hancock.jpg

Epic Fail

Hancock / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | July 5, 2008 | Comments (199)

The concept behind Hancock actually had potential, especially given this summer’s bevy of superhero blockbusters. An archetypal hero certainly has flaws (sans Superman), but few so deep as Hancock, a drunk, despondent louse who wakes up from a bottle to perform his superhero duties lazily and ineptly. He causes millions of dollars in collateral damage, stomping on cars, flying through signage, and smashing against concrete whenever he takes off or lands. Hancock has no problem saving the day as long as he can do it in the bluntest, most haphazard way possible. Fighting crime may just be a half-assed day job. In short, he’s an asshole and, endowed as he is with special powers and untouchable from human authority, not especially keen on being liked (imagine, if you will, a Super Pookie). The public hates him and city officials would just as soon he went away.

This premise, the inversion of the archetypal superman for the purposes of comedy and/or realism, isn’t a bad one. The first problem is Will Smith, an actor who has long ceased playing any character other than Will Smith, whose incredible confidence and egocentricity bless and curse his roles in equal measure, who forces his personal subtext into every film he stars in. Is he a compelling performer? Certainly, but Smith is totally unconvincing as either a drunk or a man who is not in love with himself. The character of Hancock would certainly suggest a man who, on some level, yearns to be hated, either due to profound unhappiness or as validation of his own low self-worth. Smith can’t suggest either, content to play the part as willful buffoon with a chip on his shoulder.

Hancock is really two films. The first half chronicles Hancock’s exploits, his bouts with the public and a PR agent’s (Jason Bateman), whose life he saved, attempts to rehabilitate his image as a “proper” superhero. Hancock agrees to serve a spell in prison for numerous petty violations, an act which Bateman thinks will improve his public image and endear his return to crime-fighting. Hancock goes along, either because he’s eager to end his despondency or because Bateman’s wife (Charlize Theron) has caught his eye. In this context, the unexceptional writing and deficiencies of Smith’s portrayal are unimportant; the film delivers serviceable bits of comedy and action with no pretense of depth.

The second, encompassing a plot twist that would make Shyamalan vomit in horror, is just plain awful. Terrible. And I mean…shit-balls retarded. If director Peter Berg and writers Vince Gilligan and Vincent Ngo started with a fun if flippant action-comedy, they end with a fucking farce, veering the story from character study into My Super Ex-Girlfriend and then something out of Piers Anthony. The plot becomes unwieldy, nonsensical, asinine and completely at odds with the tone and logic of the first hour, turning Hancock from pointless, enjoyable ride to sloppy incoherence in an effort to explain Hancock’s origins in the dumbest way possible. The film sputters and flops across the finish line like a dead fish.

A movie that is one part amusing and one part appalling should end up a rather average theatergoing experience, but the bald inconsistency resulting from the film’s nosedive in tone and storytelling result in a final product being a shade above horrible. I would rather Hancock had been a straightforward shit-fest than to dangle the carrot of thoughtful genre send-up in the audience’s face before removing it and loosing a tremendous fart. Berg and company had the chance to inject the summer of superheroes with its most comic iconoclast, and Smith at least had the theoretical panache to pull it off. For shame.


Phillip Stephens is the lead critic and book editor for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR, and wastes his twenties in grad school(s).


← Pajiba Love 07/03/08 | Please Feed the Pajiba Troll →



Comments

Damn.

Posted by: katy at July 2, 2008 3:57 PM

What really is disappointing is that they didn't really seem to make an effort of expanding on anything. This move is only 92 freaking minutes long, which, as it turns out, is rather fortunate.

Basically, Will Smith has entered the Denzel/Nic Cage vein of actors that can only play minor variations of one character.

Posted by: branded at July 2, 2008 3:57 PM

It's eloquent, scathing, and bitchy - it's Super Pookie! Yours for only 3 installments of $8.99, not including taxes, shipping and handling, and gratuities.

Posted by: lordhelmet at July 2, 2008 3:58 PM

This is disappointing. I wanted this movie to be good.

Also, it may be childish, but I can't help but giggle at the phrase "loosing a tremendous fart." Tee hee!

Posted by: Sean at July 2, 2008 3:58 PM

Damn. Oh well, if nothing else, Hancock inspired this line:

"imagine, if you will, a Super Pookie"

*Heeheehee*

Posted by: MO(meaux) at July 2, 2008 3:59 PM

Stephens, you made that review your bitch. I've been hearing mixed reviews for this since this morning, but I was holding out some hope for it ever since I read the synopsis of the original plot. Thanks for confirming this and saving me $22.00.

Posted by: Manny at July 2, 2008 4:01 PM

j

Posted by: I at July 2, 2008 4:03 PM

when's hellboy II coming out?

Posted by: eat my shorts at July 2, 2008 4:04 PM

would just assume he went away.

I think what you mean is "would just as soon he went away."

I only do this because I love you.

Posted by: Jerce at July 2, 2008 4:07 PM

NOOOOOO!!!!! I've been looking forward to this superhero comedy for months! How could you do this to me, Will? First Cruise's cult, now this? I renounce you! You're dead to me!

Seriously, though...wtf. Excellent review...subject matter sucks balls. Damn.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at July 2, 2008 4:17 PM

I of course, blame this whole goddamed mess on Scientology and Tom Cruise.

I'll still go see it though - I figure I'll start drinking at the start while it's good and by the time the train to Sucksville pulls up, I'll be good and sauced!

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at July 2, 2008 4:27 PM

Someone actually had some hope for this movie??

Oh, and, Will Smith always plays the same character???? Noooooooooooooooooooo... You should have had that little nugget figure out by oh, say, 1997.

Posted by: Case at July 2, 2008 4:30 PM

sad.
I was actually hoping for a little something out of this.
But yay on Jeffrey Tambor using definitive terminology to confirm the Arrested movie!

Posted by: jamiepants at July 2, 2008 4:35 PM

I've been hearing not-so-good-things about Will Smith for a while, so I was already hesitant about this. Also, the reviews seem to be saying that it's good, not fantastic, but good. I love the asshole-superhero plot, but I'm feeling kind of meh.

Despite this, Will has always been on my good side, for Independence Day, and Bad Boys. Yes, I love them both. Don't act like you didn't see those rippling pecs of his.

Phillip, could anything have been worse than My Super Ex-Girlfriend? After I saw it, I just sat there for a few minutes thinking "Did I really just watch this when I could have been sleeping?"

Posted by: Brie at July 2, 2008 4:39 PM

Ok. Ok, I want to have a moratorium, please.

When the people responsible for writing this inevitably get tagged to do another superhero movie or video game adaptation or anime-ripoff, can we all please remember that it is the FAULT OF THE WRITER AND NOT OF THE CONCEPT that leads to shitty films. Can we all not be surprised when that future film inevitably tanks and put the blame where it lies?

Because, in concept, self-centered hero learns to do good... that's the concept of Iron Man, and these are obviously not the same movie.

Posted by: twig at July 2, 2008 4:41 PM

The second, encompassing a plot twist that would make Shyamalan vomit in horror, is just plain awful.

If Shyamalan ever vomited it would be filmed in Philly, have foreboding music, be three hours long, with a child actor to hold back his hair, be hyped for being his first R-rated vomitting, and a week later he'll be trying to cover negative reviews by saying that he just wanted to make a "B puke movie".

And the twist ending... the corn is still whole!

