Hancock (Peter Berg, 2008)

[domino harvey]

I thought he was referring to the scene where Will Smith wrapped his penis around his neck like a scarf.

[hot_locket]

re: Trailer

Why the hell is this a drama, now?

I thought he was referring to the scene where Will Smith wrapped his penis around his neck like a scarf.

[Antoine Doinel]

Swedish trailer.

[Antoine Doinel]

Hancock needs reshoots.

[margot]

The CGI in this looks horrible.

[TedW]

Hancock needs reshoots.

All movies need reshoots. Only movies the size of Hancock can afford them -- and last-minute ones at that. Means nothing.

[jbeall]

As long as the film doesn't take itself too seriously, it'll be a'ight.

[Awesome Welles]

I saw the trailer for this the other night while watching Indy and thought it looked quite good (after reading the synopsis which I thought sounded like a load of tripe). I later realised that Will Smith's trailers always look ok and then the film is a load of crap. It just made me realise how Will Smith is unequivocally the Trailer King.

[davebert]

I, for one, am just glad to see Jason Batemen get some more big-movie work (apart from Juno).

Also, having written an absurd amount of papers on Smith during my college days, I could have swore reading multiple interviews where he claimed I Am Legend would be his siren song to the sci-fi genre and that he could no longer pull off summer action blockbusters after that because the physical strain was getting to be too much. He wanted to concentrate on more acting-heavy dramas. Guess the sack of cash for this was just too big to say no to, eh?

[TedW]

I, for one, am just glad to see Jason Batemen get some more big-movie work (apart from Juno).

Also, having written an absurd amount of papers on Smith during my college days, I could have swore reading multiple interviews where he claimed I Am Legend would be his siren song to the sci-fi genre and that he could no longer pull off summer action blockbusters after that because the physical strain was getting to be too much. He wanted to concentrate on more acting-heavy dramas. Guess the sack of cash for this was just too big to say no to, eh?

I have no idea if Smith is as cynical as you imply, but in his defense, Will Smith, the biggest star on the planet, gets his $20+ million or whatever his deal is on whatever movie he decides to do.

[tavernier]

Will Smith, the biggest star on the planet

Another sign of the Apocalypse.

[TedW]

Will Smith, the biggest star on the planet

Another sign of the Apocalypse.

Hardly.

[tavernier]

Will Smith, the biggest star on the planet

Another sign of the Apocalypse.

Hardly.

And another...

[TedW]

Haha! I get it, that was directed at me!

[Mr Sausage]

Let's keep the Will Smith Apocalypse talk to the I Am Legend thread, please.

[Antoine Doinel]

New trailer.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Early word on the film is not good. Anne Thompson writes, "The knives are out, and they are sharp. When this movie opens July 2, it will be eviscerated."

Variety's negative review.

Hollywood Reporter's less than thrilled review.

and the Screen Daily

[margot]

Why do they think people who are going to see hancock care about what reviewers say? Or anyone at all for that matter but that's a different story...

[John Cope]

Denby's New Yorker review is very positive. Includes these fascinating tidbits:

We’re also puzzled by Berg’s visual style, which, in these intimate scenes, depends on a handheld camera, restlessly moving yet pinned to the actors in super-tight closeups. It’s as if he were making a Cassavetes psychodrama.

and

Theron isn’t running away from her good looks anymore. Wearing a simple sleeveless red shift, her blond hair hanging around her shoulders, she’s a knockout in “Hancock,” and she gives the sexiest performance of her career. The currents flowing between her and Smith are reminiscent of the heat generated by Gable and Harlow, say, or Bogart and Bacall.

[domino harvey]

Oh God. The same jittery camerawork is the same thing in any Michael Bay film, that reviewer must not see very many mainstream films.

[jbeall]

Surprisingly positive review from the NY Times:

Although whatever teeth it had have mostly been pulled, “Hancock” makes for one unexpectedly satisfying and kinky addition to Hollywood’s superhero chronicles. Touching and odd, laden with genuine twists and grounded by three appealing lead performances, it was ably directed by Peter Berg and written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan.

