| Author |
Topic:
Hancock
|
Bill-Thompson
Registered:
Jul '08
|
Date Posted:
7/4 4:01pm
Subject:
Hancock
|
|
Don't listen to the reviews, Hancock was a very good movie. The biggest complaint seems to be that people were expecting a fluffy, funny, summer movie, and that's not what Hancock is at all. From the very start it's completely different than any superhero movie done yet because the hero doesn't want to be a hero at all. The main villain of the movie is Hancock himself as he battles to overcome his own deficiencies and be a better person and hero. The effects were good, the story was good, the acting was very good, there were plenty of nifty moments where he used his powers in ways that aren't the comic book norm, there were only a few minor problems with the plot. A very good movie.
-----signature-----
"When you have reached the end of the road then you can decide whether to go to the left or the right, to fire or to water. If you make those decisions before you have even set foot upon the road it will take you nowhere." - Galen
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
7/4 4:18pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
- Date Edited:
7/4 4:19pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
The2ndQuest
|
Actually, I think the problem with Hancock is it's first half is a fluffy near-R comedy but the second half is more tragic and dramatic, but because of the first half, the second half lacks the emotional punch that could have made the movie great.
That said, the first half is funny and the second half of the movie is a pleasant surprise since most people are probably going in thinking they've seen the whole movie in the trailers but there's more there than they'll think.
So, overall, not a great movie but definitely enjoyable, though more of a rental movie. If it had come out 10 years ago it probably would have been seen as a better movie, but compared to the current decade's superhero movies, Hancock feels decidely below the bar.
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
"If I don't die, I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth." - Drew_Atreides
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Bill-Thompson
Registered:
Jul '08
|
Date Posted:
7/4 4:21pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
|
I disagree about the first half of the movie. It wasn't designed to be funny at all, it was to show how much of a lost soul Hancock really is and how he really doesn't get human interaction in the least. There was some humor from that, but that wasn't the main focus. I think most people focused on the laughs and missed all the layering that was being put into place for later in the movie when you really begin to understand just how desolate and alone Hancock really is, and how his smart ass routine is his way of denying that fact.
-----signature-----
"When you have reached the end of the road then you can decide whether to go to the left or the right, to fire or to water. If you make those decisions before you have even set foot upon the road it will take you nowhere." - Galen
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
7/4 4:59pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
- Date Edited:
7/4 5:00pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
The2ndQuest
|
No it was definitely intended to be a comedy in the first half- just that Smith and Bateman alternate roles as straight man to the other so it's harder to pin down tradionally. But the results of Hancock's actions are supposed to be funny for the problems they cause, things like the bully are supposed to funny, Hancock's careless attitude is supposed to be funny too.
It's not until the second half that they start to analysis that comedic first half and begin really presenting the lonlieness thesis.
Point in fact: you suggest most people will go in to the movie thinking it's a comedy. Well, 99% of the trailers giving people this impression are composed of the first half's events (from drunk to bank hero) and leave out almost everything from the second half (outside of the twister scene).
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
"If I don't die, I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth." - Drew_Atreides
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Bill-Thompson
Registered:
Jul '08
|
Date Posted:
7/4 5:22pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
The2ndQuest posted:
No it was definitely intended to be a comedy in the first half- just that Smith and Bateman alternate roles as straight man to the other so it's harder to pin down tradionally. But the results of Hancock's actions are supposed to be funny for the problems they cause, things like the bully are supposed to funny, Hancock's careless attitude is supposed to be funny too.
It's not until the second half that they start to analysis that comedic first half and begin really presenting the lonlieness thesis.
Point in fact: you suggest most people will go in to the movie thinking it's a comedy. Well, 99% of the trailers giving people this impression are composed of the first half's events (from drunk to bank hero) and leave out almost everything from the second half (outside of the twister scene).