Posted by: jM at July 2, 2008 4:42 PM

Best line in the movie:
Female Onlooker: "I can smell that alcohol on your breath!"
Hancock: "That's cuz I've been drinkin, bitch!"
I actually kinda liked the movie.

Posted by: Ryan at July 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Damn, I had high hopes for this. I like Will Smith, and the superhero-but-asshole plot seemed like an interesting twist on the genre.

Posted by: Joe at July 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Damnit, guess I'm doing a double feature of Wall-E and Wanted for the 4th of July weekend. Will Smith, you do NOT get my money for this.

(But maybe I'll see you when it hits netflix. I'm bad at staying mad for long.)

Posted by: Genny (also Rusty) at July 2, 2008 4:45 PM

that's 92 minutes of my life that I'm never going to get back...and I blame it on the hype and wonderfulness of other super-hero movies this summer that have not sucked... The only good thing about losing those 92 minutes is in the knowledge that I haven't gone to see the movie yet to actually collect on the loss... so there's that going for me.

Posted by: Nico at July 2, 2008 4:47 PM

"I would rather Hancock had been a straightforward shit-fest than to dangle the carrot of thoughtful genre send-up in the audience's face before removing it and loosing a tremendous fart."

Inspired.

Posted by: boogs at July 2, 2008 4:48 PM

I'm going to guess - though I have not seen the movie nor read spoilers - that the horrible catch is that either Bateman or Theron turns out to be some sort of evil villian. And if that's the case... damn. In fact, if this lovely review is even remotely accurate about the level of let-down this movie manages to achieve... well, I have little more to say than: Fuck you, Hancock, for promising a somewhat sexy ride but instead spewing Will Smith's stinking self-love juice all over my hair. That's something that don't wash out easy, folks.

Posted by: Lafoutloud16 at July 2, 2008 4:53 PM

Damn. That is disappointing.

You know what this movie could have used?

Morgan Freeman saying "Shoot THIS motherfucker".

Posted by: Vermillion at July 2, 2008 4:54 PM

Best quote ever

"The first problem is Will Smith, an actor who has long ceased playing any character other than Will Smith, whose incredible confidence and egocentricity bless and curse his roles in equal measure, who forces his personal subtext into every film he stars in."

You can say this with a few actors besides Will Smith. Denzel and Tom Cruise first come to mind.

Posted by: MIJO at July 2, 2008 5:04 PM

Well, shit. I wanted this movie to be good. I don't know why - the last movie I saw was Kung Fu Panda and the next one will be Wall*E. Still.

Posted by: megbon at July 2, 2008 5:05 PM

OK, "imagine, if you will, a Super Pookie" just made me shoot Pringles out my nose.

Why is it that as soon as someone's labeled a Christian Scientist, their big budget movies suddenly suck flaming monkey balls? Maybe the writers and directors WANT to kill the actors careers?

Posted by: BWeaves at July 2, 2008 5:07 PM

^^^BWeaves, you shot Pringles out of your nose? Shit, that sounds painful.

Lafoutloud16, my guess on the twist is that Charlize is actually Hancock's mother/sister/aunt/spawn somehow. I'm not even going to read the spoilers yet.

Posted by: Brie at July 2, 2008 5:14 PM

Why is it that as soon as someone's labeled a Christian Scientist, their big budget movies suddenly suck flaming monkey balls?

BWeaves: that's Scientologist, no relation.

Posted by: elizabeth at July 2, 2008 5:19 PM

This totally bums me out. Will and I have had a standing birthday date on or around July 2nd many times (Hi, I'm older today) since Independence Day - and it's usually a very enjoyable time we share together (Bad Boys, yum!, MIB-"I make this look GOOD, etc.)

Sadly, I will not go to see Hancock. I MAY go see Master Pancake Theater mock Independence Day, but then again, I may just sit back and drink mojitos all day.

However, the 'Mo is having a Princess Bride quote-along in a couple of weeks, and I AM SO THERE!

Posted by: Stella at July 2, 2008 5:32 PM

I also agree that the twist involves Charlize as some kind of villain, etc. In the previews, there is one shot where her eyes look a bit "super".

However, after reading the "Audition" spoilers on wikipedia, I am done with spoilers for the day. Eeeek.

Posted by: jillster85 at July 2, 2008 5:51 PM

gah...
nice review but from the hints that were dropped elsewhere on the site I saw this coming.

Add Hancrap to the list of movies Will Smith has made since 1989.

Posted by: EricD at July 2, 2008 5:57 PM

Happy birthday Stella, and don't think of it as getting older, but more as getting closer to death. Does that make you feel better? You're welcome.

A Super Pookie is a scary thought...although the idea tickles my funny bone (not that I know where it is).

I'll probably watch this anyway because really...why the hell not? Also fuck the Netherlands. You know why? Wanted is coming out in September! In MOTHERFUCKING SEPTEMBER!!!! Yes, I'm a little upset.

Posted by: Joker at July 2, 2008 6:01 PM

If Charlize turns out to be a super villan and she doesn't have a costume like the little number from 2 Days in the Valley than this movie truly does suck a ranch full of bull balls.

Posted by: JP at July 2, 2008 6:27 PM

Oh, hell, I had such high hopes for a drunken slob of a superhero, flying across the sky, bottle in hand, crashing through everything in sight, sinking boats with beached whales.....*sigh*

Well....only 15 more days untils The Dark Knight My spring belonged to RDJ, my summer belongs to Bale/Ledger

Posted by: dammitjanet at July 2, 2008 6:37 PM

The movie switched gears the same way the trailer suddenly did. Suddenly it was "All aboard the failboat!"

Posted by: Stew at July 2, 2008 6:46 PM

Suddenly there are too many suddenlys in my comment. Blast.

Posted by: Stew at July 2, 2008 6:47 PM

Joker, the Helmets went and saw Wanted last night, and it was a fun ride, that's for sure. Take the next few months to forget all the laws of physics you can as they have absolutely minimal bearing on the film. In fact, try scrap any expectations of reality you may have. Then yes, definitely, prepare yourself for some awesomeness and a very entertaining show. And just before it gets to your theatres, remove your brain, just to make sure it doesn't get in the way of your enjoyment. If you do this prep right, not only will you thoroughly enjoy the film, but you'll be so busy over the summer you won't notice the delay!

Will Smith as Will Smith, how true...what is it with writers these days molding their scripts to the actors, rather than the actors actually becoming the characters? Smith, Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Carrell...is the glut of actors leading to niche roles or does nobody truly act anymore?

Posted by: lordhelmet at July 2, 2008 6:49 PM

i went into this movie expecting it to be awful and i've got to admit i was pleasantly surprised. it's not amazing, but it's definitely entertaining.

Posted by: leah at July 2, 2008 7:04 PM

It's a shame that Smith, a talented performer who can do just about all types of movies, seems determined to head into parody-land.

As for Hancock, ever since I heard of the original script, I thought it was a shite idea. And nothing that's come out after has made me change my mind.

Oh and the twist...I thought it was bad when it was Hancock and the PR wife getting it on, but the final version is even lamer.

Posted by: BFFredo at July 2, 2008 7:07 PM

From what I've read (I think it was a AICN sneak preview report) the twist is not a villain reveal, but does offer a kind of interesting duality concept, but then does something pretty weird and stupid, and also clumsily.

I've never wanted to see it and especially didn't after reading that.

Posted by: Jay at July 2, 2008 7:13 PM

I am glad this movie sucks. I hated I Am Legend and if Will Smith wants to go down the road of scientology, I will not be seeing anything else of his. I will not tolerate stupidity.

