Hancock
Mikey 8 comments
I'll admit, I'm not a fan of Will Smith. It's nothing personal against the guy, it's just I think he doesn't have much in the way of range. There are 2 exceptions to this 'rule' though, and that is for his performances in Ali and 6 degrees of separation, both of which saw him actually be a character, not just be - you know - Will Smith.
During the first 45 minutes I thought this was one of the rare moments where Smith gets to act outside his comfort zone. I was just starting to enjoy how everything was unfolding (even if there was a lot of cliche bullshit) but then something awful happened that ruined any chance the film might have had - the second act came. It was at this point that I started to entertain the possibility this might be a co-directed film, and that Michael Bay was invited to direct the latter half with his own sh*tty film making 'style'.
I say this because up until the dodgy CGI, plot holes and necessary over-the-top action came along, Hancock looked like it was going to be an OK film. Not good, but OK.
Smith plays Hancock, a drunk, reluctant modern day super hero who isn't very popular with the public. Hancock has his heart in the right place, but his reckless approach always sees him destroying everything around him, costing millions to the public.
Enter Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a PR guy looking for a new job which just happens to be saved by Hancock at an unfortunate railroad crossing incident. Embrey shows his gratitude by offering to restore the troubled super hero's image. I can't tell you the rest as it would ruin what little there is left.
Hancock started with an interesting concept which really looked like it might evolve into something more and give Smith a chance to flex his acting muscles. But as mentioned the latter half of the movie goes "Bat sh*t 'Bay' haywire" TM, leaving the entire package nothing but an unmemorable foot note in Smith's career.
At the end of the day, Hancock could have easily been so much more. In the hands of the right script writer and director it might have flourished. Unless the box office receipts warrant a sequel, and let's face it, that's the only excuse Hollywood needs to make a sequel these days, we will never know.
Haddy
Monday 2nd March 2009 | 07:35 PMI actually preferred the second half. Guess there's no pleasing everyone.
The Computer Whisperer
Monday 2nd March 2009 | 08:00 PMWell, it was pretty typical of the comic book slop we see coming out at the moment, the difference with the other comic book slop is that there's a continuation of story onto the sequel... this one kinda stands alone, and not too tall I must say.
I watched it all the way through to the end, but, well... it was a bit ho hum.
If it weren't for the big budget it would have been straight to video.
1Bob
Monday 2nd March 2009 | 08:04 PMWhose the white guy on the dvd cover?
In a day and age where you have comic book flicks coming out 2 or 3 times a year, sometimes more, I found it refreshing to sit down and watch a superhero movie with no prior history. The origin story presented in this movie is one of the most original I have ever seen for a superhero. If you have not seen it stop reading now. SPOLIER
What greater torture is there to be in love so deeply that you can't stay away no matter what the danger is to yourself is pretty tragic. I mean old school tragic despair and loss. Constantly living alone knowing the other half of you is out there but to be with them means death. Like it or not one thing you can not deny is that they at least put n original spin on the superhero origin story.
Mercurian
Tuesday 3rd March 2009 | 01:23 AMOddly, I'm apparently the only person to comment who really agrees with you. And I do, totally. I enjoyed the first half of the movie, but around half-way through my seat suddenly got very hard and I was unable to restrain my sudden interest in the immensely interesting subject of the chemistry of mud, which dragged my thoughts quite out of the theater.
Kim OJ
Tuesday 3rd March 2009 | 05:05 AMI did not watch this movie, because I expected to get what you got. So thanks for giving me yet another deterrent from wasting my time.
Jim
Tuesday 3rd March 2009 | 06:07 AMI actually enjoyed this movie. I think part of it was I went into it expecting crap, so the bar was really low. It's amazing how expectations can change your perception of a flick. A neighbor spoke highly of Goldmember, and I really liked the first couple Austin Powers movies. When I went to see it, I chuckled maybe twice. It sucked!
As a side, have you seen Pursuit of Happyness? I thought the Fresh Princes range of acting was quite excellent in that one.
Grover
Monday 2nd March 2009 | 06:22 PMYour being to harsh. I liked it and theres nothing wrong with Michael Bay.
PS - great captcha