The comedy is there to trick you, and isn't even comedy per say. It's funny at the expense of the humanity of Hancock. The comedy only exists because of how disassociated Hancock is with humanity. It is not intended to be a comedy in any way, but rather the first half is intended to set up the eventual rise, possible fall, but in the end standing strong of the new, improved, and very human Hancock.
-----signature-----
"When you have reached the end of the road then you can decide whether to go to the left or the right, to fire or to water. If you make those decisions before you have even set foot upon the road it will take you nowhere." - Galen
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/4 5:26pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
|
Regardless of the intent, the split between the first half and second half comes across as a clumsy inconsistency of tone - two (very) different movies that can't really be reconciled with each other.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Bill-Thompson
Registered:
Jul '08
|
Date Posted:
7/4 5:33pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
|
Except their isn't an inconsistency in tone. People that want jokes and only jokes look at the first half and see a lot of jokes. People that are actually looking for the story watch the first half and see all the layering that is being put in place for the ultimate climax of the movie. It's classic storytelling at its finest, and something Hollywood has sorely been lacking, they make the viewers think one thing while actually doing something else. It's kind of sad that the majority of people have been so bereft of that type of storytelling for years that they don't even recognize when it is going on. The tone is the same throughout, a man that doesn't know who or what he is and where his place in life. The only thing that changes is that as he realizes who and what he is he doesn't feel the need to crack as many comments to cover up his emotional distress over the situation.
-----signature-----
"When you have reached the end of the road then you can decide whether to go to the left or the right, to fire or to water. If you make those decisions before you have even set foot upon the road it will take you nowhere." - Galen
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/4 5:38pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
Sorry but Hancock has absolutely nothing to do with "classic storytelling" by any stretch of the imagination. It feels sloppy and rushed through production to make a summer deadline.
If you want to see true "classic storytelling", watch the real classics.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
mrjop2
Registered:
Jun '07
|
Date Posted:
7/4 7:44pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
Let's not forget about the profanity! I mean, I can't count the number of times they used the a**h*** word on two hands. That's not including the dozens of other cuss words the movie uses. The plot for goodness sake was built on profanity even!
This was my most anticipated movie this year and I feel like they stabbed me in the back by throwing out that junk!
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
The2ndQuest
Title: :
-Games
-LACWAC
-Lit Mod of Death
Registered:
Jan '00
|
Date Posted:
7/4 9:03pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
- Date Edited:
7/4 9:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
The2ndQuest
|
The profanity was only used mildly from what i recall- certainly not gratuitous. The whole "Call me an ******** one more time" was a running joke, so it's only natural that it'd pop up several times. (and I really don't know what you're referring to by "the plot being based on profanity"- unless you mean the snickering the title character's name sometimes gets due to it's "base").
And, don 't get me wrong- I'm not oblivious to the attempts at layering for the character in the earlier half of the film- but most of that is Smith's acting abilities, not the script, really. It's there, but it never connects, and does a disservice to the later material (the whole struggle at the hospital at the end should have been a massively emotional sequence for the audience through Hancock, but it's a payoff that didn't have the right buildup to be satisfying or effective.
And it's still a decent, fun little flick- it falls shy of greatness, though. The short runtime could be somewhat at fault too- another 15-20 minutes of character scenes could have elevated the film's effectiveness tremendously.
-----signature-----
K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker?
Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
"If I don't die, I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth." - Drew_Atreides
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
mrjop2
Registered:
Jun '07
|
Date Posted:
7/4 10:09pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
That's what I meant about building the plot on profanity. The crowd constantly called A**h*** and he goes around saying, "Call me an a**h***, just one more time, and then that person would go ahead and say it one more time. I know that that scenario is a continuous joke through the movie just like when Marty McFly in Back to the Future kept on being called 'chicken'. But each time that joke played, they used that single profanity at least 3 times, and that joke ran at least three or four times in the movie, which is 12 times he cussed using that single word. He also said, 's***' alot as well, mostly in "Oh, s***"
For me at least, that's all cursing and if you add it all up, it's alot of cussing which continuously kept me from enjoying the movie. In the trailers they originally had "Call me idiot one more time." That would have been better in my opinion.