Posted by: Forrest at July 2, 2008 7:17 PM

Stella,

First, happy birthday! And second, I am totally going to the Princess Bride quote-along! I haven't been to any yet, but this one I can't miss. Also, I keep waiting for another Ladies of the 80s sing-along. I'm all spoiled for regular theaters now.

Posted by: Sharon at July 2, 2008 7:21 PM

'Basically, Will Smith has entered the Denzel/Nic Cage vein of actors that can only play minor variations of one character.'

You flatter Will Smith. He's been playing the same character since he started 'acting'. I think he has it in his contract that every script must contain at least three homophobic jokes.

Posted by: Andrew at July 2, 2008 7:22 PM

D'oh.

Posted by: fairmaiden327 at July 2, 2008 7:43 PM

Dude...did you see the same film i did?


I mean usually you're on the nose with this shit but you....what??


Seriously??

Hancock was brilliant.

Im not the biggest Will Smith fan but i thought he was great in this film, he was not basically playing Will Smith, at all.


I found this film charming, fun, funny, exciting, lots of good positive things and words


Also, once a fuckin gain, people reading this and deciding they're not gonna see the film...try thinking for your selves once in a while, its actually quite fun


Im serious, this film was great and i do not usually talk that way of big hollywood projects like this.
it was witty, the premise was great and sure as shit so was the execution, Smith plays Hancock to a T, the twist was fantastic and really interesting, the ending fifteen minutes had me close to tears and i do not normally cry during films, let alone big explosive actioners.
go and see this film before you damn it, and Commenters?
even if you dont come out having...i dunno, changed your view on the world or some shit, you will at the very least have a fun time.

Also, Americans?

He scares the unholy shit out of an uppity french kid.

You guys will love that.


I'm off to have MY OWN OPINION, an alien concept to you people.

Posted by: nadine at July 2, 2008 7:46 PM

Nadine = Spybot created by Scientology to monitor and counter all criticism aimed at its high profile "members". Better go into hiding Phillip.

Posted by: JP at July 2, 2008 7:56 PM

The link for the "Audition" review seems to be tied to the "Hancock" review.

Posted by: tbone at July 2, 2008 8:01 PM

He scares the unholy shit out of an uppity french kid.

You guys will love that.

Aw, you had to ruin it.

Mind you, like I said, I didn't want to see this movie anyway, so I certainly haven't been swayed not to, and I think I've said before that I don't believe a critic's opinion, here or anywhere else, should be regarded as fact and be the sole reason someone will or won't watch something. I can be tipped towards going, or at least reassured, by one or two critics elsewhere, but I need some interest of my own to start with.

So I agree with that principle entirely (and I've been similarly irritated about some panned movies). But a joke about French jokes? Come on, now. CAPTAIN America doesn't go for lazy knocks against the French, why should I be presumed to?

Posted by: Jay at July 2, 2008 8:02 PM

seriously JP! I am not as paranoid as YOU are, or maybe I'm moreso, I honestly think someone is paying people to come here, throw in a random "this is the worst ever!" and leave! I bet if we traced IEP addresses for some of these Nadine types they'd all go to some big review site...

pajiba- good enough for sabotage.

Posted by: lilianna28 at July 2, 2008 8:10 PM

But what's really strange is that there's suddenly page-blocking ads for Classmates and Netflix.

Any casual perusal reveals that Netflix has a whole lot of customers here already and doesn't need to advertise.

Classmates is to be feared as people you no longer talk to and don't want to find you...find you!

Shadowy forces are at work.

Posted by: Jay at July 2, 2008 8:22 PM

Nonononono... I refuse to believe it Phillip. I'm sorry, but you've lied to me before (Resident Evil the third) so I will go see this anyway. Unfortunately I have a feeling you may be right this time.

Also: What the FUCK is up with those Classmates adds that keep blocking my navigation around this site.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 2, 2008 9:01 PM

Bateman and Theron together again. But this time, the MOVIE is retarded. OH!

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at July 2, 2008 9:21 PM

Man, I heard all this coming for a while, I first saw the trailers and said "wow this looks awesome" then I saw tornadoes and a blonde chick flying past the screen, and I said "wow that's confusing, but I'm sure it will still be awesome" and then my friend said "shut up I'm trying to watch the previews", he didn't share my vocal enthusiasm...

I guess I'll still try and find it anyways (though my mind has been poisoned by bad reviews from a long time)

anyways the saddest part is that the other thing I heard consistently is that the original screenplay, "Tonight, he comes", was absolutely amazing. I would love to read it myself, and gladly pay the ticket price to read it, or see it done right and not changed into the mess this apparently is...

Posted by: Mr Patches at July 2, 2008 9:41 PM

What the FUCK is up with those Classmates adds that keep blocking my navigation around this site.

The answer is simple: You're using a PC.

It makes me happy whenever something like this comes up in the conversation, 'cause my first reaction is, "WTF are they talking about--what pop-up? What ad?" And then I realize that I don't know from seriously annoying ads (and haven't for years) because I am on a Mac. And then I give my Mac an affectionate pat.

No, I'm not gloating. Honest. Schadenfreude does not appeal to me. As a consumer you are free to buy whatever kind of computer you like. I completely respect that.

Hee.

Posted by: Jerce at July 2, 2008 9:46 PM

My mouse has four buttons AND a wheel. So I don't give a damn if you saved Christmas.

Posted by: Jay at July 2, 2008 10:01 PM

Andrew:

"You flatter Will Smith. He's been playing the same character since he started 'acting'. I think he has it in his contract that every script must contain at least three homophobic jokes."

Not so. See Six Degrees of Separation. Smith showed a lot of promise as an actor then.

Posted by: magsman at July 2, 2008 10:20 PM

Wow, Jerce, that is one of the most ignorant and uncalled-for things I have heard all day. What the hell did I do to you? Shit on your Mother or something? I shit lots of places, so I assure you it was a complete accident. In any case I really don't think that it is appropriate to bring up my lack of wealth (yeah, that's right, I don't have a Mac because I can't afford to spend 2 grand on a semi-decent computer). So fuck you Jerce, right in your pompous eye socket.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 2, 2008 10:27 PM

Actually, smartypants Jerce, not quite. I'm using a PC with Firefox instead of IE Explorer (the web browser of choice for Lucifer) + Firefox's free AdBlock widget and I haven't seen an ad in years.

So there. Stick THAT in your Mac and smoke it. Or something.

Also, words cannot express how disappointed I am about this movie. Damn you, Xenu.

[shakes fist at sky]

Posted by: TK at July 2, 2008 10:30 PM

I'll stick with my belief that there are few misanthropic characters that you can actually bring yourself to respect, even if you don't like them. Gregory House... Bernard Black... did I miss anyone else?

I wouldn't see whiter-than-white-mayo-on-white-bread Smith play a crabby superdude if you paid me.

Posted by: Goldie at July 2, 2008 10:42 PM

Oh! Well, I just lost my temper because it was an annoying night at work and I have infinite contempt for Steve Jobs (and his wee beady eyes), Apple products and Mac snobbery. But I guess some of the stuff probably is prohibitively expensive as well. Hmm.

Again, sure, I support ad revenue, it's unfortunately necessary, but Netflix is really preaching to the choir here. Oh well. I've already warned Dustin about using those ads that fade away the screen before it finishes loading and he said "never". So....you know....I'm staying vigilant. *wiggles threatening index finger*

Posted by: Jay at July 2, 2008 10:42 PM

My mouse has four buttons AND a wheel.

