Print Page | Close Window

Cmon, It Aint THAT Bad!!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: The Crix Have Picked (and Picked On) HANCOCK
Forum Discription: Actually, WE Think It's a Pretty Good Movie...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2854
Printed Date: July 27 2014 at 9:12pm


Topic: Cmon, It Aint THAT Bad!!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Cmon, It Aint THAT Bad!!!
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 12:50am

IF YOU KNOW THE RAZZIES, YOU KNOW WE ALMOST NEVER THINK MOVIE CRITICS ARE BEING TOO HARSH. BUT in the CASE of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=291 - HANCOCK , WE GOTTA SAY -- WE THINK THEY ARE.

OCCASIONALLY LAUGH-OUT-LOUD FUNNY, OFTEN MOVING ENOUGH to GET the AUDIENCE's EYES MISTED UP, and RARELY PREDICTABLE or FORMULAIC, HANCOCK IS, in OUR ESTIMATION, ONE of the BETTER EFFORTS of 2008... 

MAYBE IT'S SUPERHERO BURNOUT AFTER http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_incredible_hulk/ - HULK , http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_man/ - IRON MAN and a SLEW of PREVIOUS COMIC-BOOK-BASED MOVIES. BUT THE FACT THAT THIS FAIRLY CLEVER, VERY RISK-TAKING and GENERALLY ENTERTAINING MOVIE IS GETTING http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hancock/ - MOSTLY CRAPPY REVIEWS SUGGESTS MANY of AMERICA's FILM CRITICS ARE THE CURMUDGEONS THEY'RE OFTEN PRESUMED to BE. IN FACT, the ESPECIALLY HARSH http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/reviews/movies/la-et-hancock1-2008jul01,0,508312.story - L.A. TIMES REVIEW  LEAVES US THINKING THEIR CRITIC KENNETH TURRAN MAY BE DESERVING of the SAME EPITHET THAT SETS OFF WILL SMITH's CHARACTER EVERY TIME SOMEONE USES IT in the MOVIE  (YOU MAY HAVE to GO SEE HANCOCK to GET THIS REFERENCE -- and IT ACUALLY IS WORTH SEEING). 

SINCE THIS FORUM EXISTS for YOU GIZE to EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS, FEEL FREE to AGREE, DISAGREE or WHATEVER BELOW...

SMITH: "Exactly what WOULD I have to do to blow away the critics??"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 1:39am

I saw this at one of those 7pm Tuesday advance screenings and, unless Sony/Columbia did a really piss-poor job of clarifying it was showing that night, it looks like it might bomb: The theatre was more than half empty, and the most vocal response was from a screaming toddler in a baby carriage who nearly ruined the experience for the entire audience (I hate Regal Cinemas!)... 

As for the movie itself, I gotta agree with our Head RAZZberry: I found myself laughing frequently, caring about the characters (all three of the lead perfromances -- Smith, Theron and especially Bateman -- were top-notch) and I was well entertained for most of the film's 90 minute or so running time. So why do so many critics hate it? Maybe those old farts think it's their job to hate anything mainstream??



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 3:15am

Every year I write-in Will Smith's name on the Razzie nominating ballot, and for good reason; he is awful! The Stale Prince is overexposed, overrated, and so full of himself it is nauseating. I place him firmly in the Wil Ferrell/Adam Sandler/Eddie Murphy/Mike Myers league of unappealing lead actors who, for the most part, seem to play the same role over and over again. As President of the "Hate Will Smith" club, I already loathe "Hancock" from hearing about its premise; a slacker superhero who is homeless? What genius thought that one up? Yuck! Lest we forget, Smith was in that super-stink bomb "The Wild Wild West", which won as Worst film and got Smith an award with Kevin Kline as Worst screen couple. Smith needs to be back in Razzie contention.



-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 3:18am
I think a lot of the criticism is from the fact that "Hancock" was originally rated R. I think it might be funny and I'm a semi-fan of Will Smith.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 4:42am

I am just a little shocked at the reviews that Hancock has been getting as well, for the most part they're not completely bashing the movie, just a little underwhelmed it seems (at least where the critics are concerned). I agree a little with HeadRAZZ that the critics may be a little front loaded with all the super hero movies that have already come out this summer (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Wanted) with more just over the horizon (Hellboy II, The Dark Knight). Anyways, I will be taking my kids to see this and WALL-E this weekend and will get back to this forum.

