Handcock (now with spoilers)

Wow, a superhero movie that actually BROKE FROM FORMULA!
Someone please send this movie to Marvel Studios Pronto.

Yeah, I've heard it's very unconventional.

I've heard it's also terrible.

I've heard it's quite unconventional if you've not read a comic book in the last twenty years and expect superheroes to be stuck in that golden/silver age mode. But I think what Frank's saying is that it doesn't follow the usual superhero origin trajectory that pretty much every comics movie has over the past couple of years. No slight to you, Frank, I know you're comics-savvy.

But it looks like crap as far as I'm concerned...and I think I've pretty much decided that any movie Will Smith is in might as well be called WILL SMITH: THE MOVIE. I'm so sick of his mugging and "aw hell na" shtick that I cringe whenever I see that he's in a new movie. I AM LEGEND sealed the deal for me.

I just got back from this film. Sometimes being a good dad means doing your duty and taking your 14 year old kid to a movie you'd otherwise pass on.

This movie failed because it took 2 good ideas, each of which would have made a decent superhero film on their own, and tried to cram them into one movie. Bad idea.

benny lava wrote:

I just got back from this film. Sometimes being a good dad means doing your duty and taking your 14 year old kid to a movie you'd otherwise pass on.

This movie failed because it took 2 good ideas, each of which would have made a decent superhero film on their own, and tried to cram them into one movie. Bad idea.

So you are going to tell me that Iron Man was better?
I walked out of Iron Man thinking "Hmm, well made fun film" and 5 minutes later forgot about what the fuck it was I just watched. I never walked into a cinema to see incredible Hulk yet I feel like I've seen it. Pure formula and I'm bored of it.

Why did Hancock fail? Because it was different? Because they didn't just make it a superhero spoof alla Mystery Men? Because they didn't make it a 'superhero' film by slapping a "supervillan" for him to fight at the end?
Because the audience would actually be wondering where the film was going instead of knowing this was story template 103, and this is the bit where the girlfriend will be stuck in peril leading to the climax?

If Hancock is a fail, please Hollywood give me more failures.

It amazes me that net nerds sit their crying about Hollywoods lack of originality, yet every time something original comes out they bitch and moan like a retard. You people don't want to see something new, you just want to be regurgitated the same film with a different costume (That comes from the funny books, nothing original please!)

I'm going to write the avengers movie review. May as well since I already know 90% of it before it's started.

Damn Marvel zombies.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

So you are going to tell me that Iron Man was better?
I walked out of Iron Man thinking "Hmm, well made fun film" and 5 minutes later forgot about what the fuck it was I just watched. I never walked into a cinema to see incredible Hulk yet I feel like I've seen it. Pure formula and I'm bored of it.

Why did Hancock fail? Because it was different? Because they didn't just make it a superhero spoof alla Mystery Men? Because they didn't make it a 'superhero' film by slapping a "supervillan" for him to fight at the end?
Because the audience would actually be wondering where the film was going instead of knowing this was story template 103, and this is the bit where the girlfriend will be stuck in peril leading to the climax?

If Hancock is a fail, please Hollywood give me more failures.

It amazes me that net nerds sit their crying about Hollywoods lack of originality, yet every time something original comes out they bitch and moan like a retard. You people don't want to see something new, you just want to be regurgitated the same film with a different costume (That comes from the funny books, nothing original please!)

I'm going to write the avengers movie review. May as well since I already know 90% of it before it's started.

Damn Marvel zombies.[/quote]

I agree with you that Hancock didn't follow the usual superhero template, and that's a good thing. I'm purposely using vague wording because I don't want to spoil the plot for those that haven't seen it yet, but my problem with the film is that it took 2 excellent story ideas and mashed them together in a way that just didn't work for me. Each major storyline in this movie would have made a good movie all on its own. Jammed together, not so much. It really felt like Hancock 1 and 2 crammed into 90 minutes. So, yeah, it had original storylines, but they were too compressed.

And, yes, I am going to tell you that Iron Man was better. Yes, it followed the standard superhero movie template, but it did it well and had a great performance from Downey.

Forget Iron Man and Hancock, though. The Dark Knight looks totally badass.

WELCOME TO EARF, VAMPARRRRSS....AW, HELL NAW!



I think this looks like a good idea, I was excited to see it but the reviews for it have been uniformly bad. I'll probably still try to see it at a matinee or something.


But no way is this thing as good as Iron Man, or even the Hulk. And it won't be fit to lick the ass crack of The Dark Knight.

benny lava wrote:

I agree with you that Hancock didn't follow the usual superhero template, and that's a good thing. I'm purposely using vague wording because I don't want to spoil the plot for those that haven't seen it yet, but my problem with the film is that it took 2 excellent story ideas and mashed them together in a way that just didn't work for me. Each major storyline in this movie would have made a good movie all on its own. Jammed together, not so much. It really felt like Hancock 1 and 2 crammed into 90 minutes. So, yeah, it had original storylines, but they were too compressed.

Disagree entirely, I thought the tonal shift was excellent and stopped the film from dragging as all comedies start to do at the halfway point. The revelations in the second half were unexpected (well, except for the obvious one which I don't think was intended to be a twist) but made a hell of a lot of sense the more you think about it.
The more I think about it, the more I like it.

The film is rough, I'll give you that. You can tell its been edited at the last minute (and the story is it needed 3 passes before it got its PG rating - and frankly I still don't know how it got it 'cause I wouldn't really consider it child appropriate.) But the films from the 70s were rough as guts too, I think it gives the film more charm.

Marvel Franklin Zombie wrote

But no way is this thing as good as Iron Man, or even the Hulk. And it won't be fit to lick the ass crack of The Dark Knight.