MY mouse has FIVE programmable buttons. And a wheel. And left- and right- click (of course).

I never said the Mac MICE don't suck; they do.

...But these new keyboards? Best EVER.

Posted by: Jerce at July 2, 2008 10:46 PM

Heh, I didn't know fanboys like Jerce existed in this corner of the internet. Damn.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 2, 2008 11:01 PM

Damn. I wanted this movie to be, if not good, at least an amusing diversion.

I'll probably still see it anyway, because I'm on holidays and have nothing better to do...

I think I'll find this more amusing than most after my brother telling me that where he lived when he was at uni, 'Hancocking' was a term used for smacking into things when drunk or otherwise. Which, having seen the trailers, strikes me as a rather funny coincidence...

Posted by: rach at July 2, 2008 11:09 PM

I liked it, but in pieces that were generally unrelated to the whole. Just hit the "reset" button on your brain every...say...20 minutes and you'll have 3 pretty good movie experiences.

Posted by: anitra at July 2, 2008 11:11 PM

Will someone tell me the damn stupid plot twist so I don't actually have to watch this movie?

Posted by: Haystacks at July 2, 2008 11:28 PM

Anyone who wants to read about the twist can go here...

http://obensonreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/hancock-twist-revealed.html

I just read it and the review seems spot-on because the twist is poo-rific.

Posted by: Siddhartha at July 2, 2008 11:34 PM

So...what about Bateman? I mean, Bateman can redeem anything right? Right? Is that you Santa Claus?

Posted by: MG at July 3, 2008 12:15 AM

Bateman can redeem anything right?

Maybe not.

But Buster Poindexter sure can!

Posted by: Jay at July 3, 2008 12:17 AM

I don't have any popups ever and I'm using the evil Vista on a Dell computer.

Why don't Mac fanboys realise how annoying they are? Do they care?

I was never convinced this movie would be worth seeing, the commercials just didn't do it for me. It does have to do with Smith being incapable of playing someone with insecurities. This is what Xenu does to someone I guess because Cruise has the same problem.

Posted by: Anne at July 3, 2008 12:35 AM

So nadine, you are saying don't listen to the reviewer but think for ourselves and listen to you??

You think maybe some of us track down reviewers who's past reviews agreed with what we thought of movies and use that to judge what they say about new movies? nahhhhh... that's just crazy. We should instead go by the opinion of someone whose sole apparent skill is to type coherently while high on crack.

Posted by: EricD at July 3, 2008 1:03 AM

Okay ... I'll say it.

OH HELL NAW

Posted by: Celesteab at July 3, 2008 1:21 AM

Nadine = Jada Pinkett Smith

Posted by: Loob at July 3, 2008 1:48 AM

Ugh. I read the spoilers.

Will, can we talk for a minute? Remember when you were the Fresh Prince? Remember Summertime? You know we Illadelphians still rock that jam each and every summer. You were our local boy made good. You punched an alien in the face! You were a badass Miami cop! You were motherfucking Ali! Why are you hanging out with that little Scientologist? Is it Jada? I know you weren't even thinking about turning away from Jesus when you were growing up in Overbrook, because your mama would have slapped your simple ass.

Step away from that little gay man and his robot wife. Come back into the light. Make a good movie.

Love,

Nicole

Posted by: Nicole at July 3, 2008 1:57 AM

Let me guess, Bateman becomes paralyzed and Thereon cheats on him with Smith, the drunk stud anti-hero. Oh wait. Thats the other Peter Berg project. The one about high school football.

Posted by: JP at July 3, 2008 2:21 AM

My wallet wishes to express its gratitude towards you, Pajiba.

Posted by: Adere at July 3, 2008 3:32 AM

hey trace my IEP, do what you wanna do, you'll find me about, i'm a nobody, i'm not an...*shudders* scientologist...is that the right use for 'an' ?

any way, I'm also not saying hey have your own opinion but really listen to me!!

Im saying, IN MY OPINION, this was a cracking film, it was great, it really was, lots of fun and worth the money

If you've never been inclined to see the film, then thats fine, i dont expect you to go and see it just cos one commenter on this site has told you too

But those who DID think about going to see it?

Why not...gee, actually try going to see it before you decide its shit because some one told you so?

Or, and okay, this is my problem with film critics (no offence philip) they go into films looking for flaws and errors and such like, so how can they be expected to just enjoy a film?


Maybe wait for some friends to go and see it and then ask a few of them ?

rather than let one dude tell you how to live your life?


Like i say, i'm not insisting you go and see it because i've said so...i'm just asking that you just DONT, because Philip said so?

and hey! the easy french joke was easy....but it was funny damn it!

Posted by: nadine at July 3, 2008 7:42 AM

"i'm not insisting you go and see it because i've said so...i'm just asking that you just DONT, because Philip said so?"

Why should we trust you any more than Philip? He's a known quantity - people read his reviews because they find that they frequently agree with him. That's sort of the purpose of reading a movie reviewer that you trust.

To put it another way - let's say you've got a friend whose opinions you frequently agree with. That friend sees a movie and tells you it's shit. You're not going to consider that advice? Same basic concept.

Posted by: I Love Beets at July 3, 2008 8:30 AM

@ Anne and all you haters: it isn't exactly "fanboy wank" to say that a Mac that has a far superior operating system (PC World even admits it), a copy-worthy desktop set up (niec try Vista), plug-n-play capabilities alongside creative powerhouse superiority, virus immunity AND is pretty f-ing cool because we get to avoid shitty ads that annoy us. I'm sorry it costs more. I'd rather buy 1 mac every 7 years than 3 PCs. If you find it annoying that someone actually likes their computer and doesn't sit down ready to do battle with it every time they want to use it, I think that's more your problems than Jerces, dontchathink? Maybe?

nadine: do you understand the concept of review sites? Lemme esplain: they go watch it... we read the review... we decide that maybe based on a few things like - 1) past history of agree/disagreeing with the reviewer 2) the content of the review and 3) tidbits of knowledge shared with the reader - whether we're gonna shit away $20 to go see it or not. So hmmmm... why should I subject my friends to wasting their money and testing out a movie that the dude who has been pretty spot on with my tastes says it sucks (and a spoiler search confirms the shitiness of the plot?)

I obviously need coffee this morning. Jerce, babe, the sweet sweet keyboard is quite nice, no? And I love my mighty mouse.

Posted by: lilianna28 at July 3, 2008 8:37 AM

How is it that I can make a comment about how pleasant my own computer experiences are compared to most of the people I know (and some of you, apparently), toddle off to bed, and wake up the next morning to find that I am a troll?

Can a person be a troll without intent?

As God is my witness, I thought the Mac/PC Wars were over.

Posted by: Jerce at July 3, 2008 9:15 AM

The answer is simple: You're using a PC.

It makes me happy whenever something like this comes up in the conversation, 'cause my first reaction is, "WTF are they talking about--what pop-up? What ad?" And then I realize that I don't know from seriously annoying ads (and haven't for years) because I am on a Mac. And then I give my Mac an affectionate pat.

No, I'm not gloating. Honest. Schadenfreude does not appeal to me. As a consumer you are free to buy whatever kind of computer you like. I completely respect that.

Hee.

