What is it with those sunglasses that look like Skiing goggles? Is it due to Paris “flipping” Hilton that the world and his wife seems to think that these are cool in some way? Why? I walk down the street on a rainy day in England and there are hordes of people out in these things covering most of their face. Are they so ugly that they require some excuse to hide this fact? Not only do we have every female in the world who has “starred” in a “leaked” bedroom video thinking that if they carry around a dog that looks like a rat in a handbag the size of Scotland with these silly glasses covering their faces they will instantly become famous. Unfortunately onlookers have to suffer the indignity of staring at our distorted reflection in them. This subsequently makes everyone who isn’t wearing these goggles instantly depressed. They look silly people. They really do! Unfortunately, “metrosexuals” around the world have discovered this trend and taken up the wearing of ski goggles in an attempt to look cool. Indeed, the movie that I am supposed to be reviewing now has a man who is wearing such glasses and seems (in the photo) to be pouting better than Pammy could on a day where she thinks that Tommy Lee and her “really get on”. Somehow if this is what a modern man looks like, someone take me on a trip back to the eighties where I can get away with wearing a white suit with rolled up sleeves whilst keeping my silly haircut.
is a bum, a drunkard
, hates the world (and vice versa) and basically does what he does and to hell with everyone. Unfortunately for Hancock he happens to have superhero abilities and gets harassed a lot about helping out the city whenever they have bad guys running around. He does this with as much vigour as a man who wants to go clothes shopping with his wife and subsequently causes more problems than he solves. Along comes a PR guru who wants to turn Hancock’s image around by making him: go to jail, remove his beanie hat and wear very tight clothing whilst telling everyone “good job”.
I’m going to have to stop here because I have a problem (no surprises there then). I want to know who pitched this idea to the studios. This person must have a beautiful voice and wondrous eyes, because this is a difficult sell. Picture the scene for a second:
A man walks into the studio with concept art of a bum with a beanie hat and stupid glasses on. He is told that he has one minute to sell the movie. The man speaks:
“Okay, so the lead character is this man right? And he has superpowers yeah? But the kicker is he’s a git. Not only that but a drunkard
git who hates kids but really wants to be loved or even accepted. So along comes a PR genius and he wants to sort out his image yeah? But the PR man’s wife is none too happy about this. The trouble is the drunkard
fancies the wife....and it all mulls along with hilarious consequences”.
For some inexplicable reason, if listening to this pitch, I would forcibly remove this person from my office (horizontally) and offer advice that if they darkened my door again, I would set my mother on them.
Whoever sold this movie needs a medal, or even a statue in his (or her) honour for their ability to sell. The synopsis sounds BAD (and not in a cool Michael Jackson way). Despite this though, some interesting trailers have convinced me otherwise. There is a scene with a whale being thrown out to sea that still makes me laugh (despite seeing it 40 times). Perhaps this movie will not suck as much as it should.
With this in mind then, I wandered into my local cinema and braced myself. I know that dependable Will Smith
is in it along Charlize Theron
(and Jason Bateman
tagging along for the ride), but I still felt nervous. It didn’t surprise me then to find the cinema mostly silent throughout the movie. This is never a good sign for a comedy.
The biggest problem of Hancock was its lack of direction. It couldn’t decide whether it was aiming for a family or adult demographic. Ultimately it achieves neither very successfully. In truth, I enjoyed the movie up until the point where Hancock started to change “for the better”. Somehow it lost its charm in the process and despite throwing us all a curveball in the proceedings, it never managed to regain the audience’s attention as much as it had done when Hancock was a bastard (for lack of a better word).
Despite its criticisms though, I enjoyed Hancock. I loved the idea that not everything was all roses at the end. I enjoyed the banter between the main characters. I despised the useless villain though. A group of people in the movie described as only “them” and “they” seemed to be the main bad guys and it is unclear who is being spoken about. This subplot could have taken a turn into the main plot and given us an age old war that had been raging for centuries. Instead, the biggest baddie of them all is merely a strange looking bank robber with an ability to lose appendages at will (get the pun? Anyone? Oh Nevermind).
This movie will never win awards, won’t entertain the masses and will (I’m sure) be ridiculed for years to come. For me though, Hancock (despite his stupid hat and Paris Hilton glasses) was a fun ride. Now all the studio has to do is find 60 million people in the world who think like me and they may start writing a sequel.
Rating: 4 out of 5
(I enjoyed the ride. It’s silly, amusing and has Charlize Theron. What more do you want)?
Did you enjoy Hancock? Did you think it was a waste of your time, money and would have rather spent the 2 hours attempting to chat up a Salma Hayek lookalike (and failing miserably)? Whatever your thoughts, share them here and we’ll all discuss where the sequel could go.