[John Cope]

Armond disses it which is no surprise but the piece itself contains a number of provocative and worthwhile insights (as opposed to just provocative which is often the case). Nonetheless, I do take issue with his stock derision of Michael Mann.

[margot]

Why do you guys continue to read armond whites reviews?

[domino harvey]

Having a collective enemy helps members of message boards resist turning on each other by outwardly channeling aggressive tendencies.

[moviscop]

Just saw the film tonight. I felt compelled to warn everyone about how utterly horrible this film was. I was invited by friends to see it and I went for the hell of it. It was by far one of the worst films I have seen this year. It is JUST as bad as the Happening and perhaps a tad bit worse than Wanted (hard to believe I know.)

The film is so bad because of the direction. Every shot is so close that you can stare into the pores of each character. There are even scenes where he can't seem to find out how to focus the lens and we watch as he goes back and forth between blurry and clear, correcting his mistake.
Now, secondly, I don't know if I should blame the screenplay or the director for how poorly the film developed.

Spoiler

Charlize Theron is gorgeous in it, she has aged and it is evident in the thousand fucking close up shots of her complexion. I must say she is still a goddess though.

Ok, now that we got that out of the way let me explain why this film was so horrible. The main story is about a superhero who just doesn't care about anyone or any thing. He goes around fixing crimes by obliterating the environment surround them etc. However, he stumbles upon a man who attempts to recover this self-image he has lost. This man is also married to Theron in the film, but it becomes obvious within the first few moments of Hancock and Charlize that they share a connection, go figure.

Hancock goes to prison, leaves because he is needed by the police and stops a bank heist. He stops it and everyone loves him, except the man who he sent to prison with a hand missing... But, to make a long and horrible story short, Hancock realizes Charlize is the same as him when she throws him through the side of her house.

You would think the audience would be clued in on something at this point but nothing is said. Before you know it, both characters are fighting in the city and on top of mountains, for no reason to our knowledge. However, we are supposed to laugh and think it is funny even though it makes no sense, her character has not even been explained in the least.

To make matters worse, criminals are plotting in prison to go after Hancock (how, we don't know). The worst part about this entire sequence of events is that nothing is explained at all! Until the last 10 minutes, we have no idea what is going on and events are thrown in front of us. A love triangle is brought in (of course) and we don't even understand the significance.

We are supposed to feel an emotional connection to the characters at this point, but none exists because we don't know how the fuck they relate to one another!

The criminals find out the weakness of Hancock (which is about 5 minutes after we find out what it is and when Hancock find out, they are quick to the punch and mind readers apparently) There is a big fight and Hancock can't seem to beat these mortals even though he, in fact, still has his powers to throw people through metal... There is a drawn out sequence of Hancock being shot, by characters we barely even know because of their brief introduction.

The film made absolutely no logical sense and the development of the story was so nonexistent that it seemed like the director realized, "hey, we haven't explained a thing yet." So, he summed it up in about 5 minutes and the audience sat emotionless and confused as to what the hell the director was trying to convey. I turned to my friend at the last 10 minutes and said "do you know what is going on?" and he responded with "no fucking clue."

Did I mention that there were a ridiculous number of seemingly hidden "innuendos" about sexuality considering the films title. I wish I was a better writer and could express how horrid this was, however, you would have to see it for yourself.

I do not recommend seeing it. I felt swindled out of my money for a sequence of "pictures" and then, a 5 minute sum-up and climax. This film is absolute garbage and the critics will express this very severely in my opinion. I just hope they are better to word how horrendous it was better than I could. So far one of the worst films of the year. In order are: 1. Wanted, and a close tie for second between Hancock and The Happening.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY OR TIME! IT IS REALLY THAT BAD.

So far, 2008 has been a horrendous year for Hollywood. This film has convinced me not to return to the theater until July 18th. Until then, I will catch up on Godard, Bergman, and Tarkovsky via Netflix.