That's not trolling, no. And I don't want to fight anyone either. But it read as the common Mac attitude that never fails to get some people's goat (like me, obviously). I couldn't give a shit if it's a better machine or OS after that "Switch" campaign of giggling, smug, condescending elitism that still gets the better of me just thinking about it five, six years later. That cemented me against ever giving Steve Jobs one cent. What's on my ipod? What ipod?

I don't use Firefox either, especially not after that became the other "Your problem is..." answer.

So I think that was the misunderstanding.

Posted by: Jay at July 3, 2008 9:35 AM

Sounds to me like the movie just didn't go the way you expected so it suddenly "doesn't make sense." They did a pretty good job with the writing and the story, was at least somewhat original. Hancock was an excellent movie. The plot twist wasn't really that much of a twist. You could tell within 5 minutes what was going to go down.

Posted by: whatever at July 3, 2008 9:42 AM

Just a friendly note to PC users who also choose to use IE: AdBlock Pro has been keeping junk off my screen for ages. It's not gratis like the Firefox solution ($20 or so), but it greatly improves quality of life, and you can test-whirl it for a month before committing.

(XP/IE user here who hasn't had a glitch, virus, or crash in years...giddyap.)

Posted by: Ranylt at July 3, 2008 9:56 AM

Sooo, if I go see this, Will Smith will fart in my face? I guess I'll skip this one, then. I have a fear of farts. I always imagine shit particulate floating in the air, and that is NOT what I wish to inhale, thank you.

Posted by: Mella at July 3, 2008 11:09 AM

"something out of Piers Anthony." Brava, boss. Brava. You've touched on a very important point and Pajibans need to unite against this terrible force. Seriously, Mr. Anthony writes books with such titles as "Pet Peeve" about a magical, annoying creature called a Peeve who happens to be someone's pet. Also, this all takes place in a magical land called Xanth, which is in the shape of Florida. Retarded. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Good review.

Posted by: JohnnyVonAwesome at July 3, 2008 11:14 AM

just as soon he went away?

That's correct, seriously?

Methinks it was right the first time.

...would rather see him just go away [better?]


...would rather see him on his way [BINGO!]


---

The mighty mouse has many buttons. The new keyboards are awesome, and the wireless mini-me keyboard is awesomer still.

I witnessed Vista being installed on a new imac recently. What a JOY it was to actually install Vista. So fast, so easy - it should be that way on a PC too - but it aint!

Posted by: WhoWhatWhere at July 3, 2008 12:21 PM

i wholly understand the concept of review sites you fools, i should explain myself, i generally have a problem with film critics anyway, its nothing personal i just htink its a pointless job to have, how can you enjoy a film if you go into it in the frame of mind to tear it down?


but my issue HERE isnt with review sites or reviewers, some one even made the comment you're all assuming some corporate shill from a major review site tryna get the film seen as much as possible blah blah blah, meaning you all, i can surmise done like major review sites and come here to get a different, individual opinion


and yet you react the same way as the people who go to the major sites, by letting other people dictate your opinion.


look, put it this way, while i love Hancock, it can go and fuck its self, its a film, it could be any film/tv show/book what ever, my problem is with people coming to this site unde the guise of being the ones who actually think about stuff, who are...call it the smart film goers...yet still let some one dictate their opinion.


yeah he's generally right about the films, but...i dont know...i just think its an exercise in futility to cocme to this site claiming to be other than the big dumb majority....then doing exactly what they do and blindly following the instruction of some one else.

I've never let a critic influence my opinion about any film, and yeah i've ended up seeing a few stinkers because of that, but i still gave them a chance, i still thought for myself.


but what evers people its a difference of personalities etc blah blah this is dull and i'm not gonna change how you think so...

see it, dont see it, i dont really care, just...make up YOUR OWN MIND

Posted by: nadine at July 3, 2008 2:27 PM

...the movie lost it's way, t'is true...but i thought the idea wasn't bad...

...i liked it more than "iron man"...(did he really say "my turn"?)....

Posted by: johnny at July 3, 2008 2:43 PM

Oh come on. Come the fuck on. It was not that fucking bad. You pajiba asses just put down everything you can. Hancock was good movie, The Happening wasn't that life ending.

Get a life. Be real.

By the way, I love your site.

Posted by: Callie's mad at July 3, 2008 2:46 PM

i needed a forum to announce this exciting little piece of information, and where better?
i found out i was related to jason bateman by marriage... how cool is that, i ask?

Posted by: chloe at July 3, 2008 4:38 PM

Chloe, that news is indeed cool!

Didja notice that, thanks to MO, I can now italicize AND bold?? Not as exciting as the Jason Bateman thing, I know, but still..

Posted by: TMax at July 3, 2008 4:50 PM

phillip is always off on his reviews...come on..."hancock" is going to be the movie of the summer.

why all the hate? will smith has proved his acting chops with "independence day" ("i have GOT to git me onna deez!!) and his dedication to source material (see "i, robot" and "i am legend"), so go easy on him.

phillip is just hung up on quality.

Posted by: idiot dentist at July 3, 2008 5:32 PM

I think callie, nadine, and whatever are unclear on the concept of SCATHING REVIEWS for BITCHY PEOPLE. When a film is a stinking pile of crap like this one we not only expect the review to rip it a new asshole. We demand it.

Posted by: EricD at July 3, 2008 5:35 PM

Good grief, Nadine, did you just devour an Ayn Rand novel or something and come away with new and deep insights to share with us unenlightened, hive-minded cattle?

If you want to just check out whatever movie has a trailer or a poster that you dig, more power to you! Seriously. Good for you. Some of us, however, are on a limited income and don't want to blow our allocated fun money. Some of us have very particular tastes. Some of us don't have a lot of spare time, and don't want to blow and hour and a half to three hours on something that we will hate. Some of us just plain don't like crappy movies. Which is why some of us choose to research a movie a little before we decide whether or not we're going to see it (and, of course, some of us just come here because it's fun to see bad movies flogged).

I don't see what you find so threatening and :shudder: so Thought Police-ish about people utilizing information at their disposal in order to make an informed decision about what they're going to spend money on. Do you just buy any old used car off of the lot, or do you test drive it and check out its previous history? It's fine if you just buy it, but are you going to smugly tell us "Sure, I've bought a couple of lemons, but it happens. What's the big deal?" Well, probably, because you kind of come across as one of those unyielding assholes who is convinced that their way is the only One True Right Way. But that doesn't change the fact that, well, you're getting your shorts in a knot for a very silly reason.

PS If you check out the archives, you will find many reviews where the reviewer was overwhelmingly positive about the film, and glowingly expounded on why everyone should see the film immediately. Film critics don't go in looking for flaws or for ways to tear the film down -- they objectively watch the film, analyze it, and share their opinion. Big difference.

PS What do you have against French kids?
PPS No, it was not funny
PPPS Nope, you did not use "an" correctly -- the word after it needs to begin with either a vowel or an h.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 3, 2008 5:56 PM

Bummer. And I still have to see it, 'cause the kid will disown me if I don't take him, and I don't trust leaving him alone in a theatre that's bound to be chock full of the breed of fanboy who recruit...

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at July 3, 2008 6:14 PM

Paleo

It's commentary like yours that just keeps me coming back to catch the latest opinion. I'm so glad I did this evening.

I myself have written far too much on this site this week, but what can I say? The mood hit me, I ran with it.

But if I could find the same enjoyment in my own writing that I get from reading so many of Pajiba's contributors... well, I'd certainly write more.

Thanks again for the read.

