beccatoria (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
beccatoria) wrote2008-09-06 05:29 pm
beccatoria) wrote2008-09-06 05:29 pm
Entry tags:
Film Review: Hancock
I saw this film when it came out and just watched it again. It's as good as I remember. I made the mistake of going to Rotten Tomatoes and some other websites to see what the general consensus was and was horrified to discover it got panned.
I...don't think they were watching the same film as me.
Perhaps it's the fact that the trailer paints it as a disgusting screwball comedy take on superheroes when it's actually a portrait of loneliness, apathy, loss and most of all love. And how damn refreshing it is that the love story - the epic, huge lovestory about soulmates - is an argument against them. Or at least, an argument against limiting love to these cliches.
There were a few times toward the beginning of the film where I thought the physical comedy and cheesy sarcastic lines were a little overdone. I think it's a sad state of affairs when most of the reviews laud the first half and complain about the "confused" second half. It's the second half that makes the first half more than an uninspired pisstake.
But this is an environment where Iron Man gets lauded as deep. Don't get me wrong, I think Iron Man is a fantastic movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it and can't wait for the next one. I don't think it's stupid or purile, but I also don't think that we can call it "deep". It's about as deep as any other "Weapons and Terrorism is bad, m'kay?" or "You're only an asshole because you're lonely," soundbytes can be. It's a good film and these are good messages, but their presence makes the film not-shallow, it doesn't provide it with great amounts of substance.
It's weird, isn't it? If he'd been bitten by a radioactive spider, or had come from another planet as an infant, or had been the subject of secret government experiments, or had accidentally made himself indestructable one night in his secret lab, and that was the big midfilm revelation about his origin, it wouldn't have been original, but the critics would probably have checked off another box in the "adorkable pisstake" box and moved on.
But reveal that he's one of a race of near extinct immortals created in pairs, who slowly becomes mortal when near his opposite number, and OH NO, YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR. Because that's just weird.
Wow, you know, I think I'm actually angry about the way this film's been marginalised and panned. And it's frustrating my ability to convey my feelings about it.
I guess my feelings are that if you go with it - if you accept this mythology of dying gods with no more answers than you have - this film is remarkable. I can't boil the message down to a nice bite-sized slogan, though, and that's probably the problem.
I like it when films change all the rules halfway through. I like it when screwball comedies suddenly become deadly serious. I thought the way Will Smith and Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman played their scenes gave remarkable and understated power to this bizarre love-triangle, and as someone who hates love triangles, well, I loved it.
Because it was the opposite of the usual thing. It wasn't, "We're soul mates, so on your bike Mr Normal Interloper Who Can't Possibly Make My Sparkly Destined Girlfriend Happy."
I've never seen a film where the most emotionally triumphant moment of the story is the lead male running the hell away from the lead female. Broken, battered, brave and desperately running through the rain-soaked streets though he can barely stand, because literally and metaphorically, that's the key to the happy ending: get away.
And it's so loving. They all save each other. They all give fate the middle finger and make a choice. And they are all heroes. And the "normal" guy doesn't get shafted, or belittled, or made fun of. His every day heroism isn't on the scale of superpowered punch-ups but it's never quite the consolation prize it usually is in these situations. It's indicated at the end that he's well on the way to changing the world in as profound a way as Hancock, albeit a different way.
I think the real problem is that this isn't a comedy superhero film. It's not a superhero film at all, really. It's an epic love story that repeats and repeats and repeats throughout history, and we at once see all of it through this single instance, and almost none. It's beauty is that it's epic at the same time it's about a few weeks out of three thousand years. It's about people who can fly and stop bullets and toy with the lives of people like Ray and it gets reduced down to a shoot out in a hospital where no one is special anymore, and they're all just as likely to die.
Mary tells us, Hancock's story always ends the same way: not special, just dying.
Sure we don't get every detail about Hancock and Mary's past or genesis, but it wouldn't be as wonderful if we did. It's why I like that the film is short. They could have padded it out with another half hour of kewl action sequences, but they didn't and it's the right choice. It's short because it's a short chapter of their lives: a moment in time like every other time Hancock and Mary meet and almost die, and separate, and also...not like any of them because each one is unique.
Ray symbolises that. He's not a part of this wider, repeating epic, but he is never, ever treated as trivial or not worth fighting for.
In sum, this film is awesome. Really, really awesome if you're willing to go with it. And I really don't understand why everyone seems to put the mediocre comedy the trailer advertised ahead of this quiet, concentrated character piece. I don't think there's really an overarching message to it. It's just a story that's full of acceptance, optimism and love.
I...don't think they were watching the same film as me.
Perhaps it's the fact that the trailer paints it as a disgusting screwball comedy take on superheroes when it's actually a portrait of loneliness, apathy, loss and most of all love. And how damn refreshing it is that the love story - the epic, huge lovestory about soulmates - is an argument against them. Or at least, an argument against limiting love to these cliches.
There were a few times toward the beginning of the film where I thought the physical comedy and cheesy sarcastic lines were a little overdone. I think it's a sad state of affairs when most of the reviews laud the first half and complain about the "confused" second half. It's the second half that makes the first half more than an uninspired pisstake.
