Movie Talk

By Katie

July 7, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

We took our 15 year old son to see the movie on Saturday evening. I was suprised that I actually enjoyed it as much as he did. My husband laughed out loud several times (which he rarely does). I thought it was much better than the reviews, and I would recommend it to anyone who had doubts.

By Stephy

July 7, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, the money debut speaks for itself! It’s all about $$$$.

By CBrooks

July 7, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

I rarely let a critic tell me how they think a movie is. Most of the time, they’re wrong anyway. In this case, it seems like they’re waiting for Will to fail. Will Smith has a gift, and he, Charlize, and Jason does a great job carrying this movie. Very entertaining.

By Rik

July 7, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

I was hesitant to see it based on the reviews. I even saw Wanted instead, but later saw Hancock. I liked the movie and, of course, Will Smith. I was thinking during the movie that now that Smith’s kids are older maybe he can do parts that are a bit more PG-13.

By TColl

July 7, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this

* NEVER LISTEN TO CRITICS* Make your own opinion.This was a very good movie and I will see it again. The story line was not muddled, it just kept you on the edge of your seats on what was going to happen next.

By Hudson

July 7, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

This was no great movie, however I was entertained throughout and am glad that I went to see it. Will Smith, as usual, managed to deliver a pleasing performance although I cringed at the absurdity of the actions of his character. The big plot twist was a real surprise and very questionable. But for a little mindless entertainment I say check it out.

By Teri

July 7, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

I almost didn’t go to see Hancock because of what the critics said about it. But you know what? I COMPLETELY and THOROUGHLY enjoyed Hancock - it was really funny, and I’m wondering if there’ll be a sequel.

People in hell will have ice water when I actually let a movie critic influence my decision ever again as to what movie to watch.

By Rick S.

July 7, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

Here is some evidence as to why you should never listen to reviewers when making your movie choices: 1) Eleanor Ringel (I hope I spelled that right) is (was?) a reviewer for the AJC and she gave Forrest Gump an “F” when it came out and called the movie a “half-baked fable”. And, someone else at the AJC, called the movie “Cabin-Fever” and instant horror classic. I still who thinks Cabin Fever was a horror classic or even the least bit scary.

By Glenda

July 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

The movie was good. It made you laugh, fell sad and delivered a big surprising twist. Will Smith and the other actors were just great. As always, critics do not have the final say.

By Elle

July 7, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

I thought it was great! I too read the poor reviews but went to see it anyway because I like Will Smith and the previews had me sold. It wasn’t the best movie ever but I was very entertained.

By Dee

July 7, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

The movie was okay. Alittle too much foul language from Mr. Smith. Story line was going ok until mid-way through the movie. All in all it was okay, worth the $5 dollars. The movie critics were a bit harsh, wonder how much they got paid to bash the movie. Obviously it did not work.

By Jennifer

July 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

THIS MOVIE IS HORSESH*T. Only 30 min was worth watching.

By DB

July 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

It was … ok. I felt that the last third of the movie was just too stretched, hurried and not true to the rest of the movie. Will Smith was funny/identifiable as the superhero with an attitude, but the discovery of Mary’s true identity was just too weird. I never got a handle on that relationship, and didn’t particularly like Charlize Theron in it — her face never changed expression. I would have liked to see a little more background on Hancock — why is he a bum living in a dilapidated trailer? Why did he lose his memory?

I never knew exactly what to think about Jason Bateman. Were we supposed to roll our eyes at his “heart” campaign and label him a dreaming do-gooder, or was he, as the corporate guy commented, “a crackpot”? An opprotunist?

Unfortunately, the trailers showed almost all the really funny parts — there weren’t too many more. I felt a little like a victim of a bait-and-switch — the trailers made it look like a comedy, and even the first hour was comedic, but then the movie turned darker and relationships and motivations were hopelessly muddied.

And I HATED that last, corney, stupid ending, with the full moon “logo”. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. That, alone, made me grimace when I was leaving the theatre.

By a*******play

July 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

The critics were of on this one. It wasn’t 1/2 as bad as I thought it would be and it was reletively entertaining.

It could have been better, but it was definatly left open for a sequel.

It was a descent movie.

By a*******play

July 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

The critics were off on this one. It wasn’t 1/2 as bad as I thought it would be and it was reletively entertaining.

It could have been better, but it was definatly left open for a sequel.

It was a descent movie.