Posted by: TMax at July 3, 2008 6:26 PM

Maryscott

Your post appeared while I was still typing mine, so I wanted to grab the moment while you were here: I rarely hear from you on this site anymore & was wondering if you had your own blog that I could check out. I checked the blue list over to the right here but didn't see your name.

As that kid said to Carl in Slingblade:
"I like the way you talk."

Posted by: TMax at July 3, 2008 6:35 PM

I remember being in the theater watching Independence Day, and I recall that I was literally agape whilst the other patrons laughed hysterically at lines like, "Aw HELL naw! You did NOT just shoot that green shit at ME!" and, "Welcome ta Earf (punch)!"

I said to myself, "Self, this is the end of Will Smith's career." God, do I wish I had been right about that. The overwhelming Will Smithiness of the man is too much for me, The Pursuit of Happyness be damned.

Posted by: Mella at July 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Where the hell is The Wackness review???!

It's the only new release alternative to this shit.

Posted by: Drew at July 3, 2008 7:43 PM

Okay, I'm sorry guys, not trying to push my tenure here or anything, but if I may be so bold as to make yet another nomination for inclusion with the Eloquents,

Ella cracked up me & my lazy fat ass with her post. Slick, baby!

Goodnight, and Amen.

Posted by: TMax at July 3, 2008 8:20 PM

Goddamit, MELLA you fuckwad - D'oh!!

Posted by: TMax at July 3, 2008 8:28 PM

Ok, TMax and Mella (that's with an 'M'), we need to step outside for a moment. I will never get sick of Independence Day, and I don't care if I lose my Pajiba membership for saying it. Dustin has an unhealthy fantasy relationship with Ryan Reynolds, I have an inexplicable love for that movie. We all got problems.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 3, 2008 9:04 PM

Mr. Stephens I want to personally thank you for helping me get laid tonight, not that I need help in that department mind you. But with the high price of gas I can only drive my van so far in my unending search for ass. I showed this older lady whom I've been trying to seduce for some now that I'm a movie columnist for pajiba, and that my columnist screen name is "Pookie." After she saw you mention my name in your review of "Hancock" she was good to go and let's just say we wore the shocks out on my van. For all of you that want to know, no, I did not have to use other measures to get her in my van this time and yes, I did practice safe sex.

Posted by: Pookie at July 4, 2008 1:40 AM

The twist was incredibly terrible, but I do have to give them props for not hinting to it, like, at all in the previews, and also not being like 'WITH A TWIST THAT WILL FREAK YOUR SHIT' like movies tend to do.

But yeah. I didn't hate it, but it was definitely disappointing. I think that, if my lover Jason Bateman had not been in it, I wouldn't have been able to tolerate it.

Posted by: Mimi at July 4, 2008 4:07 AM

mimi very good point about not hinting at the twist. they can at least be commended for that.

Posted by: EricD at July 4, 2008 10:14 AM

y is the guy such an asshole. hancock was a really good movie. its a superhero movie so i don't know what he expects. it has a really god story an amazing twist and no mater what you where expecting when you get in to the theater its not what u expect. so let this ASSHOLE say what he wants this movie is a must see.

Posted by: al at July 4, 2008 1:22 PM

al. No.

Posted by: Mick J at July 4, 2008 2:35 PM

Those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. And Those who are to inept to teach - criticize... I think you walked in predisposed to dislike this movie. You betray that in your comments, so this far from an unbiased review.

It is obvious that you are in love with your own grasp of the language and ability to twist a knife with a well turned phrase.
In other words, a guy who talks because he likes the sound of his own voice.

Was the movie great? No, but it was fun to watch. Not near Will Smith's best efforts but still an ok movie.

Posted by: scot at July 4, 2008 3:05 PM

@jerce
with you on the mac love, always and forever. we even have an original apple II upstairs, along with every other mac (yes, *sigh*, even the forgettable newton) we've ever owned.
meself, i have great lust for my macbook and touchpad.

but on topic, i, too am disappointed about hancock. i adored independence day and MIB. i really haven't minded most of his movies until he got involved with the scientologist troll, now i don't care if i see his face again
that said, i'm sure i'll see it when it hits HBO. nice review, though!
oh, and happy birthday, stella, and chloe, can i spend christmas at your house??

Posted by: bionic bunny at July 4, 2008 7:01 PM

I think it is VERY important to note that this movie spent a near eternity stuck in Development Hell. The original script was completely bastardized and rewritten, and halfway through they decided to turn Hancock into a horrible "comedy" extravaganza.

Terrible waste.

Posted by: AD at July 4, 2008 7:03 PM

okay, i just read the plot twist.

still, there IS justin bateman and charlize theron, who was my first girl crush. maybe i'll bump it up to netflix instead of HBO.

Posted by: bionic bunny at July 4, 2008 7:13 PM

I liked it, but then again with the exception of all the Burton Batman movies, Hulk and all the Superman movies save number two, I've liked pretty much any superhero movie I've ever seen (That does include Ghost Rider, The Fantastic Four movies --including the Corman one--, The Guyver, My Super ex-Girlfriend, BlankMan, Meteor Man, Sgt Kabukiman NYPD, and Hero at Large among others.)

Posted by: Adam C at July 5, 2008 2:08 AM

LOL.
Hancock was The Shit

Posted by: Andie_Girl9 at July 5, 2008 3:24 AM

I think we're all forgetting however we may feel a about Will Smith as a person, or as an actor, which he's proven in the past he's capable of when appropriate, is also making far more money than anyone on this forum, so say what you will about the film, I liked it, and i didn't expect anyything more from it, other than what it gave me, why becuase it's peter berg, you all act surprised that this movie didn't turn out to be an opis or a box office smash, well truth be told it wasn't horrible, contrived maybe, but it's a superhero story and yes there have been better but still for cripes sake go complian about obama and mccain, or the fact that people still seem to care that Amy Weinhouse is alive, or is this the kind of group that believe they might have a chance with Megan Fox now that she's single, give it a rest, Hancock was an attempt at an original superhero concept, something neither from marvel or DC, and yes the original script might have been something better, but since no one here has a copy of the script who knows what we're missing and since no ones going to attend a staged reading on the forth of July, just shut the hell up becasue at the end of the day Will Smith makes more money than anyone here will ever smell becuase of who he is, not how well he acts, and you know what I'm fine with that only becuase I know he tries, which is more than i can say of Paris or Tom, or the many others who get paid far more and give far less in return...

Posted by: Myself at July 5, 2008 4:12 AM

A period, a period, my kingdom for a period!

Posted by: Sarina at July 5, 2008 4:55 AM

Word, Sarina. WORD.

So, we shouldn't criticize the movie because... Will Smith makes more money than us? Well, that's a valid completely idiotic point.

Also, what the fuck is an opis?

Posted by: TK at July 5, 2008 6:23 AM

TK -- According to Wikipedia, "Opis... was an ancient Babylonian city on the Tigris, not far from modern Baghdad." Puts a whole new spin on that post, huh?

Also, it's 6:30 A.M., Saturday, July 5th. I just want to say to everyone who is not stuck undeservedly at work because a jackass walked off the job -- I hate you and you SUCK!

Posted by: Todd at July 5, 2008 9:35 AM

I have to disagree. It wasn't what they advertised, a comedy semi-spoof on superheroes. It was something else. I thought they handled the whole thing pretty well, and could not have had any prolog without giving the whole thing away. Theron telegraphed plenty if you weren't looking at her tits. It was clear something was up the moment Hancock saw her the first time. It wasn't a great movie by any stretch and an extra 20 minutes or so of conflict/explanation with the two of them would have been good but after The Happening as the new standard of failure in cinema, I can't go along with this.

