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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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+?!
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?
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.
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
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum