Upcoming
August 27
August 29
Disaster Movie
My Mexican Shivah
September 3
The Pool
September 5
August Evening
Bangkok Dangerous
Save Me
Down The Drain
Don't let anyone tell you that the tide is turning on Hancock, and that David Denby's rave in the New Yorker was some kind of indication that the initial bad buzz is not to be trusted and that it's just a matter of the cool people sending out the cool word.
Forget all that. Hancock is a cloddy but decent-enough thing at first but then -- wait for it -- it shoots itself right in the face with a .44 Magnum. It does this at the two-thirds mark with (a) an astoundingly ridiculous plot turn, (b) a totally absurd abandonment of logical behavior concerning a certain character, (c) an introduction of a tediously loathsome fat-faced villain who does nothing but bring everyone down and spoil the vibe, and (d) a ludicrous (and suddenly introduced) back-story dependency that is ridiculous in its complexity and certainly makes no rudimentary sense.
How does a movie directed by Peter Berg (never a Stanley Kubrick-type guy but a fairly able guy and a shrewd operator) and produced by three very savvy hombres -- Akiva Goldsman, James Lassiter and Michael Mann -- along with star Will Smith turn out this badly? How could they have gone with such a drop-dead awful third act?
The villain has to be Smith; he must have pushed it through. Goldsman knows what makes a good story -- he's no dummy. And Mann clearly knows his way around a solid three-act structure and what good stories have to do. Did these guys actually produce this film or just sit back and glad-hand Smith and pocket the paycheck? What the hell happened?
Hancock, which I paid to see at the Arclight last night (after catching Hellboy II at the Chinese), is a crudely destructive but tolerably entertaining cartoon for the first act. A runamack alcoholic superhero creating titanic havoc and earning everyone's enmity -- fine. The second act, which is about Hancock's prison time, quiet meditation, rehab and p.r. restoration, is less engaging but not too bad. But the third act, trust me, sends the Hancock train completely off the rails and crashing into the stockyards. It is not just bad -- it is confounding, mind-boggling, nuts.
I could feel the energy hissing out of the audience last night once the third-act meltdown settled in. Some laughed it off; some were scratching their heads as they smiled at their dates; some were walking out with very pissed-off expressions. I have to get dressed and make a private screening of a friend's movie in less than an hour, but this movie is one of the weirdest big-budgeters I've ever seen because it's acts as it wants to destroy itself. It has no interest in doing that dance of skill and spirit and occasional movie magic that lifts you out of the third-act quagmire and sends you out satisfied.
Hancock dives into a third-act sinkhole and goes, "Whuhhh...we're diving into a pit of insanity now and we're not leaving! Get used to the stink pit! You thought this movie had a reasonable attitude and would avoid this kind of thing....surprise, assholes! We were a 'pit' movie all along and you just didn't realize it until the third act, so fake-out and fuck you! Because we're getting paid anyway.
"You don't want to know the realm we live in. You'll never get there anyway. We are the gods and you are the peons. We lose our bearings because we feel like going there because we're arrogant, which means pulling the rug out in the third act and you, the audience, pay to see it regardless. A pretty good deal from our end!"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM
comment #1
thevisceral
says ...
Cool.
Posted by thevisceral
at July 2, 2008 11:04 AM
comment #2
berg
says ...
even more surprising? The Reel Geezers gave Wanted two very big thumbs up ...
Posted by berg
at July 2, 2008 11:10 AM
comment #3
T. S. Idiot
says ...
Yet Dargis, whom I never trust, says, "'Hancock' makes for one unexpectedly satisfying and kinky addition to Hollywood’s superhero chronicles. Touching and odd, laden with genuine twists and grounded by three appealing lead performances."
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at July 2, 2008 11:13 AM
comment #4
gruver1
says ...
Dargis is being generous but is basically right about the film as far as the first two acts are concerned. But I have rarely felt so thoroughly shat upon as I did when the third act began.
Posted by gruver1
at July 2, 2008 11:16 AM
comment #5
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
Anybody read the original "Tonight, He Comes" draft? I'd be interested to hear about the differences since Ngo's script was supposedly so great.
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at July 2, 2008 11:44 AM
comment #6
actionman
says ...
seeing this tonight, can't wait.
Posted by actionman
at July 2, 2008 11:45 AM
comment #7
SaveFarris
says ...
[Akiva] Goldsman knows what makes a good story -- he's no dummy.
Really?!? A see a WHOLE lot of Batman & Robin and Lost in Space and DaVinci Code and Poseidon on that resume: all films that are known for their tight scripts and impeccable logic.
Posted by SaveFarris
at July 2, 2008 12:08 PM
comment #8
TheVicuna
says ...
ditto. Blame Akiva.
