digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at io9.com

9 Ways Hancock Could Have Been A Pretty Good Movie

io9.com — The sad thing is, there are a bunch of ways that Hancock could have turned into a pretty decent film. Our review, with spoilers and a list of where Hancock went wrong, below.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • saxreturns, on 07/02/2008, -5/+26There's nothing I hate more than when people try to make three films at once and fail at all of them. It seems to be pretty prevalent in Hollywood today. Sure, the action/adventure genre has always had a sidekick and a love interest, but people are trying WAY too hard to cram more meaning into each aspect of a film and ending up with no meaning whatsoever.

    I'm glad I've read this review, because I was pretty close to actually going to see this one. Thanks for saving me valuable time and money!
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Hey the movies isn't bad at all but when you go to a WS movie you just expect something... something more.
      • warplayer, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1YOU might...but the general public on digg does not.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1I'm shamelessly attaching my own review here so other people can save their money and time ...
      I wanted to like this movie. I wanted to like it for so many reasons.
      Will Smith, who is still one of Hollywood's coolest guys.
      Slick special effects.
      A promise of a new twist on the old cardboard "superhero with issues" pattern.

      But it was not to be.

      Now instead of rehashing what has been said a hundred times by all the fine IMDB reviewers, let me summarize the "moral" of this movie.

      It's the look into the (and I'm using this word in the most sarcastic sense technically possible) black soul of the marketing department that is responsible for this travesty - because there is no trace of a writer's or director's signature here. This is what you get when you let Hollywood, Inc. streamline a potentially controversial topic to death - to ensure that even the last hick will "accept" the premise of a black superhero.

      So without further ado:
      How to make a Black Superhero Farce that even the KKK could get behind.

      (Please note that I hate racism. Sydney Poitier is my hero. But this doesn't mean I can't criticize the inherent racism and stupid conformism in a movie with a black lead character. Here we go.)

      - You are black man with immense powers? Well, too bad, but that means you are basically a dangerous animal that has to be tamed.

      - Even if you, the back hero, save lives by the dozen, White America can call you an *sshole, as long as you drink alcohol (boo!) and don't give autographs.

      - You have no table manners. If you are polite ("Good job! Good job!"), you are neither being sincere nor convincing.

      - You will overcome your alcoholism in two weeks by sitting alone in a cell (voluntarily) and thinking about all the bad things you have done.

      - When you are let out of the cell (because the chief of the police "needs you", which obviously is more important than the superior law that brought you into this cell in the first place ...), you are only entitled to the title "hero" if you wear a uniform. Because it shows, you know, your dedication.

      - To sum it up: As an outsider in a xenophobic society, you have a lot of issues. But don't worry - we have someone who will take care of that. And guess what? That special someone is A MARKETING GUY. A PR flak. A soft-hearted hippie in a flanel suit. Who wants to save the world. Using his PR Powers. Really. And other than you, he knows how to manipulate the system. So step back, Mr. Black Superhero. Winning the hearts of America requires a slick blueprint - designed by a white guy.

      - And while we are at it: During the climax (which involves a brutal shootout in front of a kid's eyes), it's not *you* who will save the day. It's Mr Average. Why? Because he is in MARKETING, which entitles him to finish off the villain in the name of all Marketing kind.

      You, however, Mr. Too-Powerful-and-Too-Dangerous, will silently leave the building through the back door. We'll remember you fondly, Othello.

      - Now if by chance you find out that the marketing guy has a super-hot, powerful wife, and you're attracted to her and dumb enough to GET NEAR HER, this will take away your powers (read: make you impotent), almost kill *her* and make the marketing whi... genius - who has just improved your public image so effectively - really, really sad. So don't do it. She's not for you, Fresh Prince.

      What? She has known and loved you for centuries?
      Gee, sorry. These are the rules.

      Speaking of which:

      - If you are a *white* *female* superwoman - who is or was in love with the black superhero -, your task is a different one:

      You will stay at home with your average marketing white middle class husband, because he has a good heart and a cute kid, and that should be enough for you.

      - Also, don't get any funny ideas about saving lives and trying to make the world a better place using your powers for something useful. You're a woman, and you should know your place.