As it is I still felt that Will Smith got snubbed last year for "I am Legend" 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 5:30am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am curious, ITbeast if you think Smith was "snubbed" by US for a RAZZIE nomination, or The Other Gize for a Little Gold Naked Man nomination? 

Actually, Smith's performance in LEGEND fell somewhere between our two sets of standards...



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 8:50am

...The Other Gize, for a Little Gold Naked Man nomination. I hate to join the "moviewizguy" bandwagon on this but I felt his performance held up the movie and did not fall to our "RAZZIE" nominating standards.

Granted, I don't think this movie will fall into anything near a " Little Gold Naked Man " Nomination either but will find out this weekend if the critics were somewhere near right on "Hancock" or just plain on the "rag".



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 9:18am
I gotta say I did not laugh once while watching the previews. Even my easily-
entertained cousin thought it looked dumb. I'll prolly just wait til it's on Starz
to see it....


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 10:26am
Wall-E actually made more money than this movie on its opening day...I just don't get it. I thought people loved Will Smith, especially him playing a superhero with a 90 minute running time. I just don't get it. The world is really inconsistent.


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 12:49pm
What is very interesting about this movie is that Sony will allow owners of its
Bravia HD televisions the chance to download this movie via the internet
BEFORE it goes out on Blu Ray. Oh don't forget that you have to pay an extra
$299 for the Bravia Internet link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/technology/30sony.html?
partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 2:45pm
The only reason I saw this was because I was planning on seeing The
Incredible Hulk
, but they stopped playing that movie at my theater
yesterday, and I gotta say it was pretty bad; I didn't laugh once, I
thought many of the scenes and twists to the movie were ripped off of other
movies (at least for anyone who's seen Superman Returns), and my only
question with the critics is why only 34% of critics approved of it and not 0%.
Believe me, it tries to have a Superman feel to it, while making fun of it at
the same time, and it fails miserably.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 02 2008 at 5:02pm
I think this is a case of the critics being superhero-ed out and can't take another movie of its kind, even if it's a parody. Or like I said earlier, the critics see that Will Smith is just jumping on the band wagon of whatever genre is popular in order to bank in on it. You can't please all the people all the time. 


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 2:39am
Originally posted by ITbeast

 Anyways, I will be taking my kids to see this and WALL-E this weekend and will get back to this forum.

You will love WALL-E. Magnificent animation, and more well expressed emotional power than I have seen in a lot of live action films with more dialogue (there is very little in most of the film). I'd rate it not just as the best animated film of the year to date, but one of the best period.

Anyway, I may see Hancock tonight. I don't care much for Will Smith as a "musician," but I think he is generally a delightful screen presence. I've been looking forward to this film.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 6:41am

Thanks...I am really looking forward to seeing it (WALL-E), anything from PIXAR is always top notched, even on there bad days. I am just hoping it will keep my 6 year old entertained due to the lack of vocal interaction, something that myself, my wife, and 11 year old son should be alright on.

As far as Will Smith the "musician", all members of my family loves his music...both me and my wife have been listening to his stuff since the days of D.J. Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince! (Gives you an idea of how old I am)



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 7:47am
There is a Pixar short preceeding Wall-E about a magician and his rabbit that is absolutely hilarious. I'm sure it is a likely nominee for Best Animated Short in January. I wouldn't worry too much about the attention span of your 6 year-old either. There is enough going on in the film that should hold his/her attention.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 03 2008 at 9:33am
Thanks...I get back to you on the outcome this weekend.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: July 04 2008 at 1:57am
I saw it yesterday -- I thought it was actually pretty good...  

-------------


Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 3:30am
For you "Hancock" apologists, the current Rotten Tomatoes score is nearly 2 to 1 negative; Rotten 102, Fresh 57. The critics have clearly rejected this film.

-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 4:35am

With great power comes great responsibility -- everyone knows that --
everyone, that is, but Hancock. Edgy, conflicted, sarcastic, and
misunderstood, Hancock's well-intentioned heroics might get the job
done and save countless lives, but always seem to leave jaw-dropping
damage in their wake. The public has finally had enough -- as grateful
as they are to have their local hero, the good citizens of Los Angeles
are wondering what they ever did to deserve this guy. Hancock isn't the
kind of man who cares what other people think -- until the day that he
saves the life of PR executive Ray Embrey, and the sardonic superhero
begins to realize that he may have a vulnerable side after all. Facing
that will be Hancock's greatest challenge yet -- and a task that may
prove impossible as Ray's wife, Mary, insists that he's a lost cause.

