Hancock: unexpected depth
July 8th, 2008
We went and saw Hancock on the weekend after some debate about if it was indeed worth going out to see it. We obviously went and I’m glad we did (for the most part, something happened that I’ll talk about in a different post and has no connection to the film).
I went in expecting a light, hopefully funny big special effects film. Light is not the word I would use to describe it because it has an unexpected level of depth that made it more rewarding than the ads promised.
I will not comment on Will Smith’s status in Scientology as I don’t try and let that effect me when I watch a film. Will is really good and delivers some hilarious lines as well as really great performance. There is one scene in particular where he gets angry with some criminals and lashes out that was a really interesting scene in my mind. It explores something that is rarely done so with characters such as Superman (maybe Wonder Woman). With all that power if you reacted in a human way it would be devastating, do I dare say it “with great power…”
The real comic genius in the film though is Jason Bateman whom I never thought I would think is brilliantly funny but he just is (thank you Arrested Development). His timing and delivery is always spot on but he also delivers a great performance.
Visually the film is so enjoyable, there are great special effects and there are a couple of shots that could be lifted directly from a comic book.
There are some plot points though that are so unbelievably obvious that I’m pretty certain the director realised and figured why not leave that aspect in there and treat the viewers like intelligent individuals and doesn’t try to expect us to be surprised.
Great non-comic book comic book movie… if that makes sense?
Popularity: 5% [?]
More posts like this:
Categories: Movies | Tags: arrested development, comic book, hancock, jason bateman, Will Smith
A majority of the reviews I’ve heard/read says basically the same thing: strong, intriguing start and a muddled (some said almost-insulting) finish.
I’m still intrigued myself, but only for a rental.
In general it IS nice to see a non-comic book comic book movie. (Holy crap! Is Hollywood being creative again?)
arkonbeys last blog post..O.T. Three update
[Reply to this comment]
arkonbey - I don’t know if I was that moved by the ending, there is a cringe moment but overall it was fairly satisfying.
I think that there wasn’t enough action sequences for most people’s taste.
Oh and welcome to QYDJ thanks for leaving a comment!
[Reply to this comment]
See, that depth is what’s been coming through in the commercials and newer trailers, and what’s been doing a great job of making me want to see this movie.
Then hearing about the “poor” ending and short length bugs me, and I don’t want to spend money on that. (Though I’ve heard different lengths varying from 80-120 minutes… how long was it, really?)
Jeffs last blog post..Review: Doctor Who 2008
[Reply to this comment]
Jeff, I didn’t notice how long it was which is generally a good sign but it certainly isn’t a long film I guess.
I wasn’t that unhappy with the ending, I’m surprised everyone is saying that they didn’t like it.
But yeah I think there is more to this film that what the original ads showed.
Now that I think about it, the film could have probably done with a little more fleshing out but as I said I enjoyed it.
[Reply to this comment]