That's me though. I can handle occasional cussing throughout the movie, but between the angry crowds and the main characters, I couldn't enjoy this as much.
This is not the only reason I did not like the movie. It wasn't really as funny as I was hoping it would be. The funniest jokes were the ones that they showed in the movie trailers. Other than that, I didn't get the chance to laugh. Also at times, the movie felt too short, and other times too long. I think they could have spent more time with his drunken hero days, which was the funniest parts of the movie, but no later than a quarter of the way through the movie, it got too serious, and focused less on the humor.
As a comedy, this movie could have been great! As a serious superhero movie, which they did appear to try to do at the end of the movie, it was just too boring, and corny without any real bad guys. I can't go into more details than that without giving out spoilers.
I did not care for the whole background story of how Hancock got his powers, and what makes him weak. It could have worked better (maybe) if they didn't rush through it and explain it better to make it a little more realistic. This movie really could have used a supervillian, which I thought they were starting to heads towards in the middle of the movie, but it ended up being a false alarm.
The other thing lacking for me was chemistry. I really did not think Will Smith had any real chemistry in this film. Either I didn't dislike him enough or I didn't sympathize with him enough. Perhaps it was both. I know he is better than that. Throughout the movie, I felt nothing towards him.
This is just my list of why I didn't like that movie. I tend to like movies that are not heavy in profanity, have good character chemistry, and a great story. I didn't leave the theater with any of those things fulfilled.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Palpateen
Registered:
Apr '00
|
Date Posted:
7/4 10:16pm
Subject:
RE: Hancock
- Date Edited:
7/4 10:42pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Palpateen
|
Are you sure you understand the terms you're using? Do you mean "charisma"? When the word chemistry is used in film discussion, it usually relates to the "chemistry" between two actors, frequently romantic couples, sometimes friendships, but always in terms of how well two actors relate to each other on screen and whether sparks fly, etc.
If you do mean "charisma" instead of chemistry, I must say, I've never heard Will Smith described as having a charisma-deficit. He's probably got more charm and raw charisma than any other actor alive today.
-----signature-----
"What's a dazzling urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this?"
-Gene Wilder in BLAZING SADDLES
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Bill-Thompson
Registered:
Jul '08
|
Date Posted:
7/5 8:31am
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Sorry but Hancock has absolutely nothing to do with "classic storytelling" by any stretch of the imagination. It feels sloppy and rushed through production to make a summer deadline.
If you want to see true "classic storytelling", watch the real classics.
Actually it had every element of classic storytelling you could ask for. What stops it from being an actual classic is the holes in the plot. Because of those holes Hancock ends up being a very good movie, but not a great movie.
mrjop2 posted:
That's what I meant about building the plot on profanity. The crowd constantly called A**h*** and he goes around saying, "Call me an a**h***, just one more time, and then that person would go ahead and say it one more time. I know that that scenario is a continuous joke through the movie just like when Marty McFly in Back to the Future kept on being called 'chicken'. But each time that joke played, they used that single profanity at least 3 times, and that joke ran at least three or four times in the movie, which is 12 times he cussed using that single word. He also said, 's***' alot as well, mostly in "Oh, s***"
For me at least, that's all cursing and if you add it all up, it's alot of cussing which continuously kept me from enjoying the movie. In the trailers they originally had "Call me idiot one more time." That would have been better in my opinion.
That's me though. I can handle occasional cussing throughout the movie, but between the angry crowds and the main characters, I couldn't enjoy this as much.