      Oh, you didn't want to save something or someone in the first place? Holding hands and cooking meals for the marketing drone is enough for you? Great. Now that's a good wife.

      Etc. etc.

      This movie is cynical, sexist and racist on so many levels that I cannot think about it without becoming angry.

      What saddens me most is that Will Smith - who I think is a pretty smart guy - allowed this debacle to happen. How much narcissism does it take to sink that low?
      • TheSexyGeek, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Wow. . ..i think you took this film WAAAAAY too seriously. I'm Black and not once did the idea of racism enter my mind as I watched this movie.

        It was very entertaining. . .which in my opinion is what movies are supposed to be. Some are serious films. This one is not. Applying all this movie snob logic is pointless. It's a fun jog in the park. Not an Olympic track event.
  • bigpicturecolin, on 07/02/2008, -9/+9It would've been very hard to sit through without Will Smith. His charisma has saved a few bad movies before and it kind of did here, although, yeah, the makings were there for a much better film.
  • JaggedHairball, on 07/02/2008, -7/+20This movie was annoying as hell. This guy's review nails it in every way.

    The only redeeming part of this was Jason Bateman's role.

    please don't waste your money on this movie...
    • burnedtubes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4Thanks for the heads up. I think I might just watch Wall-E instead.
    • NeoCortex, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I like to think of it as an Arrested Development dream sequence. Michael Bluth settles down and marries Rita, while being hunted down by George's one-handed brother Buster.
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Really I almost hated Bateman's role in a way. It was so over the top "due goody." All of it just made his character rather one dimensional.
    • mike17032, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I liked the movie, thought it was exactly what I expected to see.
  • icemorebutts, on 07/02/2008, -9/+39That's funny, I liked it. Go ahead and digg me down for enjoying something I knew would be mindlessly entertaining (and was).
    • Schweppes7T4, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4yeah... i was starting to think it was just me. i thought the movie was great. its a movie trying to show a realistic view of what it could be like to be a super hero, in modern times. it was a terrifically funny movie, even if the love story part seemed a little thrown in.
    • TBITS, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I really enjoyed it and it was funny. I think people should actually see it before judging it.
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3But see that's where people talk about it being two movies wrap into one. The first half is better then average. But once you hit this point... right about where you learn he has amnesia the story and the comedy just drops right down the drain.
      • mike17032, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Well I knew going in that it was going to attempt some kind of "story" at the end, movies always do. But I found it passable and that was better than I expected. The first half had me laughing till it hurt.
    • mike17032, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Maybe I am a moron, but I laughed every time he said "call me an *****...".

      I thought it was great.
  • ChrisXPPro, on 07/02/2008, -12/+22If Will Smith Wasnt Scientology It Would Be Better.

    • amoirae, on 07/02/2008, -8/+7
      If Will Smith Wasn't In The Movie It Would Be Better.
    • DanBoodro, on 07/02/2008, -6/+1Will Smith isn't a Scientologist, he just thinks that the idea of Scientology is interesting.
      • gryphon50, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7and he hands out Scientology cards to everyone on his movie sets so they can go to the nearest center and get evaluated. Not trying to influence anyone or anything.
      • indiepenguins, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7Even thinking it's "interesting" and not a cult is just as bad, if not worse.
      • aussiessuck, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Thinking and scientology go together like barbed wire and KY jelly.
      • sevenalive, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1@gryphon50, How is that different from Jehovah witnesses or missionaries?

        @indiepenguines: Every single religion is a cult. A cult doesn't mean its a bad thing.
        Look at Christianity or any form of it, they use the FEAR system, stipulating what you need to do or you will go to hell, if you don't believe in Christianity you will go to hell, if you don't go to the meeting every Sunday you will go to hell. Plus they want your money so the priest or w/e can buy a new BMW and gold Rolex.

        The point is all "religions" are a cult. Its your right to believe the insane stories they tell. They got a right to believe what they want and you do to. So for once just STFU unless you know what your talking about.

        BTW, i don't believe in *****, i don't worship anything either.
    • cnschulz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4if type better make sense more

      NO MORE INTERNET FOR YOU!

      learn to write!