By JL

July 7, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

I thought the movie was enjoyable. The critics were definitely too harsh. I wonder how many of them just want to see Will Smith fail?

By Caroline

July 7, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

I enjoyed this movie. No, it’s not worthy of an Oscar, but it was a fun movie and I’d go see it again. Critics are often looking for “art” or profound meaning in movies. So don’t listen to them; go see what looks interesting to you.

By sharon

July 7, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

I totally enjoyed it. I never, ever select a movie based on the critics review.

By sharon

July 7, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

I totally enjoyed it. I never, ever select a movie based on the critics review.

By Ben Franklin

July 7, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

what a life for movie critics and newspaper columnists.. you get paid (apparently very well sometimes) just to give your contrived opinion that’s rarely based on fact or anything substantial. I always find it amusing that most people rarely see the 5 films nominated each year for Best Picture. But please, the next time there’s an opening to be a movie critic or a columnist, sign me up. it’s an easy job that has absolutely no meaning or value.

By Charity

July 7, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

I was sold on the previews - and the fact that I really like Will Smith. I never read the reviews at all. The movie was entertaining although it was not a great movie. I’m glad I saw it and I recommend that anyone else go see it, too.

By PA

July 7, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

DB,

You concentrated to hard apparently to enjoy this movie. All the questions you asked were revealed. It was just a movie…because the secret of the movie may not have lived up to your religious affliations is no reason to try and pick it a part. Sheesh it was a freakin decent movie!!! I give it props for the summer.

By Joe

July 7, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

I think this is a case of people being willing to shell out $$ to see Will Smith (who is a great actor, no doubt). That doesn’t make Hancock a good film, however. I say the critics have it right AND people love Will Smith.

By steverino

July 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

People often miss the point with critics. The object is to find a critic(s) with similar tastes as yourself. That way, you generally like or dislike the same movies. As a bonus, he or she will sometimes recommend a movie you had no intention of seeing, yet find that you loved it. I personally had found one in Eleanor Ringel. A brilliant critic who seamlessly wove contemporary criticism with an encyclopeadic knowledge of past films and genres, I found I invariably liked whatever she liked (except romances. Yuck!) And yes, Forrest Gump is a half-baked fable, bearable only cuz of the music.

By Reid in EAV

July 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

One thing the Internet has given us that we didn’t have before is aggregators of critical opinion, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. And while I often have issues with individual critics, I find the “wisdom of the crowd” to be pretty trustworthy. When RT tells me something is basically “fresh” or “rotten,” that’s almost always the truth.

That said, the one way those aggregators err is the binary, up/down, good/bad arbitrariness of their schemes, which sometimes oversimplifies what’s being measured. Most critics I’ve read found “Hancock” to be a mess, and flawed, but not a worthless waste of time. In that respect, it was a different sort of pan than one that might be delivered to, say, “Norbit.” And I have no problem seeing something that fails while attempting something ambitious, vs. something that aims low to begin with. I think that’s the issue that this apparent mismatch between critics and box office brings up.

That said, I’m pretty sure “Hancock” won’t have much legs. It’ll get the people who were going to see it, and not many more — few repeats and not a whole lot of word-of-mouth.

By Judy

July 7, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Like it, go see it. Movie critics never get it right.

By TJW

July 7, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

I think peoples’ opinion of Hancock depends entirely on what type of movie they were expecting. You see ‘SuperHero’ and go in expecting action, then your going to be sadly disappointed. If your looking for a drama with a bit of action and comedy, then you’ll enjoy the movie.

By michelle

July 7, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

i’ve seen better. my husband enjoyed it for its loudness, special effects, and charlize. i didn’t read any reviews and only saw the commercials a couple times and thought it’d be something i wanted to see. i was wrong. i give it a strong “C”, with a possible “C-” for the story-change about 3/4 of the way in.

waiting for batman to come out…now that’s worth spending $8 to see.

By John

July 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

I went and saw the early show for $5. I got my 5 dollars worth. I would watch it again on TV, but probably wouldn’t buy the DVD. Enjoyed the action, but like others, the plot twist never really played out. For entertainment value, I would give it a strong B. I would have liked a little more history on Hancock’s past. Maybe that is in the possible sequel!?

