Hancock - Grading & Discussion

I'm surprised at how people can figure out stuff like this. I just thought that she was annoyed because her husband brought some dirty bum home.

 

I voted Average.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but less Charlize Theron would've made this a better movie. "Hancock" shows great potential when it's trying to be a comedy. Will Smith's drunken, lethargic Hancock is a variety of hero we haven't seen before -- one that clearly demonstrates how altruism isn't a trait that comes natrually to all heroes. For about the first two acts, the movie felt like a fresh take on the superhero genre.

But then we discover the truth about Charlize Theron's character. And about her relationship with Hancock. And about "who" these two are.

And that's when "Hancock" lost me. All the revealtions in the second half regarding the aforementioned were very abrupt and, frankly, didn't qualify as decent twists because they were so half-baked.

"Hancock" is a movie best looked at as two halves; the first, a fresh, entertaining take on the superhero genre (a genre that will noticeably start suffering from fatigue in the coming years, if it isn't already) and the second, an unfocused, puzzling attempt at drama that creatively conflicts with the first half.

Perhaps a director's cut will make "Hancock" feel more like a cohesive whole. But the version we have now was sorely disappointing, especially when it could have been a particularly unique entry in the superhero genre.

 

Good review from SFX magazine that gave it 2.5/5

Pretty much sums it up for me

Original-
http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_hancock

 

I would nudge that score up to 3/5, as I believe it was better than average, but yes that review does a remarkable job of summing up how I felt about the movie.

 

The critics reaction seems to be entirely out of synch with the reactions I'm getting from people who have seen the film.

 

People I've spoken with tend to agree that while the twist was great, the way it was handled wasn't.

I'd really like to know the exact contribution of Vince Gilligan, who wrote so many good X-Files episodes. Because someone sure screwed things up (whether with rewrites, editing, or whatever).

--Ted

 

For those who are claiming the Second and Third Acts of Hancock are where the movie goes off the rails - what do you think should have been done with the promising First Act? Hancock is introduced. He's drunk, smelly and obnoxious, which is funny for fifteen minuntes or so. He is convinced (incredibly quickly - if you found the developments of the Second and Third Acts abrupt, please be consistent and note that Hancock is very easily swayed by Ray) to try to become a responsible citizen. He goes to jail where he appears to learn a little about paying one's dues. He is called to action by the Chief of Police and acquits himself well as a hero. And then...

??

 

For me the movie's tone twisted when the "big reveal"/downtown tornado occured. I dunno. At that point it stopped being this action-comedy and turned into something else, something a little more serious and... "odder" Not really sure how to put it.

The "switch" was oddly done to, intercut with... uh... What's his name doing his pitch.

But that's all I've to say about it, really. It as just a tone shift, but I still say it's a good movie and I really liked it. The tone shift didn't bother many any. I would've prefered it to stick with the action-comedy it was in the first half, but it was still a good movie.

 

I had no problem with the way it changed midway through. I found the whole story engaging and believable. This is one movie I will purchase when it comes out on DVD.

 

That first half should probably have been the whole movie, obviously rewritten so it's not gone through as quickly. like u said, he's convinced rather quickly in the finished film.

I get the sense though, a lot of the problems with the latter half are editing problems, which explain why so many people feel like it was just "odd" and "felt off" - bad edits and cuts have a way of throwing the viewer off the film's natural rhythm without the viewer really putting their finger on what went wrong.

 

Went and saw it today. I'd seen some spoilers so I knew about the twist, though my mates were unaware. One of them did manage to figure it out fairly early on though.

From my point of view, it's a decent enough (and fun) flick, but when it comes out on dvd, I think I'll wait and see if an extended/directors cut version comes out.

I don't want to post spoilers just yet, but quite a few of the scenes raised laughs from all around us in the cinema.

 

The First Act should have become the end of the Second Act and beginning of the third.

While jumping into the middle of the story is usually a good thing to do to avoid exposition (especially in fiction), it's become an overused writing cliche these days. Meeting and learning about Hancock's powers a bit more gradually could have been an excellent Act One.

Seeing him live in the desert for awhile and how he'd be wasting his powers there (and handling trespassers, wild life, etc) could have been an excellent character study prior to his meeting Bateman's character. As it is now, it's almost like a "previously on "Hancock" kind of summary.)

Even a silhouetted flashback of the beating that made him lose his memory (so we can't make out Theron yet) could have been a very exciting and moving sequence. (Especially since we learn the beating was because they were an inter-racial couple back in the 20's south.).

Lots of great possibilities to redo the storyline.

Again, for me, it wasn't the twist in the storyline itself, it was the very poor way in which it was realized and executed (and edited).

--Ted

 

I would say the movie was a bit rushed could have done with another 30 minutes , that said once you get your head around the plot twist it does take on a very interesting idea, again not quite fully realised. I had to wonder why the wife was just playing housewife, pretending not to be able to open jars, would think she would want a tiny bit more from her life than that.

the movie did need that twist however, once Hancock got out of prison and turned peoples opinon of him around, you needed a "supervillan" as Hancock seems to be a superhero with supervillan.

 

I kind of like this suggestion.

And I think the escaped prisoners were very lucky they happened to encounter Hancock when they did -when his powers were weakened- Because if they had done it at almost any other time he would've stuck their heads up each other's asses.

 

I figured they just heard the news reports and figured that this was their best shot.

I actually liked the shift. It is refreshing to see a superhero I know nothing about. I though Iron Man was better, but their was no real excitement about discovering whys and wherefores. I really liked his origin story and it made the hospital scene stronger for it.

SPOILERS

One point I really liked was discovering that Hancock was different from the rest of his kind. He went out and saved people. When Theron told him that, I really bought him as a real hero. I also liked that the movie had a driving plot, unlike the closest movie to Hancock, Superman Returns (sorry to bring that up). It explored some different aspects of being a super hero that you don't see on screen that often.

However, there does seem to be a good amount missing and I hoping for a director's cut/extended edition. There's a good movie here, but I think somewhere there is a great one.

 

What's funny is that during that whole hospital attack sequence, all i could think about was "wow, the reason we're having this fight is that Hancock put that guy's head up the other guy's ass". That was their motive for revenge! Yet another part of the 2nd half that was just super-rushed and not fleshed out.

 

yeah I thought it was odd they were setting the three of them up to be the movie villan, when on a normal day Hancock would just throw them somewhere and not catch them like he did the kid.

once Hancock was in hospital however, I had an awful flashback to Superman Returns.

 

I'm with the "loved the first half, thought the second half was bad" crowd. Sort of like Sunshine (snap). It felt like they had to throw in a true origin story, which ended up bringing up more questions than answers... not to mention an awkward love triangle and whatnot.

I don't know what they could have done though. Maybe introduce a villain as his "opposite" rather than a former love interest. And anyway, I thought the first half served as a competent origin story in itself.

 

as I was watching I wanted more of an origin story, and I actually like the story we got.

 

Well, Hancock had a hell of an opening weekend.

Domestic total right now (estimated) is $107m, $185m worldwide. Opening weekend take is $66m.

Hancock has an estimated budget of $150m plus half again for marketing.

So, yeah, start preparing for that sequel now.