Posted by TheVicuna
at July 2, 2008 12:17 PM
comment #9
Kim Voynar
says ...
Jeff, totally disagree with you on this one. While I agree with you that Hancock is somewhat schizophrenic, I didn't find it anywhere near as bad as you made it out to be.
My review of the film, which went up last night, is mixed-positive. I think it's one of Smith's best performances, and it's an interesting take on the superhero genre, even if it's not quite what I thought it was going to be.
And for what it's worth, I saw it at a packed public screening, and audience response overall was very positive.
Posted by Kim Voynar
at July 2, 2008 12:40 PM
comment #10
Pornotension
says ...
It WAS Akiva's fault.
Posted by Pornotension
at July 2, 2008 12:44 PM
comment #11
Pornotension
says ...
It WAS Akiva's fault.
Posted by Pornotension
at July 2, 2008 12:44 PM
comment #12
Legowombat
says ...
If Will Smith can survive Wild Wild West, he can survive anything.
Posted by Legowombat
at July 2, 2008 1:02 PM
comment #13
Richardson
says ...
"Goldsman knows what makes a good story -- he's no dummy."
Let's see:
'I Am Legend' - had no third act
'The Da Vinci Code' - never really got started, had no third act [being fair, source material was the same]
'Cinderella Man' - flat, no escalation into the third act
'I, Robot' - didn't see it
'Practical Magic' - didn't see it
'Lost in Space' & 'Batman & Robin' - should've killed his career
'A Time To Kill' - decent third act, but the changes he made sacrificed some of the power of the book in order to be more like other movies [giving the speech to McConaughey]
'Batman Forever' - hard to blame structural problems on him, because it was re-cut in post, but the third act was pretty terrible and was meant to be the third act
vs.
Will Smith's non-Goldman-written movies
'Pursuit of Happyness' - sappy, but the story is coherent and there is a third act which stems logically from the first two
'Hitch' - sappy, but the story is coherent and there is a third act which stems logically from the first two
'Bad Boys II' - loathsome from a moral standpoint, but the third act is pretty much the definition of a great blockbuster third act
'Men in Black II' - terrible beginning to end
'Ali' - third act is amazing and completely built to
'Bagger Vance' - didn't see
'Wild Wild West' - what I have seen of this movie is better than any of Goldsman's summer blockbusters (but still terrible); third act = spider-guy, but that's known to be Jon Peters'
'Enemy of the State' - tame third act, kind of flat, after a strong first two
'Men in Black' - pretty solid, third act works pretty well
'Independence Day' - dated, but the third act at least fits with the first two
'Bad Boys' - same as Bad Boys II but less loathsome.
So, yeah, I can't see how you can blame Smith for major script problems when Goldsman is the credited re-writer who defanged the script. Same as 'I Am Legend'. You can blame Smith for approving Goldsman as the writer, though, since he surely did that.
Posted by Richardson
at July 2, 2008 1:07 PM
comment #14
pchu
says ...
I will disagree with you on this one Jeff.
Yes, the third act could use some work, but I thought it's a different type of super-hero movie(I dare say original). After seeing so many cookie-cutter 'super-hero' films, it's nice to see someone try to do something different.
Posted by pchu
at July 2, 2008 1:10 PM
comment #15
Legowombat
says ...
How could this happen?
Peter Berg of the trying-so-hard-to-be-edgy-but-just-ugly-and-repellent 'Very Bad Things", and the godawful 'The Rundown' (or 'Wecome To The Jungle"), both of which were so terrible that seeing his name in the credits means I know it's a movie to avoid.
Seriously.
The same Akiva Goldsman who wrote such wonderful screenplays as 'Batman and Robin', 'Lost In Space', 'I Am Legend' and 'Practial Magic'.
Sometimes hacks get very, very lucky.
Posted by Legowombat
at July 2, 2008 1:12 PM
comment #16
The Winchester
says ...
I always felt that Goldsman should have his Academy Award for Beautiful Mind rescinded for the crimes against humanity that were Lost In Space, Batman Forever/and Robin, Time to Kill, Da Vinci Code, Deep Blue Sea, the last half hour of I Am Legend, and a whole slew of others. The man doesn't write good stories, he takes pre-established stories and adapts them (something he not only admits to, but is proud of) and dry humps Robert McKee's Story legs the entire time. The man is a servicable hack that got lucky time and time again.
I want to blame him, and knowing that he is involved makes me want to see this even less now.
Peter Berg at least appeared in Shocker, which is something I can respect.
Posted by The Winchester
at July 2, 2008 2:11 PM
comment #17
monsieur hire
says ...
Totally, totally disagree Jeff.