After seeing the theatrical trailer for this movie, I didn't really
want to see it as much as most summer movies. I didn't want to see Will
Smith acting like an a-hole is his movies. I don't think anyone does
but I saw this film anyway. And you know what? This has got to be one
of the biggest surprises this summer! I loved it! Hancock is a movie
where it answers the question, "What happens if a superhero just
doesn't care?" And it does it great! Will Smith plays well as the
misunderstood superhero. He does a great job. Jason Bateman and
Charlize Theron are good supporting roles. What I didn't like about the
film is that it was marketed in a wrong way. What you see in the
trailers for this film is basically the first thirty minutes of the
entire movie. It's marketed as a superhero comedy. Well, the jokes are
funny but there are also dramatic scenes in here. It adds a surprising
sense of sweetness in the film.

Unlike other superhero movies, "Hancock" isn't based on a comic book so
no one really has an idea of what's going to happen in this film and
that's what makes the movie so great! Finally, a superhero movie that
isn't predictable (in most cases). The film does a great job giving us
the information that we would need to know, although it doesn't answer
all the questions we want to know, like how Hancock obtained his powers
and so on and so forth. The movie also has some surprising twists and
turns to keep audiences interested. When you think this is going to
happen, a twist comes to keep you off guard which makes the film quite
refreshing and original than most superhero movies. The action scenes
are good, although maybe not as big and great as you expect it to be.

And I must say, John Powell does an EXCELLENT job with the score for
the film. I also think this is one of Peter Berg's better films. Now
don't go expecting what the TV spots and trailers show you. The film is
quite sweet and has a good moral message in the end and doesn't really
have as many jokes as you would expect. Will Smith does a great job
playing the character and the film is quite fresh and original. Like I
said, this has got to be the biggest surprise of this summer so far!
And yes, this movie is quite entertaining! Go see it! 8/10



Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 5:32pm

You "didn't want to see Will Smith acting like an a-hole"? That statement begs the question: Who says he's acting? 



-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 5:36pm

Update: Rotten 105 / Fresh 61...

Originally posted by moorlock2003

For you "Hancock" apologists, the current Rotten Tomatoes score is nearly 2 to 1 negative; Rotten 102, Fresh 57. The critics have clearly rejected this film.

 



-------------
Fred Cooper


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:20am
OMFG! I NEVER READ THE FIRST POST! I thought it was the usual "hating the movie" passage again! I'm surprised that I missed it! I can't believe--I'm in shock! This movie was actually liked by people! Wow. I have NEVER seen this on this site! If anyone is nice enough, are there other threads that have this thing?


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 13 2008 at 11:47am

Here's the Movie Preview Critic's take on "Hancock", but keep in mind, he is only reviewing the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDfSWGg7_I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDfSWGg7_I



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: November 09 2008 at 5:06am
While I was on vacation, my friend made me order this in our hotel room,
because she was supposedly too busy to see it in theaters this summer,
and it was even worse the second time. Now in her opinion, the first half
hour of him being a boozy superhero is semi-worthy of being a skit on
Saturday Night Live(as long as you didn't show the horrendous scene
where Hancock rams one man's head up another guy's ass), but as soon
as that is over, the movie goes strait downhill from there, revealing a big
plot twist that even she knew was going to happen(if you've seen
Superman Returns and The Incredibles, and she added that the
big fight scene he where he fights Charlize Theron plays exactly like the
final fight scene in The Matrix Revolutions.

And after a second viewing, in my personal opinion, this is even worse
than Norbit, because this tries to be a moving melodrama the way
Superman did, in the lamest possible way, and Norbit is just a
comedy sketch gone wrong.

One more thing, why doesn't this appear in pink color on the Razzie list
of eligible titles? Are they trying to make it harder to bash this piece
of $hi+?!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 9:03am

Originally posted by movieman

While I was on vacation, my friend made me order this in our hotel room,
because she was supposedly too busy to see it in theaters this summer,
and it was even worse the second time. Now in her opinion, the first half
hour of him being a boozy superhero is semi-worthy of being a skit on
Saturday Night Live(as long as you didn't show the horrendous scene
where Hancock rams one man's head up another guy's ass), but as soon
as that is over, the movie goes strait downhill from there, revealing a big
plot twist that even she knew was going to happen(if you've seen
Superman Returns and The Incredibles, and she added that the
big fight scene he where he fights Charlize Theron plays exactly like the
final fight scene in The Matrix Revolutions.