But this is an environment where Iron Man gets lauded as deep. Don't get me wrong, I think Iron Man is a fantastic movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it and can't wait for the next one. I don't think it's stupid or purile, but I also don't think that we can call it "deep". It's about as deep as any other "Weapons and Terrorism is bad, m'kay?" or "You're only an asshole because you're lonely," soundbytes can be. It's a good film and these are good messages, but their presence makes the film not-shallow, it doesn't provide it with great amounts of substance.
It's weird, isn't it? If he'd been bitten by a radioactive spider, or had come from another planet as an infant, or had been the subject of secret government experiments, or had accidentally made himself indestructable one night in his secret lab, and that was the big midfilm revelation about his origin, it wouldn't have been original, but the critics would probably have checked off another box in the "adorkable pisstake" box and moved on.
But reveal that he's one of a race of near extinct immortals created in pairs, who slowly becomes mortal when near his opposite number, and OH NO, YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR. Because that's just weird.
Wow, you know, I think I'm actually angry about the way this film's been marginalised and panned. And it's frustrating my ability to convey my feelings about it.
I guess my feelings are that if you go with it - if you accept this mythology of dying gods with no more answers than you have - this film is remarkable. I can't boil the message down to a nice bite-sized slogan, though, and that's probably the problem.
I like it when films change all the rules halfway through. I like it when screwball comedies suddenly become deadly serious. I thought the way Will Smith and Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman played their scenes gave remarkable and understated power to this bizarre love-triangle, and as someone who hates love triangles, well, I loved it.
Because it was the opposite of the usual thing. It wasn't, "We're soul mates, so on your bike Mr Normal Interloper Who Can't Possibly Make My Sparkly Destined Girlfriend Happy."
I've never seen a film where the most emotionally triumphant moment of the story is the lead male running the hell away from the lead female. Broken, battered, brave and desperately running through the rain-soaked streets though he can barely stand, because literally and metaphorically, that's the key to the happy ending: get away.
And it's so loving. They all save each other. They all give fate the middle finger and make a choice. And they are all heroes. And the "normal" guy doesn't get shafted, or belittled, or made fun of. His every day heroism isn't on the scale of superpowered punch-ups but it's never quite the consolation prize it usually is in these situations. It's indicated at the end that he's well on the way to changing the world in as profound a way as Hancock, albeit a different way.
I think the real problem is that this isn't a comedy superhero film. It's not a superhero film at all, really. It's an epic love story that repeats and repeats and repeats throughout history, and we at once see all of it through this single instance, and almost none. It's beauty is that it's epic at the same time it's about a few weeks out of three thousand years. It's about people who can fly and stop bullets and toy with the lives of people like Ray and it gets reduced down to a shoot out in a hospital where no one is special anymore, and they're all just as likely to die.
Mary tells us, Hancock's story always ends the same way: not special, just dying.
Sure we don't get every detail about Hancock and Mary's past or genesis, but it wouldn't be as wonderful if we did. It's why I like that the film is short. They could have padded it out with another half hour of kewl action sequences, but they didn't and it's the right choice. It's short because it's a short chapter of their lives: a moment in time like every other time Hancock and Mary meet and almost die, and separate, and also...not like any of them because each one is unique.
Ray symbolises that. He's not a part of this wider, repeating epic, but he is never, ever treated as trivial or not worth fighting for.
In sum, this film is awesome. Really, really awesome if you're willing to go with it. And I really don't understand why everyone seems to put the mediocre comedy the trailer advertised ahead of this quiet, concentrated character piece. I don't think there's really an overarching message to it. It's just a story that's full of acceptance, optimism and love.
no subject
no subject
But I really, really do recommend giving it a go. The worst that can happen is that you won't enjoy it, but the best is that you'll find a real gem of a film. :)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-09-06 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)The light opening of the film allows you to gain an attachment to the characters that helps heighten the emotion later on.
When Hancock learns of his weakness in a bloody fashion the effect is shocking to the viewer and I don't think it'd have quite the same impact if we'd had nothing but drama since the start. That scene throws Hancock's and our world upside down.
It's an excellent superhero film, showing what being a hero really means, making a sacrifice.
I do think it is a stretch that Jason Bateman's character didn't know that Hancock doesn't age and has been active for over fifty years. He's the only superhero in the world, you'd think everything about him would be common knowledge.
Keep up the good work!
no subject
I'm really glad to know you agree though. I love it when stories manage to pull off a key change, like Farscape. And sometimes Joss Whedon (though lately I've been finding his "key changes" a little perfunctory and lazy).
I agree about the shooting too. The clues are there, the bruise, the way he misses the hoop shot in the prison, but there's just no way we - or he - expected to look down at his torso and see blood.
When he was running away at the end, I found myself comparing it to Superman in Superman Returns when he's fighting despite being wounded by the kryptonite. The difference is one of global influence: everyone knew that Superman was out there fighting and he was saving the world. Hancock was saving himself and his...family I suppose, but saving the world too because he had refound his purpose and because he was going to help Ray with a different kind of worldsaving.
