Hancock (formerly Tonight, He Comes)

[Mike Olbinski]

I'm a self-professed movie critic, and I wrote a review for it on my other blog.

Will Smith was fine, but nowhere near as exciting as in Pursuit of Happyness or even I Am Legend. This was a standard performance, nothing new, nothing original.

Heck, it wasn't even all that funny.

I love Will Smith, I was looking forward to having a good time here, but I thought the story was kind of weak, told too fast and was sloppy

By the way, for those that say movie critics are smug and whatever. It's possible to enjoy a movie, but also find a lot of fault with it. And if you ARE a movie critics, your job isn't to just say "I loved it, had a great, go seeeeee it!"

It's to analyze it and give a qualified response.

The weird thing about Hancock was that everyone thought it was a comedy, but it wasn't all that funny, and then became big time dramatic. Just a weird feel.

 

[Pariah]

The weird thing about Hancock was that everyone thought it was a comedy,

Really? I never thought that. Was it advertised as such?

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Really? I never thought that. Was it advertised as such?

Sure it was, him being all drunk, the "costume is tight", etc. Plus it was Will Smith, you kind of think COMEDY a lot with him.

Anyways, at least for me, i thought it was going to be funnier.

 

[Shane]

Passed up Wall-E for earnings this weekend. Pretty damned good considering it came out after Wall-E and Pixar seesm to be box office kings.

 

[Skkorpion]

No offense skkorp, but I find it kinda funny that people complain about critics having "smug superiority fixations" by doing what? Acting smug and superior.

ha ha. "No offense, skkorp" but you are "acting smug and superior."

Come on Chaplin, we dislike each other. You meant offense. At least be honest about it. I wear your contempt proudly. We are defined as much by our enemies as our friends.

Back to the real issue being discussed here. There seem to be two groups of movie goers, in my opinion.

One group enjoys analyzing and dissecting all kinds of aspects, nuances and other esoteric things. This group is far more artistically talented and aware of minutiae I don't see or care about when I do notice it.

Group two, in which I include myself, just enjoys a good story and wants to be entertained. Flaws in a performance or story? We don't care as long as we leave the theater happy to have seen the show.

What Hollywood moguls know is that most of us fit in the second group and that's why they will keep making entertaining stories. Keeps cash coming in and artistic people employed at something other than waiting tables.

You know what makes me laugh at many critics? When I read that something is "formulaic" or "has been done many times before". "Nothing new to offer." "Predictable."

Huh? There probably hasn't been an original basic idea in human literature in 1,500 years. Or longer. It's all been done before. Over and over. In many languages, many mediums. Approached from countless angles.

News flash. There hasn't been an original critic or criticism either.

The human condition is the human condition. When those with talent tell a good tale about it, it's a wonderful thing to enjoy, no matter how many times it's been done before.

As I get older, experience has taught me to rely more on viewer reviews than critics' acclaim. And I waste fewer hours and dollars on garbage movies.

No more snooze fests like Bergman's "Fanny and Alexander".

No more "Ordinary people" wallows in dysfunction, going home socially enlightened, suddenly rendered sensitive to human misery thanks to stunning artistic brilliance.

Better to save some money and put the day to similar use by staying home and practicing vomiting by sticking my fingers down my throat. Not having ever drunk too much and vomited because of it, the experience would, no doubt, have sensitized me to the plight of poor buggers afflicted with that problem.

Bah. I'm shallow. Movies are an escape from life for a few short hours. Entertain me. That's enough. Make me laugh, cry, cringe. Scare me, shock me, make me think.

Don't lecture me and don't bore me. Many critics do both very well.

 

[ajcardfan]

I enjoyed it more than I enjoyed the Indiana Jones movie. But, this one won't be all that memorable either.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

ha ha. "No offense, skkorp" but you are "acting smug and superior."

Come on Chaplin, we dislike each other. You meant offense. At least be honest about it. I wear your contempt proudly. We are defined as much by our enemies as our friends.

Back to the real issue being discussed here. There seem to be two groups of movie goers, in my opinion.

One group enjoys analyzing and dissecting all kinds of aspects, nuances and other esoteric things. This group is far more artistically talented and aware of minutiae I don't see or care about when I do notice it.

Group two, in which I include myself, just enjoys a good story and wants to be entertained. Flaws in a performance or story? We don't care as long as we leave the theater happy to have seen the show.

What Hollywood moguls know is that most of us fit in the second group and that's why they will keep making entertaining stories. Keeps cash coming in and artistic people employed at something other than waiting tables.

You know what makes me laugh at many critics? When I read that something is "formulaic" or "has been done many times before". "Nothing new to offer." "Predictable."

Huh? There probably hasn't been an original basic idea in human literature in 1,500 years. Or longer. It's all been done before. Over and over. In many languages, many mediums. Approached from countless angles.

News flash. There hasn't been an original critic or criticism either.

The human condition is the human condition. When those with talent tell a good tale about it, it's a wonderful thing to enjoy, no matter how many times it's been done before.

As I get older, experience has taught me to rely more on viewer reviews than critics' acclaim. And I waste fewer hours and dollars on garbage movies.