      COME BACK... ONE YEAR!
    • bubbameister33, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2You mock Hulk. Hulk sad now.
  • oughterator, on 07/02/2008, -4/+13I thought this movie was great! A supervillain would have pretty much ruined it
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Maybe it did not need a supervillian but it did need a better climax.
  • renemartini, on 07/02/2008, -7/+4What interesting timing, I was at the premier (did not see it) and most of the people walking out did not think was good and some where even mention subliminal Scientology message. Anyone who saw it confirm or deny such comments I heard?
  • gbrew56, on 07/02/2008, -4/+4similar premise, done right --> BIG MAN JAPAN
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTAoxSspBJE
    http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/400016/Big-Man-Jap ...

    this movie rocked
  • Tyrghast, on 07/02/2008, -7/+3I know this review, like many of the others, is revealing how cruddy a movie it is, but dear god SPOILER ALERT, I was still planning on checking this movie out for fun.
    • LordFate, on 07/02/2008, -1/+10Will Smith's drunk-and-disorderly superhero movie, Hancock, hits theaters today, a full three days early. You can't help but wonder if Warner Bros. is trying to get the movie out there before all the bad buzz, and horrendous reviews, take effect. The sad thing is, there are a bunch of ways that Hancock could have turned into a pretty decent film. ///Our review, with spoilers and a list of where Hancock went wrong, below.////

      Miss that last part?
  • superkendall, on 07/02/2008, -4/+9The tomato comes through again with an accurate assessment - 36%.
  • jasmus, on 07/02/2008, -5/+28The movie this reviewer wants to see, would run about 15 hours by the sounds of it. I haven't seen it, but I'm getting sick of being almost force fed the notion that every movie has to mean something, and be perfect. Can't it just be entertaining for 90min?
    • Drahkar, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6That's how I see it. Most film critics have their asses puckered so tight that a good movie wouldn't have a chance against their reviews unless it paid them for it.

      These days critics make a living off talking bad about a movie. I never listen tot hem anymore.
    • teethandeyes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I am in complete agreement with you.
      Of course I appreciate profound and deep films.
      However I also enjoy being entertained and can digg a movie that is fun, mindless entertainment.
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I have said it and I will say it again. This movie suffers from the notion that you can make everyone happy. By attempting to appeal to the young/old, for those looking for humor, drama, and action.
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1The movie isn't entertaining, though. It just sucks.
    • Sithseth, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I don't know what this reviewer is complaining about really. This movie hasn't promised anybody anything - it's a movie about Hancock, and that's it. Where did people get the notion that this was anything but a movie that show's the birth of a Super Hero? I mean, this movie pretty much follows the same route as the first Spider-man movie did. Almost every complaint the reviewer brought up could have been addressed to any starter superhero movie I can recall.

      And, not to mention that this reviewer sounds like an *****. Who ***** cares this much about a movie to write up 9 reasons not to see it? Why not write about 3 things you didn't like about the movie personally, and explain those reasons fully? Also, his arguments are straw men at best, cause he's trying to make the movie sound a lot worse then it actually is.

      If you want to see a movie that shows a drunk Super-Man, Hancock isn't it - but if you want to see a movie that shows the creation of a new Superhero, who comes to terms with his past, and his powers, then see Hancock - and if you don't walk into the movie as a pretentious a-hole, you may even laugh a little.

  • f4nt0m4s, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8I'll still probably end up going to see it...at least Will Smith seems to be enjoying his career, even if he makes some poor movie choices, he always seems to be having a good time in his films.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Poor movie choices? His movies are raking in cash. How is that a poor choice?
  • ericdano, on 07/02/2008, -12/+2Get Rid Of Wil Smith. Easiest way to make ANY movie better.
  • Gregsaw, on 07/02/2008, -1/+14More Jason Bateman
  • shagg187, on 07/02/2008, -5/+2Too bad the list is useless since the movie is done (unless they are implying for improvements in sequel).
    Wish movies worked like games where patches could be added. But then again, that's where the "Unrated DVD' comes in..
    • BTime, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2George Lucas thinks like you, though no amount of editing will make Episodes 1-3 appealing.
    • shagg187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1That's what i was implying. I guess i didn't choose my words wisely.
  • jaydoj, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3#1 skip making movie.
  • indiepenguins, on 07/02/2008, -5/+13#10 - If Will Smith wasn't a Scientologist.
  • rectagon, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11"Put the dirty stuff back in". You've got to be kidding. How about being really funny without going cheap. Oh, right, that's too hard nowadays.
  • fxu1989, on 07/02/2008, -7/+5Sounds like someone is butthurt.