How the hell do you know? Gone and rated Agricola a 10 yet, the critics say that is awesome as well.

Marvel Franklin Zombie wrote

But no way is this thing as good as Iron Man, or even the Hulk. And it won't be fit to lick the ass crack of The Dark Knight.

How the hell do you know? Gone and rated Agricola a 10 yet, the critics say that is awesome as well.

You're so cute when you're huffy.


Let's put it this way...when something gets a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, I don't write it off--because that just means Ebert and Roeper and all the hoity toity film critics shit all over it. They've done that lots of times to movies I like. But when something's down around 20-30%, that means a LOT of people didn't like it.

I can't say I won't like it, but I've seen the trailers. It looks interesting, but the trailer I saw looks to have given the whole story away except for the "twist", which I'm still in the dark about and prefer to be.


Now...I've seen the Dark Knight trailers, almost every piece of viral marketing, the first five minutes online, and let's face it, everyone who has seen it thus far is slobbing its knob in an extreme fashion. Everything about this movie looks good. People are talking about a comic book film having a performance that's Oscar worthy.




Besides, liking Batman makes me a DC zombie, not a Marvel zombie. Get it right, skullhead.

The trailers for this film look great. It is also the guy who is going to direct the new Dune. I think I should go to see this. Trouble is, there is too much to see coming out at the moment.

Ken B. wrote:

Marvel Franklin Zombie wrote

Let's put it this way...when something gets a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, I don't write it off--because that just means Ebert and Roeper and all the hoity toity film critics shit all over it. They've done that lots of times to movies I like. But when something's down around 20-30%, that means a LOT of people didn't like it.[/q]

The critics claimed Crystal Skull was a good film.

I can't say I won't like it, but I've seen the trailers. It looks interesting, but the trailer I saw looks to have given the whole story away except for the "twist", which I'm still in the dark about and prefer to be.

Don't know what trailers you saw, but the 2 I saw only contained stuff from the first 30 minutes of the film.

Besides, liking Batman makes me a DC zombie, not a Marvel zombie. Get it right, skullhead.

I was refering to Iron man and Hulk. I did not comment on Dark Knight since DING DING DING - None of us have seen it!

Mr Skeletor wrote:

The critics claimed Crystal Skull was a good film.

Whoa man, you're fighting dirty.

I can't say I won't like it, but I've seen the trailers. It looks interesting, but the trailer I saw looks to have given the whole story away except for the "twist", which I'm still in the dark about and prefer to be.

Don't know what trailers you saw, but the 2 I saw only contained stuff from the first 30 minutes of the film.

The trailer I saw...SPOILER...had him capturing some crooks, showed everyone didn't like him, had him getting a PR dude, then going to prison and prison hijinks ensue, then there being a crisis and them getting him out of jail, then him being in some sort of combat with explosions and gunfire and rescuing some people. If they packed all that in 30 minutes, I think I'll have whiplash.

Besides, liking Batman makes me a DC zombie, not a Marvel zombie. Get it right, skullhead.

I was refering to Iron man and Hulk. I did not comment on Dark Knight since DING DING DING - None of us have seen it!

Fair enough, dude. We can't have that conversation until it comes out. But some people HAVE seen it, and they've reviewed it favorably.

I can say this--it won't be "formula" like you say. We got the origin story out of the way already. According to reviews it is also a very unconventional comic book movie and the version of Batman people have been waiting for since Miller's version of the Dark Knight.

Tell ya what, Frank--I can't talk shit about a movie I haven't seen, so I'll slip off and see Hancock this week and let you know what I think of it. And I already know I'll be doing a proper Dark Knight review for the site when that comes out.

Ken B. wrote:

I can't say I won't like it, but I've seen the trailers. It looks interesting, but the trailer I saw looks to have given the whole story away except for the "twist", which I'm still in the dark about and prefer to be.

The trailer I saw...SPOILER...had him capturing some crooks, showed everyone didn't like him, had him getting a PR dude, then going to prison and prison hijinks ensue, then there being a crisis and them getting him out of jail, then him being in some sort of combat with explosions and gunfire and rescuing some people. If they packed all that in 30 minutes, I think I'll have whiplash.[/quote]

Thats probably the first 45-60 mins. When written out like that yes, it does seem that this is the entire storyline of the film (ie jail is act 2, the rescue act 3) but it isn't.

Tell ya what, Frank--I can't talk shit about a movie I haven't seen, so I'll slip off and see Hancock this week and let you know what I think of it. And I already know I'll be doing a proper Dark Knight review for the site when that comes out.

I'm not sure why you are still talking about the dark knight since:
1) I said ages ago this film will most likely be the best of summer.
2) It's clearly not sticking to formula. If anything this proves my point that the superhero film formula is currently overplayed.
3) I said "Show marvel" - this isn't made by marvel studio.

Notice too I have said nothing about Hellboy 2, which I am also looking forward too.

My point is I skipped Hulk because it frankly looked so gerneric it bored me - Ange Lees Hulk at least took an attempt at depth.
Iron man was well polished and pretty damn forgetable. Because again it was so generic.
Hancock was rough as guts but frankly I preferred it to Iron Man because the story had the balls to go in a different direction then I expected.

My bad, Frank...thought you were lumping TDK in with the rest. I liked both Iron Man and Hulk but dinged both of them for "playing it safe." The days are over where we are simply grateful for a comic book movie that doesn't fuck things up.

Man, Hellboy does look good, don't it? I liked the first one way more than I thought I would. Pearlman is freakin' channeling that character. Mix in Del Toro's distinctive style, him being given far more freedom and a bigger budget and we should have a winner here.