I thought Superman Returns was excellent, so this is in no way an indictment of it (because Hancock and Superman are very different characters), but that kind of simultaneous big scale and small scale is great in this film. It's sort of...more heroic in some ways because Hancock doesn't have that pressure that everyone in the world is counting on him. He just has himself, and Mary, and her family. It's heroism in anonymity, I guess. And I think it's really moving (to use a cliche word) that its a story the world will never hear about that gives him the strength to go back to being a superhero.
As to Ray not knowing that Hnacock woke up eighty years ago, I guess that you have a point, but also the film doesn't give us a lot of Hancock's history. We know that he originally came from Miami. He may not have started fighting crime in Los Angeles until a few years ago, or Ray may have recently moved to Los Angeles. Although you'd think Ray would know about him anyway even if he was in another city.
Then again, while I'm sure Hancock was always out saving people in some way, he may only have become a superhero celebrity in recent times.
I can kind of see him not setting out to get recognised until he's so lonely and confused by his state that he gives up trying to find out who he was, gives up caring, and gives up trying to keep a low profile and prevent collatoral damage?
I dunno, I'm probably retconning wildly at this point, but it didn't really bother me that much in context. :)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-09-07 07:27 pm (UTC)(link)Plus you're teaching abroad so that makes your journal of your experiences really interesting.
no subject
I can't promise to blog often about the teaching abroad or that it'll always be that fascinating, but I'm glad it's entertaining so far. :)
no subject
I did like it, though for none of the reasons I though I would. It was an interesting idea and it was well done.
no subject
Yes, this is exactly how I feel. To be honest the trailer really didn't look that great and after hearing it was getting bad reviews I almost didn't go, but I'm really glad I did.
I mostly think it's a shame they felt the film had to be marketed as something it wasn't in order to succeed. Although if it had been marketed as a big, epic movie with "heart" or something I probably wouldn't feel this fierce need to defend and love it. Aren't I obstinate? ;)
I couldn't tell you if Charlize Theron was in the preview. But you're right, I don't think she was and that's a weird decision to make. Also I didn't realise it was Charlize Theron until about a third of the way through the movie. I actually like her quite a lot as an actress and I'm usually reasonable about recognising people, but somehow, she always throws me. She looks different in every film she's in. She changes her hair colour and looks like a whole new person. IT'S KINDA CREEPY...
no subject
For example in lots of marvel comics many characters could easily pick up a coach and swing it like a baseball bat. Now come the film version of say the x-men and your lucky if they can lift a washing machine.
Lol was strange that Will Smith was recently rumored to be playing captain america, which i really couldnt imagen working at least as a World War 2 Captain America.
no subject
And, Ray. He was the first character I fell for in the movie with his relentless optimism to save the world that is healthier and just as valid as the (self)destructive superhero way Hancock occasionally brings himself to try. And I adore the ending sequences and the way Ray's never pushed aside in this grand epic tale. Like you said, he matters just as much and that's a beautiful thing here.
I'm wondering which scene you might have wanted to take out? When I think of one I might, the one where Ray's wandering around oblivious while Hancock tries everything he can to injure Mary comes to mind as a return to the same screwball antics of the first half, but I actually don't know. The comedy was a bit over the top early on ("head up your ass"..the hell?) but I do think the tone helpedrealized all of the emotions that were bubbling just beneath the surface of the light comedy. /incoherent commentary.
BTW, do you mind if I go ahead and friend you? I've loved your vids and have been popping in here quite a bit to check for those anyway. No expectations of friending in return, since there's honestly nothing of note going on on my end anyway. I can't make a coherent post to save my life.
no subject
no subject
I didn't just flat-out fall for Ray, but I did like him from the moment he showed up and I agree it was so refreshing to see someone with such a loving, optimistic and healthy attitude given attention and props by the film. I mean, I also loved Hancock's self-destructive emoness, but these days, that's par for the course (though I think that Hancock handled it better than many stories) while a sympathetic portrayal of a really good guy is oddly a lot rarer. Plus he was adorkable.
The scene I would have taken out is the head-up-the-other-guy's-ass scene in the prison. It just felt...unrealistic within the confines of the world the film had established and pulled me out if it a little. Plus it was the first real crossover into, like, gross-out toilet humour which isn't a genre I like that much so it probably bothered me more than someone who, say, likes films like American Pie or something.
I completely agree that the crazy over-the-top comedy of the first half was key to making the second half pack as much of a punch as it did. I just think they did a good enough job of that without this scene (or at least without this scene filmed quite as it was), with the whale-tossing, the one-fire-ice-cream stealing, the flying-into-a-seagulling, the throwing-the-bully-into-the-skying, etc?
Also, yes, please feel free to friend me. I probably ought to have a friending policy on my userinfo like everyone else but it feels so self-centred. :/
Basically anyone's free to friend/defriend/comment as they please here. I don't always friend back straight away because I try to keep my flist small, but I hope that doesn't make anyone feel unwelcome as I love conversations and comments!
I'm really glad you've liked my vids and find it oddly amusing that you think I can put together a coherent post. :p
Anyway, welcome. :)