    Although I won't see it in the theatre due to my boycott of Will Smith cus that scientology school, I will download it.
  • johnpaul191, on 07/02/2008, -6/+4I enjoyed it. Sci-Fi dorks are never happy. They take everything so freakin seriously. It's a lot easier to talk about how you would have made something better than to actually get off your ass and do something.
    • sleepwalkers, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Yes, and the author of this article actually could've fixed Hancock, right?
  • Fozefy, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9Having a superhero where his powers aren't explained very well is just dumb. Also, in the ending where him and the girl are losing and gaining their powers over and over again is just stupid. The audience has no idea how much of there powers they have left or exactly why they have them again. Having a super hero lose there powers can be a very good plot device, but keep it to something simple that the audience can follow...say superman and kryptoninte.
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It's not even the idea of it being to complicated. It's just the premise that two people who are built to save people, who are also built to be drawn together, some how lose their powers when they are together? Who ever created those two (and the others) was not a very practical engineer.
  • nineballninja, on 07/02/2008, -11/+8God, I hate it when people write dumb ***** just to tear a movie down just because it doesn't meet their expectations.

    Just came back from the Hancock midnight screening and it blew my ***** mind. Very unconventional and totally surprising. Definitely one of the greatest pieces of superhero fiction to hit the silver screen. There was not one point in the film that came as expected.

    A lot of what the guy writes is pretty idiotic. I feel really sorry for people like that. Can't enjoy a movie because it doesn't fit into his small view of his ignorant world.
    • reyoo30309, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"God, I hate it when people write dumb *****..."
      Ah, hypocritical much?
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1What the ***** are you talking about? The movie sucked. Even the ***** Hulk was better.
    • sleepwalkers, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1For someone criticizing another person for being small-minded, you seem unable to handle someone disliking a movie that you enjoyed.
    • nineballninja, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, you all are right. That was pretty hypocritical. I guess I wasn't ready for such a backlash on this flick. I saw it with a great audience and the vibe was pretty positive. It's pretty crazy how you can walk out of a movie you enjoyed so much and finding out that it's getting unanimously panned.
  • Barackalypse, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Way 1: If it were written about John Hancock rising from the dead and exacting brutal justice on Congress and the executive branch for their sins against the Constitution. *

    *yes, I know John signed the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
    • csrster, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Or indeed:
      Way 2: If it had been a biopic of Tony Hancock, the extraordinarily talented but depressive and alcoholic comedian.
  • genisis329, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1Admittedly Hancock got bad reviews, but I would say it is a solid movie and follows lots of what makes an epic story. We have a somewhat reluctant hero who is forced to abandon part of himself in order to solve the final conflict of the movie. The love story is there to deepen both the history and the emotional attachment that the audience sees of Hancock. The costume is fairly inexcusable as I find it just ridiculous, but aside from that I think most people just wanted Batman instead of Hancock and are not contrasting the purpose of the two movies. If you want to see a movie and the preview does not fit what you want, you are going to it for the wrong reasons.
  • iMoth, on 07/02/2008, -9/+6will smith is ***** amazing. he does no wrong and he can kick the ***** out of chuck norris.
    • HappyScrappy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Wild Wild West.
    • Yarnage, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I had to digg you down for being inaccurate. The only thing that can kick the ***** out of Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris.
  • M724, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1It's a popcorn movie, nothing more, nothing less.
    • dsgamer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2anymore you cant expect more than that

      just got back from seeing it and being a pucker ass about a freggin movie is pretty lame

      just dont call hancock an *****
  • elithebest, on 07/02/2008, -4/+3Just downloaded the DVD screener for free so I wont be too mad if I don't like the movie.
  • sonar1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1dugg for #6 Put back the dirty stuff.
  • demonicume, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8"He could be stopping the genocide in Darfur. " *****. can a movie just be fun without some lame political pandering? jesus christ. its a movie. i remember reading reviews like this for the lion king. you ***** ruin everything.

    give a movie a chance
  • shauntacular, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1When I first saw the trailer i was intrigued, but when I saw the one trailer where Charlize says something like 'you're becoming human!' I knew I wasn't going to see it. I knew it was going to be some crappy reason that he loses his powers. Thank you for posting this.
  • matriculated, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Even from the trailer people could tell this movie was going to be bad.