The audiences I've seen the picture with--twice--were pretty surprised and excited by that twist, which is where the film was headed all along if you were paying attention. Theron really delivers here, yet you don't mention her work at all.
The third act is what deepens the film (and Hancock) and while it becomes "untidy" as someone here said recently, it is totally fascinating anda bit moving even.
It's unpredictable and fresh, and the hospital scene alone (as well as the bedside conversation) works very well on its own dark and unusual, somewhat perverse terms.
Posted by monsieur hire
at July 2, 2008 2:22 PM
comment #18
p.Vice
says ...
I made it to "Akiva Goldsman -- he's no dummy" but clearly that bit of ridiculousness has been pointed out already.
Monsieur -- using a gauged audience reaction is not a great argument in this day and age... it's like saying the baby was enthralled by his pacifier.
Posted by p.Vice
at July 2, 2008 2:35 PM
comment #19
Pinko Punko
says ...
The Rundown was pretty good for a ROCK movie. I mean, seriously, it was much better than it could possibly have seemed on paper.
Posted by Pinko Punko
at July 2, 2008 2:58 PM
comment #20
D.Z.
says ...
Very Bad Things was genius, and probably the last time Hollywood will tackle something really edgy which doesn't involve torture porn, political commentary, or industry insider jokes.
Posted by D.Z.
at July 2, 2008 4:41 PM
comment #21
Valerie Cherish
says ...
Why has AUNT SASSY been BANNED???
I miss her insightful comments on film, and her bitchy commentary. She added a refreshing viewpoint to this site.
FREE AUNT SASSY!!!
Posted by Valerie Cherish
at July 2, 2008 4:42 PM
comment #22
LDKA0186
says ...
http://www.richmond.com/movies/24759
Decent review, great last line.
Posted by LDKA0186
at July 2, 2008 5:16 PM
comment #23
Jack Price
says ...
I have read one of the original "Tonight, He Comes" drafts. Of course, there's no telling how many they actually went through, since everything I've seen in the trailer seems almost completely unrelated to what I've read.
It's a very strong script, in a bizarre way almost like the Straw Dogs of the superhero genre. I don't recall any major arch-villian, which is a complaint I've come across just gleaming the reviews for Hancock, but Hancock in "Tonight, He Comes" is very much both the hero and villian of the piece.
Also, the hand-held/naturalistic aesthetic that Berg's been using in most his films post Friday Night Lights wouldn't have been compatible with the draft I read, as it seemed to strongly evoke a timeless reality similar to the milieu of Superman.
Anyhow, I hate to turn this into a script-trading session, but all I'll say is if you can get your hands on a copy, it's definitely one of those scripts I'd love to see re-made one day, the right way.
Posted by Jack Price
at July 2, 2008 5:49 PM
comment #24
monsieur hire
says ...
pvice: "Monsieur -- using a gauged audience reaction is not a great argument in this day and age... it's like saying the baby was enthralled by his pacifier."
Did you read Jeff's original post? My remark was in response to his initial comment regarding his OWN experience with his audience reaction. Let me include for you here in case you were not paying attention:
"I could feel the energy hissing out of the audience last night once the third-act meltdown settled in."
I was merely stating that this was not the case either time I have seen the film. And by the way, have you seen it?
I didn't think so.
Posted by monsieur hire
at July 2, 2008 5:52 PM
comment #25
p.Vice
says ...
Ah, I see... instead of bitch-slapping him for using such asinine criteria via which to judge the film, much like I did to you, you decided to offer a similarly superficial comparison in the hopes of not only disproving his assessment but subtly jabbing his sophomoric methods of critical interpretation. Good show, chap.
Posted by p.Vice
at July 2, 2008 6:48 PM
comment #26
ElstonGunnAICN
says ...
Nice to see THE OX-BOW INCIDENT make any list.
Posted by ElstonGunnAICN
at July 3, 2008 7:07 AM
comment #27
ElstonGunnAICN
says ...
Damn it. I posted the above under the wrong story. (That's what I get for opening multiple tabs.)
Posted by ElstonGunnAICN
at July 3, 2008 7:11 AM
comment #28
rgmax99
says ...
Haters of HANCOCK -- including, obviously, Wells -- are INSANE. This is, without a doubt, one of the most thoughtful and balls out 'blockbusters' Hollywood has ever churned out.
It's a GREAT movie.
Posted by rgmax99
at July 3, 2008 8:28 PM
comment #29
Rain
says ...
This guy has posted his personal ad to the wealthy dating site called R I C H L O V I N G.C O M for several months. I just visited his profile page yesterday. It seems he has logged in recently. OMG, is he looking for a new relationship?
Posted by Rain
at July 4, 2008 4:38 AM
Post a comment