Hancock - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
The movie tries to make a lot of him not having parents and being abandoned in a hospital (dinner scene). It feels as though the script is being cruel to him by kicking him out of the city he knows-and a "family" who likes him. Maybe it's just me.
I just got back from it. I thought it was pretty average. The biggest problem with the film comes with the complete tonal shift halfway through. It starts out as a comedy (and a pretty funny one at that) then turns serious really fast. I didn't like the shift. The second half of the movie felt very slow, and confusing. I wanted to laugh. It wouldn't let me. I really wish they had continued from the "asshole superhero improving his image" storyline. It could have been a hilarious superhero parody. The second storyline just dragged it down.
I really enjoyed the movie, and while I totally agree that the tone shifted halfway though, it completely surprised me and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The comedic movie I expected had quite the drama to it, and it was great to actually have some meat to it and not just popcorn fluff. I'm SO glad though that I did not know anything about Charlize Theron`s character, and loved it. And mmmmm she looked great, too!
I went with two-and-a-half out of four. It wasn't what it wanted to be.
I didn't care that the tone changed as much as the jumbled way in which it faltered afterward. I think the reason it was relatively short is because they tried to save Acts Two and Three with editing.
Vince Gilligan's influence (X-Files writer) was there, but the overall script and storyline just didn't work well enough for me. The cast is the film's greatest asset.
I really wanted to love this movie, but it wouldn't let me.
--Ted
I didn't care that the tone changed as much as the jumbled way in which it faltered afterward. I think the reason it was relatively short is because they tried to save Acts Two and Three with editing.
Vince Gilligan's influence (X-Files writer) was there, but the overall script and storyline just didn't work well enough for me. The cast is the film's greatest asset.
I really wanted to love this movie, but it wouldn't let me.
--Ted
True. I did hear that there was a whole lot cut out of the movie to turn it into a more accessible Will Smith blockbuster. If they ever did a director's cut, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Saw it this afternoon. Basically I share my sentiments with OdoWanKenobi, first half was good, second half not so much
But even then as I was watching the first half I felt like asking myself "have I seen this film before", as pretty much ALL the funny scenes in the first half were in the trailers that thanks to Hulk, Iron Man, Indy Jones etc I've seen about a million times now.
The whale, the train, the freeway, the head-in-ass, the French girl, etc, all of that I'd already seen in a sense in the trailers.
The second half I just didn't like, felt like it lost the plot and was meandering around for the last 45 mins. And the whole relationship between Hancock and the Theron character didn't really make any sense, or maybe I missed something-
Said that if they stayed together they'd lose their powers and stop being immortal, five minutes later they say the two of them were together for over 2000 years!
Thinking back it was pretty gash, definitely won't be buying the DVD
But even then as I was watching the first half I felt like asking myself "have I seen this film before", as pretty much ALL the funny scenes in the first half were in the trailers that thanks to Hulk, Iron Man, Indy Jones etc I've seen about a million times now.
The whale, the train, the freeway, the head-in-ass, the French girl, etc, all of that I'd already seen in a sense in the trailers.
The second half I just didn't like, felt like it lost the plot and was meandering around for the last 45 mins. And the whole relationship between Hancock and the Theron character didn't really make any sense, or maybe I missed something-
Said that if they stayed together they'd lose their powers and stop being immortal, five minutes later they say the two of them were together for over 2000 years!
Thinking back it was pretty gash, definitely won't be buying the DVD
Last edited:
Said that if they stayed together they'd lose their powers and stop being immortal, five minutes later they say the two of them were together for over 2000 years!
Any possible dialoge to suggest that something happened to change that status quo? The 2k they were together that was normal, then something happened that necessitate they be apart to survive.
I've not seen and don't plan to rush out and see this so spoil away.
Maybe they were together on and off in that time. That's what popped into my head. Besides, if they were together the whole time, they would have aged and died long ago. I think the only thing that didn't make sense, or should I say wasn't fleshed out properly was why Theron's character left Hancock behind all those years ago when he was attacked and held some sort of animosity toward him when they met up again in the present only to warm up to him again in the end.And the whole relationship between Hancock and the Theron character didn't really make any sense, or maybe I missed something-
Said that if they stayed together they'd lose their powers and stop being immortal, five minutes later they say the two of them were together for over 2000 years!
I think this is one of the better movies to come out this summer. I liked it far more than I did The Incredible Hulk, Get Smart or Indiana Jones.
Hancock: A+/Solid A... A and a half?
What can I say? This has mostly been a Summer of winners for movies. Hancock pretty much lives up to the Will "Greatest Star in the World" Smith legacy of Independence Weekend Hits (tarnished a bit by Wild, Wild West) in Hancock.
It was a surprisingly good movie for me. A lot of reviews and comments I've seen people mention the tonal shift in the middle of the movie, and it's a pretty clear and obvious one, but it's instigated by a surprise twist I certainly did not see coming.