    I guess Ironman 2 can go ahead and make the "alcoholic superhero" story... but do it right.
  • kleinm, on 07/02/2008, -1/+49 Reasons why Hancock *IS* a pretty good movie.
    http://digg.com/movies/9_Reasons_Why_Hancock_is_a_ ...
  • Mattarang, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2It's really nice when you go out of your way not to read reviews for a movie you're planning to watch, when suddenly BAM, a review in a place where you didn't expect one to be. I didn't read the article, but really, do I need to anymore?
  • chadwalters23, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Man, the bar is set so high for next summer's blockbusters. The MPAA has no more room to bitch about studios losing money on pirating and so forth. This summer has proved that quality rules now. Movies can still make ass-tons of money. Movies need to just be f-ing top-notch. No more excuses. This is the summer of Iron Man, Hulk, Dark ***** Knight, and Hellboy 2. Crap just don't cut it no more. Movie-goers will still shell out still for a big night at the movies, regardless of their home theaters and quick turn-around from theater to blu-ray. The movies people go see just better rock their world!!! Sorry Hancock. Sorry Journey to the Center of the Earth. Sorry M Night (you douchebag). There exists a whole new caliber of movie fan out there and public is not going to settle anymore for whatever a studio hobbles together based on demographic expectations.What can they come up with next summer?
  • ICasualty, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It was even hard for Will Smith to save this movie. There were a few parts I was could have walked out on, but with movie tickets at $9.50+ I just couldnt do it.

    Save your money, go see WALL-E or the Incredible Hulk, or just wait for Batman: The Dark Knight.
  • s0nicfreak, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It really made no sense; he was around Mary a lot, but didn't start to loose his powers from it until he knew about her powers.

    Also, there was just WAY to many close ups on Will Smith's ass.
  • warplayer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Thank God I read this. Am I the only one that WASN'T interested by the trailer? My room mate and friend think the premise is an AWESOME idea. I think it's a pretty cheap idea.

    The funny thing is, I remember thinking "God...that's just a really simple and easy premise to work with" and it sounds like they couldn't even deliver a half-way decent movie based on it!
  • symrian, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I liked it. The soundtrack could have been better, but the movie was cool.

    Probably helps that I'm a Charlize Theron fan.
  • cryingtiger, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2And then they put a corporate logo on the moon.

    I think that was the most disappointing thing about this stupid movie.
  • AlexDavis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+010# they forgot the D in han_cock
  • averagejoesgym, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I liked Hancock.....not the greatest, but good
  • mrskeegin, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I understand that it seems to be two different stories. I don't agree with three. But here are my thoughts - if the movie was only about the first half of the story it would be a boring movie. If the movie was about the second half of the story in a follow-up, it would have sucked as well. Better put them together to form a more textured movie in total. My husband and I really liked it.
  • aceallways, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3After so many boring movies explaining how heroes became heroes I was very relieved to find this doesn't.
  • chadwalters23, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I guess I was dead-ass wrong here. Apparently, despite horrible reviews Hancock made piles of money.
  • TheSexyGeek, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1It must really suck to lack the ability to enjoy a lighthearted movie like this. But this is what happens when you over hype a movie before you see it. I went in with zero expectations and was pleasantly surprised. It was funny and never got boring. Relieved my stress for the week.

    Does a movie have to be a work of literary genius to be considered "good"? It's entertainment. Lots of people found it entertaining. I thought that was the point.

  • jepizacar, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1nice resource....
    http://topforex.co.cc
    http://skincare.freehostia.com
    http://acnecare.890m.com
    http://acne.ej.am
    http://gofinance.890m.com
    http://fastcar.890m.com
    http://carbeauty.co.cc
    http://gadingan.com
    http://gadingan.com/indexsc.php
    http://gadingan.wordpress.com
    http://23ltd.info
    http://jeniya.info
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.