By GeorgiaYankeesFan

July 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Saw Hancock last week after reading so-called negative reviews (many critical reviews actually praise the effort and Smith’s acting) and I have to say the movie was a lot better than I thought it would be. Perhaps my expectations were lower but I thought the story was pretty good - especially the first half of movie that sets up premise and Will Smith’s character. The second half of the movie was not as great as it could have been. I won’t reveal any spoilers but I’ll just say the payoff was not as big as it should have been. After watching the film, I could not help but comparing it to the original Superman and think about the fun they could have had with this movie - especially when you realize the movie is only 91 mins. How? 1. More Will Smith as a boozy superhero - the first 20 mins of this movie are hilarious, with Will Smith not as we’re used to seeing him - I think a few more drunken superhero moments were in order 2. Bad Guys - surprisingly there was no real villain in the movie. Sure there are some criminals and one evil doer but it would have been nice if the movie developed a super significant bad guy 3. Sober Hancock - Loved the scene where Hancock finally dons his costume and fights crime the “right” way - interaction with cops is priceless - could have used more scenes with Hancock wrestling with this while fighting more crimes 4. Charlize Theron - won’t spoil the movie twist but will say thought they could have done a little more with this twist. 5. More Jason Bateman - He was hilarious whenever he was on screen, I thought his side project cause was a little lame, I would have liked to have seen him as more of a ruthless character in the mold of Ari on Entourage (not so over the top). Still not as bad as a movie as I thought it would be based on reviews.

By JW

July 7, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Ask yourself… WHen was the last time a critically acclaimed movie made the kind of money the W. Smith brings in? Most of the critics are old white guys who have no taste. Ask Hollywood what they prefer…$185M or critically acclaimed.

By Maniac is accurate

July 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

When my book is made into a film, I want Charlize Theron to play the title character.

By James Schroeder

July 7, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

ok… so the ending could have been better, but overall, I really enjoyed it. Was it the best movie ever? NO, but was it entertaining and worth my money, YES. A lot more than I can say for Indiana Jones VS Aliens

By add14jazz

July 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

This isn’t about critics being old white guys with no taste (honestly they mostly get it right). I saw Hancock and thought the first half was entertaining and the second half was off-putting. It was good, but far from being great. I mean, he was MUCH better in “Ali” and “Independence Day” and the Hancock storyline could have been better in the second half of the movie. Oh, just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn’t mean it was a great movie. It was just a movie a whole lot of us were interested in seeing.

By Armond

July 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

I thought it was a good movie and very funny. The language was harsh and I don’t know why parents would take little kids to a PG-13 movie anyway. I never pay attention to Critics, especially when Black actors are involved. Most critics are White and don’t understand what peaks most African American interests, which is understandable.

By SAR

July 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

I saw the film and considering someone else paid for the ticket,it was not a bad deal. Would I pay regular price to see this film? No. I think Will Smith is much Like Tom Cruise in the fact that anything he puts out will make lots of money on the opening weekend but going forward, the revenue will decline. Hollywood likes to think outside the box which, in many cases, does fine. Smith is okay in his role in Hancock, much better than when they put him in The Wild Wild West, a role to me that was a bad fit. Same as I Robot; I read the book and I knew the guy was a red-haired Irsihman so it was hard for me to interject Smith into the role all for Hollywood selling a big name to push a film. Smith is a good actor, good…not great. He does well when his technical acting abilities. Even if the film flops, and it won’t….Smith will enjoy several more leading roles, something you may not be able to say about Tom Cruise. I’ll pick Smith in a modest film over Cruise in a blockbuster any day of the week.

By R2D2

July 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Just like Jennifer said; only I would change one little minor thing: the critics are horse$h!+

By Cockhand

July 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Cloverfield did well for a week, too, with all kinds of people proclaiming what a “great, original” film this was. I don’t see anybody lining up to rent it, either.

Legend made half a billion bucks worldwide, but ,really, how do you qunatify that as good or bad. Coca Cola makes that much worldwide on a more regular basis. And I’m a Pepsi person!

By kitty

July 7, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

I think that many people expect too much from an artform that is up for ALL kinds of interpretations and criticisms - that being said, I am usually pretty harsh on big budget films, and this one could have been a GREAT one (instead of a good one) had they kept the extra 30 minutes of footage that was probably left on the proverbial cutting room floor. I don’t necessarily need a movie to have all of it’s endings tied up in neat bows, but there was certainly some middle parts that could have been elaborated on. Will Smith is becoming a better actor every time we see him, and I think the depth he lends to this character shows that - he is so very real in much of this move. Charlize, as we all know, has an amazing range and it has been noted that this was a “fun” role for her, but the big surprise for me was how good Jason Bateman has become as an actor. I cannot wait to see what he does next. He was terrific in Juno, and has the ability to be incredibly “guy next door” in his roles. If you want to hang out in a cool theater and be entertained - you could definitely do worse.

