Hancock - not so good!
July 8th 2008 10:09
I’ve used these words before and I will use them again.
Disappointment: The feeling one derives from being disappointed.
Hancock sadly is a disappointment.
Now I don’t expect much from big budget, big hyped films. But with Hancock I thought I was going to get that little bit more, sadly I didn’t, and to make matters worse I have discovered an alarming trend that I prey will cease.
This trend involves Michael Mann and Peter Berg. Mann (one of my favorite directors, someone I consider I the in top five working today) has some kind of ill-founded enamor with Peter Berg. The Kingdom, a film with possibility, was to me, lacking. It was half a film. Something that lacked imagination when it was necessary, and Hancock suffers from this malediction also. Why is Mann backing Berg?
A little history story about Hancock. It was written in 1996 and languished ever since. Directors such as Tony Scott passed and Mann himself also had a crack at making it but didn’t pursue it, and I know why. It’s just not that good of a story.
Ok I accept that being a big budget block-buster the absence of good story can be tolerated if the rest of the dressing is good enough. But with regards to Hancock the plot and the story (which leaves the me going “so what the f**k is the back story, and is this some kind of way of setting up for a sequel and please no”) is just, I grasp for a word...gash.
It is a bunch of used film for a story. And it appears that way early in the film making, most of it quite vanilla.
So what’s good about Hancock? Well I’m a Will Smith fan, I’m a Jason Bateman fan, and throughout Hancock I had no trouble watching either of them. Will Smith is endearing as the cities “asshole” superhero. He has a way that make you pull for him but due to how the story presented there is a shine taken off the enamor you could feel for his character. I guess what I’m trying to say that at certain points of the film it seemed obvious the directors intentions from some scenes. This contrived sense of pandering direction was another marring factor that ultimately took away from Smith.
Jason Bateman, I love him, I adore him, but Jason Bateman plays Jason Bateman and that’s all. Now weather this is because Bateman can only bring this out of himself or directors only want Michael from Arrested Development for him I don’t know. I would like to think that there is more in him, I would like to see Bateman not be Bateman. Ben Stiller was the same for a while there, but he’s shown some range by going over the top with some great cameos. I just watched School for Scoundrels and his cameo was one of those Ben Stiller weird guy cameo but still a massive leap from Gaylord Faulker, this is what I would like to see in Bateman.
So overall Hancock not so good, but if you got time to kill and you feel like watching some action then get along to see it. I think about how I would have made this film better in the way of story but when I try I really just can’t be bothered. Maybe you can find a way they could have made it a little more less disappointing. Comments?
6/10
| 45 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
