the fault of the directors, etc. But why does Smith seem to go out of his way to work with less than spectacular talent? It's odd...

 

[Episode29]

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.

Yes, the premise is preposterous. As much as Spidey, Superman, yadda, yadda, yadda. Just because the premise is so, doesn't make a bizarre plot twist acceptable. Hancock's second act, as overbearingly dramaticized as it is, is unearned. The film doesn't even try to give any sort of intense character development or interesting subtext. It's bland "types" following the dotted lines. I upped the film from one to 1.5 because of the leads. But guess what, I liked Wesley Snipes in Blade 3 but the movie blew. Liking the actors does not equate likeing the movie, especially in a story-driven blockbuster. This isn't a Woody Allen film.

Changing tones are effective in films that warrant them and understand how to properly transition between them. Hancock is like a lurching elevator, bouncing haphazardly around without any sort of fluidity or focus.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't some small indie film that's going to be destroyed by bad press. It's a cash juggernaut that's going to do just fine. Word of mouth will have some effect, but it'll do decently. Although, I do hope it fails because it would teach the makers a lesson about trying to sell a crappy, lazy product to the public and expect praise.

I obviously didn't see the same film as you. Perhaps I was on less mood-altering chemicals. I'm thrilled your friends had fun too. My friends thought it was garbage, c'est la vie.

Yeah, the masses being robbed of Hancock would be a tragedy akin to Tianemen Square. Maybe I should start a non-profit organization...

Honestly, I don't care if you hate my review. That's fine. Write one of your own. I stand by what I've written, and my editor was more than pleased with it. I suppose it was standard critic fare in the sense that it disliked the film. Most reviews have been like that. Again, sorry for not heaping praise on a half-a$$ed effort. You're anger towards it is kinda amusing though... Now you know how I felt watching the damn film.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

You really need to work on your grammer and sentence structure.

Um i get tired of saying this and a few here know this but i am learning disabled and so i don't spell or do grammer right. Sorry if its a problem for you but try being slow an knowing that you are.

 

[SapphirePrima]

This movie was okay. Not up there with I Am Legend, or Ali but it was enjoyable.

The backstory of Mary and Hancock needed alot more of explaining, imo.


3.5/5

 

[K.B.]

SPOILERS AHEAD





I dont think you know what a transition or tone is because Hancock was not jarring at all and it flows quite fine.

As far as the plot twist, thats exactly what a plot twist IS. A twist in plot that the veiwer did not see coming and the one in Hancock not only is a great twist but also one that is an integral part of the story and development of the main character.

In the end Hancock sacrifices himself by leaving the person he is pre destined to love and be attracted to to save her life and thus does something truly horoic.

intense character development or interesting subtext? Theres TONS of both in Hancock. Sorry it dosent belittle the audience and the filmmakers didnt feel the need to bash it over the audiences head or (even after cutting the film) play down to the auidence and superhero genre.

 

[FIREPHOENIX]

Not a bad movie but not the greatest either.


Charlize Theron rocked. Best part of the movie was her character.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

Finally someone who got this movie like i did. Yes it could have been longer but so many just are so picky about the twist and the ending. Just because no mega villain like Iron Monger. Seems to me that Hancock and Mary were mortal and what better way then to have a human villain hurt Mary. Yes they are a couple of Rats and if Hancock was healthy could kick them too the moon.

But i think i like Hancock for its differant and not Spiderman or Batman. TDK will be amazing but Hancock is a nice comicisk change up.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

Will Smith is not why I dislike the movie. Will Smith gives a great performance, as does Bateman. The script/ story is where the error of this film lies.

i totally agree...
the beginning of the movie was nice...the ending was so easy to forget and was very...strange
3/10

 

[K.B.]

Well Im convinced that anyone who doesnt "get" the whole origin/twist/ending is completly ******ed. It is not hard to follow at all and everything is made clear and explained.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well Im convinced that anyone who doesnt "get" the whole origin/twist/ending is completly ******ed. It is not hard to follow at all and everything is made clear and explained.

What I don't get are people like you that insult people who don't like the movie. Why do you people care so much about my opinion of the movie? Does it make you like it less? If so, then your love of the movie is not that strong.

Also, it is obvious you can't defend your points. In debates, resorting to insults means you can't defend yourself.