Eh, the cursing didn't bother me at all. Cursing and swearing is a part of life and at my job I hear way more cursing in a minute than I did in this entire movie.
mrjop2 posted:
This is not the only reason I did not like the movie. It wasn't really as funny as I was hoping it would be. The funniest jokes were the ones that they showed in the movie trailers. Other than that, I didn't get the chance to laugh. Also at times, the movie felt too short, and other times too long. I think they could have spent more time with his drunken hero days, which was the funniest parts of the movie, but no later than a quarter of the way through the movie, it got too serious, and focused less on the humor.
It's not supposed to be a funny movie, that's why it wasn't that funny.
mrjop2 posted:
I did not care for the whole background story of how Hancock got his powers, and what makes him weak. It could have worked better (maybe) if they didn't rush through it and explain it better to make it a little more realistic. This movie really could have used a supervillian, which I thought they were starting to heads towards in the middle of the movie, but it ended up being a false alarm.
I agree about the powers issue, that was one of the major plot holes that I didn't like. However I disagree about the whole supervillain being needed. This movie didn't need a supervillain, the villain of the movie was Hancock. Not every superhero movie needs a supervillain just because it's a superhero movie. I'm happy as heck that at least one superhero flick was willing to break the mold and not go the formulaic route of having a supervillain present. If anything that made it feel more like a comic book because not every comic deals with the superhero taking on a supervillain.
mrjop2 posted:
The other thing lacking for me was chemistry. I really did not think Will Smith had any real chemistry in this film. Either I didn't dislike him enough or I didn't sympathize with him enough. Perhaps it was both. I know he is better than that. Throughout the movie, I felt nothing towards him.
I think you may mean a combination of charisma and chemistry here. I admittedly did not start out the biggest Will Smith fan and I was completely indifferent towards all his work till around Wild Wild West actually. That was the movie when I realized that Smith has charisma in boatloads, more than any other Hollywood actor I can think of. His charisma gives him the ability to make a completely unwatchable film like Wild Wild West at least watchable. Going back and watching some of his earlier work that I trashed his charisma was there to and I just failed to see it. So, charisma is not a problem for Will Smith. The chemistry I can agree on in this movie in regards to Hancock and Mary. I thought Smith's chemistry was great with everyone else, and initially it was great with Mary when they hated each other. However I felt the change in chemistry from hate to possibly like (first displayed in the sneeze scene in the kitchen) was a bit rushed and didn't feel right because of that. But that wasn't a major problem because as the film went along their chemistry felt more and more natural.
-----signature-----
"When you have reached the end of the road then you can decide whether to go to the left or the right, to fire or to water. If you make those decisions before you have even set foot upon the road it will take you nowhere." - Galen
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
7/5 9:48am
Subject:
RE: Hancock
- Date Edited:
7/5 9:50am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Bill-Thompson posted:
Actually it had every element of classic storytelling you could ask for. What stops it from being an actual classic is the holes in the plot. Because of those holes Hancock ends up being a very good movie, but not a great movie.
If you truly and honestly believe something like Hancock can even remotely be considered a "very good movie" then we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
Ditto on the elements of classic storytelling.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
7/5 10:54am
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
The2ndQuest posted:
The profanity was only used mildly from what i recall- certainly not gratuitous. The whole "Call me an ******** one more time" was a running joke, so it's only natural that it'd pop up several times. (and I really don't know what you're referring to by "the plot being based on profanity"- unless you mean the snickering the title character's name sometimes gets due to it's "base").
For a film with the word '****' in the title, I think it's only fair to expect some fowl language.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ApolloSmileGirl
Registered:
Jun '04
|
Date Posted:
7/5 11:05am
Subject:
RE: Hancock
|
|
From what I've heard, the original screenplay would have been a hard "R", so if profanity offends you, you should be thankful it was watered down as much as it was.
-----signature-----
Queen " Baadasssss Pixie" of the Knights of the Sarcasm Table At first when I see you cry....Yeah, it makes me smile Yeah, it makes me smile At worst I feel bad for a while, But then I just smile I go ahead and smile......  VIN
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