Will Smith, as always, was great in his role and it was nice to see a Will Smith movie that wasn't about "Will Smith" as all the actors put in good performances and stand out in their own ways. But the movie has some good themes in it and it'll be interesting to see if it sets the course for a franchise of future films but otherwise the movie stands out pretty good on its own.
It's certainly worth seeing in the theaters and it's a good time and has some pretty good themes in it. Good, solid, movie.
What more can I say?
What can I say? This has mostly been a Summer of winners for movies. Hancock pretty much lives up to the Will "Greatest Star in the World" Smith legacy of Independence Weekend Hits (tarnished a bit by Wild, Wild West) in Hancock.
It was a surprisingly good movie for me. A lot of reviews and comments I've seen people mention the tonal shift in the middle of the movie, and it's a pretty clear and obvious one, but it's instigated by a surprise twist I certainly did not see coming.
Will Smith, as always, was great in his role and it was nice to see a Will Smith movie that wasn't about "Will Smith" as all the actors put in good performances and stand out in their own ways. But the movie has some good themes in it and it'll be interesting to see if it sets the course for a franchise of future films but otherwise the movie stands out pretty good on its own.
It's certainly worth seeing in the theaters and it's a good time and has some pretty good themes in it. Good, solid, movie.
What more can I say?
This is one movie that proves movie critics are more worthless than Britney Spears. I read two reviews of this movie and they basically said the same thing, it sucked. Well I went to see it and it was EXCELLENT! I highly recommend you to go see it. It was a total departure from your formula superhero movie and I really enjoyed it. I rated it an A+.
Very enjoyable flick. I think it's getting bashed for unfair, but understandable reasons.
Yes, the origin story is sketchy. Any sketchier than say... a genetically altered spider overnight changing the DNA of a human being through one bite? Not at all, but Hancock, being an original character, doesn't have the 'okay we're going to go with this' acceptance factor other superheroes have built up over time.
Tonal shifts? More abrupt than Superman: The Movie? Not even close.
Inconsistent powers? Seriously - someone's going to criticize a superhero story for that? That's so common it could be considered a convention of the genre.
So, being as Hancock is quite normal for a superhero story - what are it's real strengths and weaknesses?
Smith is fantastic, and carries the day, especially hard when establishing a new superhero on film. He's funny, poignant and heroic.
Bateman is showing his usual understated charm. Ray's arc is as compelling as Hancock's, which is nice.
Theron does a great job of playing her repressed feelings for Hancock, and stands up well as a superheroine herself.
For me the movie's biggest flaw is in filling in the backstory and in the final act of Hancock's heroism, which still played well, but lost its emotional impact upon the slightest reflection. What should have happened was that during the fight with Mary, Hancock regains his memory, and has a series of flashbacks to explain their past together. Not only would this have been some interesting action and better explained the whole 'the more time we spend together the weaker we get' issue, but it would have kicked his leaving up by a power of ten - because he would remember loving Mary, but would leave anyway so she and Ray and Aaron could have their family.
Somebody above mentioned not understanding how Mary and Hancock could have lived 3000 years - but she explains that. They are continually driven apart by attacks, which breaks her heart over and over again. That's why she wants to stay away from him. She knows it will happen again.
What no one seems to be talking about, which I just can't believe - is the allegorical aspects of this movie. Smith, I have no doubt, is quite aware of them. The entire first half of the movie struck me as allegory about the choices facing men, and specifically black men, as they grow up in our society. Do I indulge my power in quick and easy ways, take what I can get just because I can get it? Hardly a new theme, but, as always, seeing it played out larger than life in superheroes is very powerful. When Ray talks to Hancock in prison about being ready when they call because they need you, it made me think of all the guys in prison and their families. Maybe this is because I have a step-brother who just got out after 8 years inside, but the issue of the lack of a black Superman has long been discussed. To have one realized in this way - it's very in touch with real issues in contemporary society. Is it deep? No, but it is right there with the rest of superhero history - reflecting wish fulfillment fantasies and growing pains.
Yes, the origin story is sketchy. Any sketchier than say... a genetically altered spider overnight changing the DNA of a human being through one bite? Not at all, but Hancock, being an original character, doesn't have the 'okay we're going to go with this' acceptance factor other superheroes have built up over time.
Tonal shifts? More abrupt than Superman: The Movie? Not even close.
Inconsistent powers? Seriously - someone's going to criticize a superhero story for that? That's so common it could be considered a convention of the genre.
So, being as Hancock is quite normal for a superhero story - what are it's real strengths and weaknesses?
Smith is fantastic, and carries the day, especially hard when establishing a new superhero on film. He's funny, poignant and heroic.
Bateman is showing his usual understated charm. Ray's arc is as compelling as Hancock's, which is nice.