Posted by: Louis at July 5, 2008 1:05 PM

"Also, what the fuck is an opis?"

I'm guessing he/she/it meant "opus". Never mind that a film, even one starring the exceedingly wealthy Will Smith, is neither a musical composition nor a work of literature. Of course, perhaps I'm underestimating him/her/it, and they're going with the etymology of the word... but I think considering a Will Smith movie to be an agricultural endeavour or a religious act is a bit of a stretch, no? However, seeing as the period is outside the realm of his/her/its linguistic comprehension, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that they consider the actual meaning of any given word to be rather immaterial.

Posted by: Sarina at July 5, 2008 1:10 PM

Yeah, but think of the freedom that goes along with forsaking trifling things like words having actual, specific meanings.

"Hancock was completely spork! Maybe it wasn't as flagellate as it was adverised as being, but it was still a worthwhile golden pony. Really, Charlize Theron rubber purlple octopus, and Will Smith makes so much tuna casserole that he is above critique, hippopotamus. Rubber baby buggy bumpers. Snerfle."

I DARE you to disagree with that.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 5, 2008 1:28 PM

Goodness gracious, so much wank in one post. The only thing missing is cat macros.

Posted by: Stew at July 5, 2008 1:44 PM

PaleoLithchick, hard-boiled egg suoerfly kitchen wrap. Because that's how the desk towel under the basket foosball aperture.

I think I've made myself clear. I trust you won't flazzo on the giant bamboo monkey copter ever again.

Posted by: TK at July 5, 2008 3:27 PM

Alas, PaleoLithchick, you're so cool!

Posted by: Cookie at July 5, 2008 3:28 PM

I think Pajiba Mad Libs is the first non-pervy game we've ever come up with, y'all. I'm not sure if I should be impressed by this display of restraint, or worried that we might be losing our touch.

Posted by: Sarina at July 5, 2008 3:40 PM

92 Minutes? Really? Even Wall-E was 97. Nothing against Wall-E, of course, it's just that it was a fucking animated Disney Film, and it was longer.

So... Philip, are you recommending a pass on this one?

How the fuck do you say Vincent Ngo, anyway? Is it like Nguyen=Win? Like, No or enn-GO!. I like the second way better.

Posted by: Jaci at July 5, 2008 4:09 PM

TK, I flambe you chroma moist tea towels. Photsynthesis be rocked, beanbag lanterns are go! Cyclopentasiloxane?

Sarina, I'm pretty sure it will turn pervy in 1.5 posts, max.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 5, 2008 5:05 PM

Cheeseburger orphan piano rutabaga! Walter makes you garner lawn chair fungible?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Neoprene.

Posted by: TK at July 5, 2008 6:09 PM

you guys are doing it worng, you are spelling everything correcly and using punctation other then commas, what is the matter with you people, are you all radios or somwthing, my cat's breath smells like cat fodo

Posted by: Jerce at July 5, 2008 6:42 PM

You tabulate, Jerce has a wormhole, flatulant orange clockhadn, we should magnify the printer stat, STAT!

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 5, 2008 7:04 PM

Amateurs, you're using real words.

If you snoorfle existential makkepoos instantaneous boast master. Kill blue prueas goo and rape pandas.

So...uhm...what are we doing exactly? It's 2.20 a.m. and I really should be asleep, but I'm not because...well...I can't remember. Wait, what am I talking about? I'm not even drunk...I think that's the problem, I need alcohol to normalise.

Posted by: Joker at July 5, 2008 8:21 PM

Kerfuffle pancake, Joker, dessicate shoe tree farfalle.

You feel me?

Get some sleep, cartography vampire noogie petal.

Posted by: TK at July 5, 2008 8:31 PM

If we're raping pandas, then I'm in.

Posted by: Jaci at July 5, 2008 10:43 PM

I usually agree with Pajiba. Not this time, I thought it was awesome.

Played hookey from work Thrusday afternoon. Went to see Wanted, and noticed Hancock was starting right after Wanted got out. So, to erase that small feeling of guilt, hit the consession stand again before walking into Hancock. Haven't done that in years.

Anyway, I generally don't over analyze a movie where a guy can fly... Hancock was a blast! Would have prefered if stayed the way it started, without the twist, but again, this was a movie about a drunk superhero, not Schindler's List. Good fun. Hancock that is, not Schindler's List.

And, Nadine. Chill out babe. Damn. If you get this worked up over a movie review, I bet you're fun when it's something serious.

Posted by: Bill M at July 5, 2008 11:09 PM

Sarina and Kicksaw Tallyho, how can you criticize Myself for not using periods. Myself clearly used three at the end of Myself's post.
Ok, let me try:

I think we're all pussyfying however we may fornicate a about Will Tits as a moose, or as an asshole, which he's banged in the past he's capable of when douchenozzle, is also making far more anal than anyone on this titty, so say what you will about the flytrap, I licked it, and i didn't bunghole anyything more from jizz, other than what it gave me, why becuase it's peter turd, you all act fantastic that this sperm didn't turn out to be an turtle or a felcher office rape, well truth be fucked it wasn't cornholio, contrived maybe, but it's a twat story and yes there have been loser but still for japanese sake go compliant about obama and mclovin, or the tat that doggy still seem to fart that Amy Weinhouse is dead, or is this the kind of group sex that believe they might have a chance with Red Fox now that he's dead, give it a noogy, Handcock was an apple at an orange shitty concept, something neither from navel or DC United, and yes the original puppy might have been hiv better, but since no one here has a boner of the duckbutter who knows what we're kissing and since no ones going to shove a staged dildo on the forth of that guy, just fuck the hell up becasue at the beginning of the gay Scientology Smith makes more hamburgers than anyone here will ever smell becuase of who he is not, not how well he comes, and he got game I'm fine with that only becuase I smell he dies, which is million than i can bang of Paris or Tom, or the many fuckers who get laid far more and give far less in return...

Posted by: JP at July 6, 2008 1:24 AM

Sporgglecock...

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 6, 2008 2:11 AM

I'm back, bitches!

I will say this: Hancock is by no means Will Smith's best project...it was probably one of the more wishy-washy...but nevertheless, I find it far from "Epic Failure" as this guy puts it.

Does it take one word word to lead you automatons in the direction of whether a movie is good or bad? I get really nauseated when people start saying that because of what they read, they're not going to see it.

Make your own opinion! For fuck's sake, if you are really that much for wishful thinking (i.e., if you constantly keep bitching with "Man, I was hoping this would be good."), just go see it. Shut the fuck up, take a deep breath, realize that you are under no one's control but yourself, and go see it. At worst, you just saw a bad movie. It wouldn't be the first time, and damn if it won't be the last.

Pajiba, I'm starting to lose trust in the reviews you're doing. Not everything will be fuckin' great, but don't make it seem like we're walking into a film done by those two guys who are behind that "Disaster Movie." (I'm not even gonna point out the harrowing irony in that."

And this ain't no Scientology backing or whatever the fuck you paranoid idiots will make this statement out to be. It's an independent statement. Figure one out for yourself, and quit dick-riding.

Posted by: Riley at July 6, 2008 3:08 AM

Riley, a number of us have explained why we use movie reviews to help us decide whether we are or are not going to see a particular film (I personally liked PaleoLithchick's explanation best). If you choose not to accept that explanation, that's fine for you - but to accuse everyone of "dick-riding" makes you a fuckin' dick. Capisce?

