If ever there was an award ceremony for the world’s worst super hero movie then Hancock would be there somewhere in the top 5. For the life of me, I have not a clue as to why Hancock was never nominated for the Razzies in the year of release. In fact it was defended quite strongly by the razzies that the movie was actually not all that bad. I beg to differ with the Razzies on this count and retain my point of view. There is hardly a point of view that Peter Berg even attempts to make through the movie. I definitely give credit to Peter Berg for his versatility of acting and directing which very few people can claim to do. But just putting your name in the director’s slot does not a director make right? One has to pay careful attention to aspects that go beyond stating, “Lights, Camera, Action”. There are several elements of movie making that you would be best placed to identify and us amateur film critics would not be so sure about. But I would guess that the list would include, acting, editing, screenplay, dialogues, cinematography, script amongst the more important aspects and would then go on to the lesser ones. Dear Mr. Berg – with all due respect, I would guess you have missed out on almost every single aspect of film making and focused on just putting together 90 minutes of crap based on some really big names in the business of acting.
Well you weren’t all that ill placed Mr. Berg. Quite certainly there would have been enough and more in the world who loved the concept of a normal looking human being who is a super hero. So what if he is drunk out of its wits more often that not? And so what if he causes more damage to general property that most of the bad guys would have anyways caused? It is all supposed to be for the greater good right? Wrong as the people of the city say over a period of time. It is not possible to sustain this random destruction of property in the name of saving human lives and stopping crime. And therefore, Hancock (Will Smith) very quickly finds himself in jail doing some time. But not before he is backed up by a Public Relations expert called Ray (Jason Bateman) whose life is saved by Hancock (what is the probability of being stuck in front of a train at a manned level crossing and the train doesn’t stop but continues to run into you. Obviously there is no one who has flagged the train to a stop earlier). Together Ray and Hancock try to repair Hancock’s ruined image in the market.
The only saving grace about Hancock seems to be the ethereal presence of Charlize Theron. Sadly, it has nothing much to do with her acting prowess and only to do with her looks. But I am not complaining. I could look at her for the rest of my life. So 90 minutes seemed more like 90 seconds. Consistency errors are the hall mark of Hancock and as mentioned earlier, there are no aspects that are basic to movie making which are actually followed in the movie. It may be random fun but it is not a good movie by any stretch of imagination. 3 on 10 is my verdict.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2497904921/
Well you weren’t all that ill placed Mr. Berg. Quite certainly there would have been enough and more in the world who loved the concept of a normal looking human being who is a super hero. So what if he is drunk out of its wits more often that not? And so what if he causes more damage to general property that most of the bad guys would have anyways caused? It is all supposed to be for the greater good right? Wrong as the people of the city say over a period of time. It is not possible to sustain this random destruction of property in the name of saving human lives and stopping crime. And therefore, Hancock (Will Smith) very quickly finds himself in jail doing some time. But not before he is backed up by a Public Relations expert called Ray (Jason Bateman) whose life is saved by Hancock (what is the probability of being stuck in front of a train at a manned level crossing and the train doesn’t stop but continues to run into you. Obviously there is no one who has flagged the train to a stop earlier). Together Ray and Hancock try to repair Hancock’s ruined image in the market.
The only saving grace about Hancock seems to be the ethereal presence of Charlize Theron. Sadly, it has nothing much to do with her acting prowess and only to do with her looks. But I am not complaining. I could look at her for the rest of my life. So 90 minutes seemed more like 90 seconds. Consistency errors are the hall mark of Hancock and as mentioned earlier, there are no aspects that are basic to movie making which are actually followed in the movie. It may be random fun but it is not a good movie by any stretch of imagination. 3 on 10 is my verdict.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2497904921/
No comments:
Post a Comment