Theron does a great job of playing her repressed feelings for Hancock, and stands up well as a superheroine herself.
For me the movie's biggest flaw is in filling in the backstory and in the final act of Hancock's heroism, which still played well, but lost its emotional impact upon the slightest reflection. What should have happened was that during the fight with Mary, Hancock regains his memory, and has a series of flashbacks to explain their past together. Not only would this have been some interesting action and better explained the whole 'the more time we spend together the weaker we get' issue, but it would have kicked his leaving up by a power of ten - because he would remember loving Mary, but would leave anyway so she and Ray and Aaron could have their family.
Somebody above mentioned not understanding how Mary and Hancock could have lived 3000 years - but she explains that. They are continually driven apart by attacks, which breaks her heart over and over again. That's why she wants to stay away from him. She knows it will happen again.
What no one seems to be talking about, which I just can't believe - is the allegorical aspects of this movie. Smith, I have no doubt, is quite aware of them. The entire first half of the movie struck me as allegory about the choices facing men, and specifically black men, as they grow up in our society. Do I indulge my power in quick and easy ways, take what I can get just because I can get it? Hardly a new theme, but, as always, seeing it played out larger than life in superheroes is very powerful. When Ray talks to Hancock in prison about being ready when they call because they need you, it made me think of all the guys in prison and their families. Maybe this is because I have a step-brother who just got out after 8 years inside, but the issue of the lack of a black Superman has long been discussed. To have one realized in this way - it's very in touch with real issues in contemporary society. Is it deep? No, but it is right there with the rest of superhero history - reflecting wish fulfillment fantasies and growing pains.
I could've sworn i saw Charlize Theron in a "Hancock Superhero Outfit" during one of the Trailers for the Movie... but I didn't see that in the film. And that's odd considering that's the main reason I knew she was going to be a super too before I even sat down in the theater.
The only reason I mention it, is that you all mentioned significant cuts to the picture to satisfy a PG-13 rating and make the movie more "accessible"
Update:
I went back and watched the trailer, and it's just her in the long leather coat taking off her glasses, but it was enough of a give away to me apparently recognize that CT wasn't going to be playing just a bit part as the Happy Homemaker.
The only reason I mention it, is that you all mentioned significant cuts to the picture to satisfy a PG-13 rating and make the movie more "accessible"
Update:
I went back and watched the trailer, and it's just her in the long leather coat taking off her glasses, but it was enough of a give away to me apparently recognize that CT wasn't going to be playing just a bit part as the Happy Homemaker.
Last edited:
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I thought it was really good, up until the "twist" with the wife. At that point, the whole thing goes off the rails, is completely out of left field, and isn't properly explained... it's all just sort of mumbled out.
in fact, they could have left the entire thing with the wife out, and the plot would kind of have been the same. It almost feels like.... the writer wrote out their movie, their story arc for Hancock... got to the part where he wins the adoration of the city... wrote the last scene with the heart logo on the moon... then realized he was 45 minutes short and inserted the whole strange backstory with the wife.
Interesting movie, pretty good, and gets credit for trying "something", but falls short of greatness.
in fact, they could have left the entire thing with the wife out, and the plot would kind of have been the same. It almost feels like.... the writer wrote out their movie, their story arc for Hancock... got to the part where he wins the adoration of the city... wrote the last scene with the heart logo on the moon... then realized he was 45 minutes short and inserted the whole strange backstory with the wife.
Interesting movie, pretty good, and gets credit for trying "something", but falls short of greatness.
I can't believe any one didn't see the "twist" coming. From the second she looked at him weird when he first showed up at their house, I knew there was something up. Then when she said she knew "guys like him" I knew they had a connection, and after he explained his "Origin"the only way they could have that is if she was around 80 years ago.
I don't thnk it was all that shocking when it occurs because there's plenty of foreshadowing that something's up between her and Hancock, though the way they actually went with it was surprising. Before the reveal, I kept thinking "she's one too - Hancock thinks he's alone but he's not. She knows where they come from. And he thinks he's a lousy hero but at least he's trying, she's just leading a normal life in hiding." A lot of the tension in the first half of the movie came from wondering what secrets she would reveal.
"Something is up" is a far cry from knowing exactly what that "something" is. So I take it you knew just from her look that they were immortal "angel" partners who had been separated off and on for 3000 years and who lose their powers when close to each other for prolonged periods of time?
Wow. You're good..
--Ted
"Something is up" is a far cry from knowing exactly what that "something" is. So I take it you knew just from her look that they were immortal "angel" partners who had been separated off and on for 3000 years and who lose their powers when close to each other for prolonged periods of time?
Wow. You're good..
--Ted
Not just from that look, but as more hints were dropped, like the "I know guys like him" line, and when he revealed his amnesia, I thought it became obvious at that point that they were the same, and she actually knew him. My first thought was that she was the one who broke his skull.