And after a second viewing, in my personal opinion, this is even worse
than Norbit, because this tries to be a moving melodrama the way
Superman did, in the lamest possible way, and Norbit is just a
comedy sketch gone wrong.

One more thing, why doesn't this appear in pink color on the Razzie list
of eligible titles? Are they trying to make it harder to bash this piece
of $hi+?!

You are one crazy person...I loved the movie a lot more after they revealed the twist and I loved the fact it changed to be a more serious drama than a comedy.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 3:21pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

You are one crazy person...I loved the movie a lot more after they revealed the twist and I loved the fact it changed to be a more serious drama than a comedy.

Once again, if you don't want to get insulted, don't say things like "you are one crazy person". Just because you loved a movie doesn't mean every else has to. As for your opinion of the movie, yes, it was interesting that they made it more drama than comedy. It was something different, which we at the Razzie forums like. But critics hated it, most likely because they were tired of the production line of superhero movies that came out this year and took their anger out on this movie.



Posted By: moat
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 7:01pm
Originally posted by Michaels

It was something different, which we at the Razzie forums like. But critics hated it, most likely because they were tired of the production line of superhero movies that came out this year and took their anger out on this movie.

Ehh, I don't really buy that. I'm of the opinion that the film's critical reception is due to its tonal inconsistencies, among other flaws. I would imagine if critics were really all that fed up with the glut of superhero films, it would be something that they'd point out in their reviews. Like, a common complaint would be something along the lines of "Just another entry in the assembly-line summer '08 superhero class."

If the true problem was with the numerous superhero films, why choose Hancock as the movie to take their anger out on? It was a superhero film that deviated from the typical formula more than any other film of its ilk this year. It doesn't make sense to take out some kind of pent up animosity over the amount of superhero films on one that doesn't conform to the conventions of that type of film. Why didn't the Incredible Hulk movie or the Hellboy sequel get capped on instead? They seem to fit more in line with the standard superhero films of the year.

In short, I think Hancock got nailed because the film didn't adequately entertain the critical establishment, not because of the type of film it was. I saw it, and I generally agree with the critical consensus. It doesn't seem all that unbelievable to me that the movie just wasn't very good in a lot of people's eyes.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 3:03pm

Originally posted by moat

Ehh, I don't really buy that. I'm of the opinion that the film's critical reception is due to its tonal inconsistencies, among other flaws. I would imagine if critics were really all that fed up with the glut of superhero films, it would be something that they'd point out in their reviews. Like, a common complaint would be something along the lines of "Just another entry in the assembly-line summer '08 superhero class."

If the true problem was with the numerous superhero films, why choose Hancock as the movie to take their anger out on? It was a superhero film that deviated from the typical formula more than any other film of its ilk this year. It doesn't make sense to take out some kind of pent up animosity over the amount of superhero films on one that doesn't conform to the conventions of that type of film. Why didn't the Incredible Hulk movie or the Hellboy sequel get capped on instead? They seem to fit more in line with the standard superhero films of the year.

In short, I think Hancock got nailed because the film didn't adequately entertain the critical establishment, not because of the type of film it was. I saw it, and I generally agree with the critical consensus. It doesn't seem all that unbelievable to me that the movie just wasn't very good in a lot of people's eyes.

True, but another factor would be the comic book fans. As any critic will tell you, when you bash a movie based on a beloved Marvel or DC character, the comic book's fanbase (which in some cases can date back 70 years!) will send you piles upon piles of hate mail. Since "Hancock" was an original hero made for the big screen, critics didn't have to worry about upsetting fanboys, and as a result, they were able to rip this movie a new one without fear of fanboy wraith.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 3:32pm
I while back,BurnHollywoodBurn said he wanted super-heroe movies to be darker.I'm sure he's happy.

Director Peter Berg didn't write this movie like he did with VERY BAD THINGS,but they both have the same mistake:The comedy and drama are unbalanced.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 15 2010 at 6:14pm
Originally posted by Vits

I while back,BurnHollywoodBurn said he wanted super-heroe movies to be darker.I'm sure he's happy.

Director Peter Berg didn't write this movie like he did with VERY BAD THINGS,but they both have the same mistake:The comedy and drama are unbalanced.
Yes, it was darker. However, the plot was lacking. No explaination, just hints about what Hancock's back story is. Clearly they wanted plot holes that they can explain in a sequel. Once again, Hollywood, WAIT until you know for a fact that you have a hit on your hands, don't be planning sequels in advance.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 14 2010 at 4:45pm
I give this 7/10.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window