By kitty

July 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

I think that many people expect too much from an artform that is up for ALL kinds of interpretations and criticisms - that being said, I am usually pretty harsh on big budget films, and this one could have been a GREAT one (instead of a good one) had they kept the extra 30 minutes of footage that was probably left on the proverbial cutting room floor. I don’t necessarily need a movie to have all of it’s endings tied up in neat bows, but there was certainly some middle parts that could have been elaborated on. Will Smith is becoming a better actor every time we see him, and I think the depth he lends to this character shows that - he is so very real in much of this movie. Charlize, as we all know, has an amazing range and it has been noted that this was a “fun” role for her, but the big surprise for me was how good Jason Bateman has become as an actor. I cannot wait to see what he does next. He was terrific in Juno, and has the ability to be incredibly “guy next door” in his roles. If you want to hang out in a cool theater and be entertained - you could definitely do worse.

By kitty

July 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

I think that many people expect too much from an artform that is up for ALL kinds of interpretations and criticisms - that being said, I am usually pretty harsh on big budget films, and this one could have been a GREAT one (instead of a good one) had they kept the extra 30 minutes of footage that was probably left on the proverbial cutting room floor. I don’t necessarily need a movie to have all of it’s endings tied up in neat bows, but there was certainly some middle parts that could have been elaborated on. Will Smith is becoming a better actor every time we see him, and I think the depth he lends to this character shows that - he is so very real in much of this movie. Charlize, as we all know, has an amazing range and it has been noted that this was a “fun” role for her, but the big surprise for me was how good Jason Bateman has become as an actor. I cannot wait to see what he does next. He was terrific in Juno, and has the ability to be incredibly “guy next door” in his roles. If you want to hang out in a cool theater and be entertained - you could definitely do worse.

By DB

July 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

PA, where on earth do you come off with the bullsh!t on my “religious affiliations”? Where, in my three paragraphs of musings, do I say ANYTHING regarding any sort of religious bent? I find that sort of off-the-cuff sneer offensive and, in this case, totally inaccurate.

Apparently you disagree with my opinion That’s fine — you’re entitled. I won’t lose sleep over it. :-) I did say the movie was “ok”. I didn’t even read reviews before I went, because I like almost everything Will Smith has done, and I enjoyed the trailers.

By x

July 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Link to this

Film critics tend to be more interested in other critics opinion of them rather than whether they really enjoyed a movie. It seems rare that they will simply come out and say “it might not be a great movie but it’s fun and worth the $$”. I had an enjoyable afternoon.

By x

July 7, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this

Film critics tend to be more interested in other critics opinion of them rather than whether they really enjoyed a movie. It seems rare that they will simply come out and say “it might not be a great movie but it’s fun and worth the $$”. I had an enjoyable afternoon.

By x

July 7, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this

Film critics tend to be more interested in other critics opinion of them rather than whether they really enjoyed a movie. It seems rare that they will simply come out and say “it might not be a great movie but it’s fun and worth the $$”. I had an enjoyable afternoon.

By Miss Manners

July 8, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

It was a good movie, with a message about fate and the decisions we make. Will acting was great and it was hilarious. Didn’t expect it to be as good as it was.

By C Davis

July 8, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

It was funny as hell. I dont really like Will Smith’s movies but I cracked up at this one. I did not even want to see this movie just went on a date for something to do. I was pleasantly surprise at how good it was.

By C Davis

July 8, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

It was funny as hell. I dont really like Will Smith’s movies but I cracked up at this one. I did not even want to see this movie just went on a date for something to do. I was pleasantly surprise at how good it was.

By faye

July 8, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

I enjoyed it - I’m glad I didn’t let the critics panning it keep me from seeing it. Not an Oscar contender, no, but entertaining…and isn’t that the point?

By peach

July 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

I liked Hancock - although it was a little predictable and had a few plot holes.

But I like Will Smith - so that helped a lot. I only listen to critics sometimes - but if I like the actor who’s in the movie I’ll usually see it anyway.

But the movie I want to see the most is The Dark Knight.