No more snooze fests like Bergman's "Fanny and Alexander".

No more "Ordinary people" wallows in dysfunction, going home socially enlightened, suddenly rendered sensitive to human misery thanks to stunning artistic brilliance.

Better to save some money and put the day to similar use by staying home and practicing vomiting by sticking my fingers down my throat. Not having ever drunk too much and vomited because of it, the experience would, no doubt, have sensitized me to the plight of poor buggers afflicted with that problem.

Bah. I'm shallow. Movies are an escape from life for a few short hours. Entertain me. That's enough. Make me laugh, cry, cringe. Scare me, shock me, make me think.

Don't lecture me and don't bore me. Many critics do both very well.

A ding... ding

You must be registered for see images attach

You da man Skkorp!!!!

 

[MigratingOsprey]

i really enjoyed the movie - it wasn't amazing, but i got my $5 worth for sure - everyone I went with liked it as well

i wasn't expecting a comedy - i was excepting a blend of action, then comedy then drama

i didn't mind the twist at all, although you could tell that something was going on between them and when he mentioned going to see frankenstein at dinner it clicked in what the twist would be

i liked the fact that she was married to justin bateman - keeps with her whole trying to move on deal and fight fate

there were little things that annoyed me (like angel noticing he had a bruise right before she threw him through a wall with a refrigerator and then fought through the city) ........ hancock being vulnerable to a man hitting him with an tank, but crashing through walls with no damage ...... but all in all the movie did a good job I thought

 

[Chaplin]

ha ha. "No offense, skkorp" but you are "acting smug and superior."

Come on Chaplin, we dislike each other. You meant offense. At least be honest about it. I wear your contempt proudly. We are defined as much by our enemies as our friends.

Back to the real issue being discussed here. There seem to be two groups of movie goers, in my opinion.

One group enjoys analyzing and dissecting all kinds of aspects, nuances and other esoteric things. This group is far more artistically talented and aware of minutiae I don't see or care about when I do notice it.

Group two, in which I include myself, just enjoys a good story and wants to be entertained. Flaws in a performance or story? We don't care as long as we leave the theater happy to have seen the show.

What Hollywood moguls know is that most of us fit in the second group and that's why they will keep making entertaining stories. Keeps cash coming in and artistic people employed at something other than waiting tables.

You know what makes me laugh at many critics? When I read that something is "formulaic" or "has been done many times before". "Nothing new to offer." "Predictable."

Huh? There probably hasn't been an original basic idea in human literature in 1,500 years. Or longer. It's all been done before. Over and over. In many languages, many mediums. Approached from countless angles.

News flash. There hasn't been an original critic or criticism either.

The human condition is the human condition. When those with talent tell a good tale about it, it's a wonderful thing to enjoy, no matter how many times it's been done before.

As I get older, experience has taught me to rely more on viewer reviews than critics' acclaim. And I waste fewer hours and dollars on garbage movies.

No more snooze fests like Bergman's "Fanny and Alexander".

No more "Ordinary people" wallows in dysfunction, going home socially enlightened, suddenly rendered sensitive to human misery thanks to stunning artistic brilliance.

Better to save some money and put the day to similar use by staying home and practicing vomiting by sticking my fingers down my throat. Not having ever drunk too much and vomited because of it, the experience would, no doubt, have sensitized me to the plight of poor buggers afflicted with that problem.

Bah. I'm shallow. Movies are an escape from life for a few short hours. Entertain me. That's enough. Make me laugh, cry, cringe. Scare me, shock me, make me think.

Don't lecture me and don't bore me. Many critics do both very well.

Wow. It was just a joke. Didn't expect you to take it so personally. Sorry about that. We disagree about a lot of things, but I don't dislike you. I'm not sure why you would say that. I'm truly sorry that you don't like me, but it's understandable I guess.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

I thoroughly enjoyed this one! Will Smith delivers another solid performance. This guy has gold on pretty much everything he touches.

I totally agree. Just got home from seeing this as a matinee. I loved it and I thought the plot twist was actually pretty cool. Totally original film and story. Oh, and Jason Bateman has got to be the luckiest guy...gets Charlize Theron and Jennifer Garner as wives in his last two movies.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Wow. It was just a joke. Didn't expect you to take it so personally. Sorry about that. We disagree about a lot of things, but I don't dislike you. I'm not sure why you would say that. I'm truly sorry that you don't like me, but it's understandable I guess.

Yet another case when someone takes something Chaplin said one way, yet he "never meant it as such."

I didn't see it as just a joke, it may have had a smiley-face, but you also had a point to make.

 

[FArting]

I rented this on Netflix. I didn't like the movie.

 

[thirty-two]

I had semi-high expectations for this as Vince Gilligan (my favorite X-Files writer) helped re-write, or co-write, whatever, this film. I thought the plot was all over the place. I wasn't too too surprised by the twist because of all the looks that she gave him in the beginning, I figured something was up there (but no, I didn't guess that it was the twist).

I thought Bateman did an excellent job, and Will did his Will thing. Overall, entaining but wow was the movie all over the place.