To all those people (maybe two) waiting for me to rip into this film, I'm afraid to say I really enjoyed it. I thought it was a really, really excellent film with a really strange problem.
For those of you who haven't yet seen it yet, I should explain that this is the shortest film you'll ever see at just under 50 minutes. The rest of the film is a poorly made, shark-jumping sequel without any transition - I tell you what, it's a strange and terrible idea for a double feature.I'm not sure why they didn't think the first film was worth a full 90 minutes. It is a beautiful character study of a person who does not fit it, who does not need to fit in, who does not know how to fit in but wants to. It's about someone who wants to change the world, and decides to do it one person at a time. It's about growing trust after a lifetime of disappointments. It's about isolation in the middle of crowds. It's about people genuinely trying to make something of themselves. We'll call this movie Hancock 1. Hancock 1 is fantastic.
Unfortunately they decide to rush through this thing quicker than Dragonball Evolution's climax - just so they can get to the wife-beating, pointlessly feel bad, franchise destroying Hancock 2.
I would have preferred a much deeper look into Hancock 1, really juice the whole idea for everything its worth - and it was worth so much more. I wanted to see him slowly opening up in those prison therapy sessions. I wanted to see a proper second act low point. I wanted to see a proper resolution that ties together all the themes. This movie could have been something unique - in essence a love story between a person and his community. Spiderman 1 touched on it, but this was the perfect vehicle to properly explore it on a deeper level.
What I didn't want to see was a corny tornado fight and an irrelevant love triangle.
FOR THOSE STUDYING MOVIES:
Interested in movies awkwardly halved? May I recommend viewing Happy Feet, and Beetlejuice.
Happy Feet resolves it's storyline about 30 minutes early, in order to jam in a message about overfishing.
Beetlejuice on the other hand has the opposite problem to Hancock. It's taken the first half of what should have been an excellent movie, and stretched it over the whole movie; creating this awkward, go-nowhere disappointment that overstays its welcome (ironically like the main character).
(Phrase of the day: 'Corny tornado')
Interested in movies awkwardly halved? May I recommend viewing Happy Feet, and Beetlejuice.
Happy Feet resolves it's storyline about 30 minutes early, in order to jam in a message about overfishing.
Beetlejuice on the other hand has the opposite problem to Hancock. It's taken the first half of what should have been an excellent movie, and stretched it over the whole movie; creating this awkward, go-nowhere disappointment that overstays its welcome (ironically like the main character).
(Phrase of the day: 'Corny tornado')
YES. Exactly. I was meant to write a review of this way back when I saw it at the cinema.
ReplyDeleteIt's two films very awkwardly forced together, and worst of all it doesn't know whether it wants to be The Dark Knight or Bowfinger. Pick a tone! Are you a deep, serious movie or a funny one?!
Very... baffling movie.
ooh, i havent seen this film people were very divided about it. hey did u guys see taken? it was tops,
ReplyDeletecan you reveiw the new star trek?
I did find this film very odd indeed. It was strangely not exciting and yet ambitiously trying to be so. The vfx were good. Though it had a big lack of something in the middle. It does leave you perplexed.
ReplyDelete