Let's get this out of the way first - it was an entertaining movie, no doubt about that. But was it crappy entertaining, or something else?
It's tough to discuss because I don't want to ruin any of the movie for those who haven't seen it yet. I'm assuming that most of the 3 people who read my blog.
The first 40 minutes are standard hero stuff with a small twist which we all know from the trailers. He's a drunk asshole. But he can fly and whatnot! Entertaining but not mind-blowing.
There is a twist about halfway through, and it's quite possible it made it a much more interesting movie; or, it made it even stupider.
One theory is that it needed to be explained better. Superhero movies are all about the mythology--you don't just assume Spider-Man has his powers, you see or are given a detailed explanation of what they are, where they come from, and the like. Hancock screwed with that formula a bit, and I think thats annoying some of the standard summer-movie watchers.
But I present this alternative: in leaving some areas purposely unexplained, the movie may have opened the door to a much deeper and more interesting back story. It did it clumsily, if that was its purpose, because Hancock is still trying hard to be a popcorn summer blockbuster, but the potential is there.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm not sure. At least one critic agrees with me but most do not. As I've noted before*, critics are idiots when it comes to movies released between May and August, so their collective opinions are for shite.
*Maybe I haven't noted this before. In a nutshell, movie critics like their summer movies without much depth and with a lot of bang, because that's what they think summer movie audiences want. And while they're not wrong, they tend to skewer movies that don't fit that mold (see, e.g., the first Hulk, a film I will forever consider completely underrated) because they "dare" to present more than just comic book art brought to life. Release those same movies in "Oscar season" (the late fall) and the same critics would praise it for having the audacity to give depth to a superhero story.
3 comments:
I agree with you. I heard the movie took a sharp and dismal left turn in the middle, but I thought it added more depth to the movie to add mythology to it, unbelievable as it seemed at first. But you won't be surprised, as you believe I have an extremely low entertainment tolerance!
Mom
I guess I agree with you, and I can't even remember if we actually discussed the movie after the fact, but in case not, I thought it was pretty good. Better than I expected, but maybe that was only because I went in with such low expectations...
-JC
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment