The best thing about the Fourth of July is that Will Smith movies come out on Tuesday instead of Friday. As such, I was able to catch the first showing of Hancock today at 7:05. Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman are curiously paired once again. My comments, as furiously tapped out to Nick post-credits, are below.
hancock was great. action and the origin worked for me. best superhero movie of the summer so far. hopefully they don't ruin it with a sequel.
Upon second thought though, this is not the 'best superhero movie of the summer so far' - but it certainly is the most creative and original.
I'm reserving the rest of my commentary for next week's Podcast.
you are kidding me right? about how this is the most original superhero movie of the summer?
what could be more original than hideous screen writing, illogical storyline with gaping holes and oh wait for it.. a scene ripped out of superman returns .. and here I thought Ironman was bad.. I agree the premise of the movie had great promise but the movie itself, good freaking god it was bad. maybe not as bad as indiana jones.. because you know.. there is a special place in hell for people who rip climax scenes from a nick cage movie.. but bad enough for me to question my sanity for sitting through the whole thing and hoping against hope that something interesting will happen.
Dearest brother of mine,
you don't really see superheroes movies like this:
it wasn't a sequel
it wasn't based off an old ass premise or involve some 80 year old concept (ie batman/superman)
it wasn't intended to be a franchise
there wasn't some crappy flashback 'origin'
did you see how hancock always looked like he was falling around drunk while flying? that was cool
ironman wasn't bad - it was well cast - and it was fucking IRONMAN. it's part of marvel's whole avengers franchise. it was way better than the xmen movies and stuff made before Marvel stopped letting other studios intertere and started doing the movies themselves.
and the new yorker agrees with me (at least on hancock, not so much on ironman).
so tell me, what superhero movie this summer is more creative / original than this?
Ah yes the comic book defense.
I was mentally preparing myself for this as I was walking back to work after sending you my tirade. Here is the thing, just because a movie is based on a comic book does not mean it gets a pass on basic movie making requirements.
-it wasnt a sequel
this is the standard by which we are judging movies now? that they are not sequels ??
-it wasnt based off an old ass premise or involve some 80 year old concept
as I said, interesting premise, but as a movie, it sucked.
-it was not intended to be a franchise
thank the lord for THAT, also what makes you think hollywood won't give you the return of hancock ? apparently its doing well enough in theaters for some hollywood idiot to have pitched the idea of a sequel already.
-there wasnt some crappy flashback 'origin'
thats because they could not even figure out how to make the present work, forget about the past.
-did you see how hancock always looked like he was falling around drunk while flying? that was great
the tech was straight out of spiderman, add some flailing to it..
-ironman wasn't bad - it was pretty well cast - and it was fucking IRONMAN. its part of marvels whole strategy to do an avengers movie/franchise. you cant knock it. it was WAYYYYYYYYYYY better than the original xmen movies and stuff made before Marvel stopped optioning movie rights and started doing the movies themselves.
-exactly what about ironman was good? I agree it wasn't AS bad as hancock, but come on now, you can't start by saying that the thing in favour of hancock was that it wasn't a sequel and a franchise in the making and then praise Ironman for setting the scene for a whole series.. and how is being better than xmen a defense ?
-the new yorker agrees with me.
aww..
-what is a more original superhero movie than this? seriously, tell me.
As far as comic book movies go, I liked batman begins. I am not saying batman was the perfect movie, plenty of things I can pick on, but as far as comic book movie making goes.. pretty freaking good. I am looking forward to the sequel, For once the Joker seems to be the maniac he is and not a joker.
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
sameer -
superhero movies are made with franchises in mind - so to see a movie that is NOT made to be a franchise is kind of neat. not many will smith movies, barring men in black and bad boys, spawn franchises. I think it is safe to say a Hancock 2 is not likely to happen.
dont go bagging on the tech - its hard to make a dude look good flying, spiderman's effects were much worse.
the ironman/avengers thing. i'm not saying that ironman was original or creative. I am saying it was a good action/hero movie and the sequels will dovetail nicely with the avengers franchise.
batman itself isn't original or creative. it is about as trite and recycled as it gets. i am anticipating the new movie - but almost entirely for the joker and twoface. batman has never been drawn me to the franchise - it's always been the villains.
Here's the text I sent Neal after I saw Hancock:
"You are nuts. Movie was just okay. Not bad but better premise than execution."
While I'm glad the movie didn't waste my time with a bloated origin, there's nothing original about the way it handled the concept of a superhero.
We know that Hancock has superpowers and he's ostracized from society, but it's simply accepted that he should be using his abilities like a crappy Superman. The story never really established its own internal logic.
To compound my complaints about the story, the film - in my opinion - had a horrid soundtrack, confusing scene jumps, awful dialogue, and a lack of respect for its audience.
I say lack of respect because the movie, while attempting to surprise viewers, rarely let the moviegoers figure things out on their own. The jokes were painfully repetitious and the character interactions felt forced similar to the way Juno felt unnatural.
god damn it nick, stop bolstering my brother's argument!
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
Lets stop with the sequel crap and evaluate the movie for what it was. I agree with Nick, lack of internal logic is what bothered me the most, well that and the absolutely shoddy screen writing, the quality of the dialog was poor, the scenes just jumped from one to the other. The changes in will smith's character are all too sudden and not at all convincing. Also I am completely tired of fight scenes on city highways. Somewhere some special effects company has made its business to supply generic street fight scenes involving large trucks and tankers.. ironman had it, hancock has it and so did everyone else. please stop this madness.
As for Ironman, all we had was an elaborate excuse to see Robert Downy Jr. work in his lab. The story was crap, and the climax was just oddly disappointing -- press that button chica.. and while nothing will happen to you.. and me.. the big bad guy will die.. idiots.
The reason I like Batman Returns is not because it brings anything new to the super hero genre, but because as a movie it is slickly made, the director respects the audience and was willing to make a genre film which was tight, well written and executed. The villain was interesting as opposed to the various other incarnations of Batman before it.. where the whole thing was comical.
my final 2 cents,
i liked hancock and ironman. both worked well for me though in different respects. they were summer popcorn crunching, metal wrecking, superhero movies. i spend all year waiting for the summer blockbusters, i enjoy watching them. stop overanalyzing escapist cinema! (save that for coen brother movies)
you can blame michael bay for destructive highway action sequences.
i thought it was the Matrix 2 you can blame for highway action sequences. remember how much that scene was hyped? (btw, i saw Speed Racer last night. it's a solid kids movie with 40 minutes of footage that could easily get cut.)
Sameer, interesting points you make about Batman Begins (you said Returns, but i know you meant Begins). i almost completely disagree with you in terms of my level of enjoyment with the film, but i see where you're coming from. i understand the appeal of the film as an action movie that takes its content seriously and does its best to make things feel genuine despite the fantastic premise. i prefer the Tim Burton Batman films, but they are decidedly sci-fi / fantasy in nature. Batman Begins attempts to treat its superhero fare more like a thriller, and i see how it paid off for the audience (though it didn't do it for me). Batman Begins did avoid a lot of the clichés that seem to plague the Marvel movies (and Hancock as well).
i liked the second half of Hancock much better when it was trying to be a thriller rather than a comedy. it still fell short in its thriller attempt, but i found it far more compelling than watching the misadventures of Jason Bateman's goofy businessman.
btw, Neal, i mean this in the most respectful way possible, but... after this Hancock thing i don't think i can go on your movie recommendations anymore.
AudioShocker Shoutouts!