Posted by: Jen at July 6, 2008 4:52 AM

Riley said: Does it take one word word to lead you automatons in the direction of whether a movie is good or bad? I get really nauseated when people start saying that because of what they read, they're not going to see it

hey dipshit, just how do you expect us to make up our minds other then watching the trailors, reading reviews and talking about the movie? are you suggesting we should go see the movie to decide if its something we want to go see?

Posted by: EricD at July 6, 2008 7:51 AM

"Nigblat varni kwando floon," as George Carlin once famously vorped.

I heard on NPR from their media critics that a new movie, to be titled Tropic Thunder will be coming out this year. Here's the premise: A bunch of actors making a war film have to act like real soldiers when a war occurs right around them. It stars Ben Stiller (who's also directing) and Robert Downey Jnr. in blackface.

Just from that I can tell that the movie shall descend into the Ninth Circle of Suckage, never to be seen again.

Selah.

Posted by: The Wanderer at July 6, 2008 11:14 AM

you've stepped on your own point there 'scathing reviews for bitchy people' then you go on and highlight that often films are given glowing and adoring reviews


but i say again, what ever, and i say again, i do ubderstand the concept of SCATHING reviews for petes sake, i also said, more than once, that, i have a problem with reviewers in general, i think their job is inherantly pointless


but i say again, what the flying hell ever, i have better things to do than argue with you people, i say AGAIN, see it, dont see it, just make up your own minds


im not ocming back because this is just boring now so dont bother replying

Posted by: nadine at July 6, 2008 11:52 AM

Oh for crying out loud nadine:

1) Dude. It's a movie review site. Of COURSE some movies are going to get good reviews. Not ALL movies suck. That's why we have movie reviewers, for cripes sake -- to help separate the wheat from the chaff, the crap from the gold, the Pookie from the party.

2) If you have a problem with movie reviews and movie reviewers in general, what the hell have you been doing here? It's like saying "God do I hate meat!" while sitting down at a Brazilian barbeque joint, tucking a napkin under your chin, and diving face first into a beef extravaganza.

3) We DO make up our own minds. We take the information at our disposal, process it, and make decisions. It's a beautiful thing. Just look at the variety of decisions made -- some people decided to avoid the film altogether, some people decided to wait to Netflix it, some people decided to go to a cheap matinee, and some people decided that they were going to have to give it a chance despite the review. And most of us decided that you probably enjoyed lead paint as child (or, as you may have known it, wall candy).

And if you have better things to do than argue with us, than please do them. Because you are really lousy at arguing.

4) Don't tell me what to do. I make my own decisions, and I'll reply if I want to.

But if you're really not coming back, I think it's time to break out the orange panda rape.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 6, 2008 12:12 PM

(Sigh)

Ok, Jen, since you need a lil' clarity:

I wasn't accusing, as you say, EVERYONE of dick-riding...I was talking to the people who were either (A) Having high expectations for a certain film, and/or (B) Had the high notion of going to see this film.

I find it aggravating when said people suddenly lose all that expectation on account of reading something which may or may not be accurate. Believe me, I have come across many a Pajiba review where they totally fucked up the review, whether it was because they were maybe in a really pissed-off mood, hated the actor(s) involved with the project, or what have you.

Sometimes, you just gotta risk it. And as I said previously: Sometimes you'll get a surprise (i.e., realizing the movie wasn't as bad as it was said to be EX: Hancock), or you may be let down ultimately.

OH BOO-FUCKIN'-HOOOO!!! Wow, a bad movie. Haven't seen one of those in a while!

Some people make it out to be like they're walking into the seventh circle of hell, but realistically, you saw a bad movie. Deal with it, and move on.

Yeah, movie reviews can help formulate your general direction of whether you should or shouldn't see a flick, but ultimately, people vary on a grand scale, and while they might generally agree with the reviewer's perspective, sometimes you gotta make the decision of whether something is bad or good by going through with it. Make a sacrifice, and do as the reviewer did: Experience it. You may walk out with a different opinion than when you walked in. Honestly, that's how I felt when I exited the theater.

And to EricD:

I wasn't addressing you. Now that you know, more or less, who I was directing my narrative to (just in case: People who were all for a film, but all the sudden lost interest just by reading about a film, and thus never going through with it themselves), you got it all wrong.

I'm saying if you have an interest in seeing a film, go see it. If you never wanted to see it to begin with, then don't. Once more: Go see the movie if you want to go see it, don't just always take somebody's word for it.

EXAMPLE:

If Pajiba stated that "Wanted" sucked mad cow balls, would you just take their word for it, or based on all the badass sequences you witnessed in the trailers (as in not 'trailors'), would you maybe take that chance? Realistically, that review had it right: if not for all the beautiful action pieces that help in a major way digress from the plot of the movie, that film would've sucked like something fierce.

Just in case you got lost in all that, when all is said and done, just watch a movie. You can't possibly believe everything you read.

Posted by: Riley at July 6, 2008 3:31 PM

Riley, i think you've said what i want to say better than me.

And in fact, you made a point i made earlier, if people wanted to see it, see it, if they didnt, dont, but dont decide whether or not to based on some one elses word


and PaleoLitChick, no you dont make up your own mind, at all, you let who ever has reviewed the film today make it up for you, if you read this information and went 'still, i'll give the film a chance', that'd be making up your own mind, as is those who take these reviews as gospel are letting your mind be made up for you


i cant believe i'm arguing with people on the internet.

whats that saying i heard once?


I wont repeat it here because it may offend more than my question of your ability to have an original damned thought, but the jist of it is that to be pulled into an argument online is to (for both sides) admit your own stupidity at being unaware of the futility of your actions.

basically we're all fucking idiots, you all, me, everyone.

and one last point;

My opinion being different from yours and the fact i'm not afraid to call you on something?

Doesn't make me stupid.

Posted by: nadine at July 6, 2008 3:55 PM

Can someone please explain to me how anyone can think it is appropriate, or sane, to come to a movie review site, which is by definition a place where opinions of movies are published, and bitch and complain because the site dares to publish opinions about movies?

Who are you people? Where did you come from? Wherever that is, could you just go back? Please?

You can't type, you can't spell, you can't organize your own thoughts well enough to express yourselves properly (even in your own eyes!) without two or three attempts.

If you're not going to go away, at least stop teasing us with those declarations that you're "bored" and you're not coming back, etc.

You people are just radio. Orange panda rape indeed.

Posted by: Jerce at July 6, 2008 4:04 PM

Jerce, eat a bag of baby dicks.

It would definitely NOT be the first time anyone has spoke out against a reviewer's opinion, and I highly doubt that it will end with "Hancock."

What makes anyone else's opinion more valid than someone else's? I can express my thoughts on a film if I want, otherwise, the review would not have a section so people can comment and bitch about movies.

I dare to say my own opinion on a movie, just as countless others before me have. It's not unusual if there are a few who disagree with the general population of the quality of a flick...some people just found something else interesting in it while others didn't.

But don't tell me, or anyone else who disagrees with it, to go away. That's just a cheap cop-out.

To Nadine: Thank you for expressing your opinions about the movie! You're just as welcome as anyone else!

Posted by: Riley at July 6, 2008 4:59 PM

nadine, for someone who wasn't coming back I notice that you are still just a little bit not gone.

riley said: I find it aggravating when said people suddenly lose all that expectation on account of reading something which may or may not be accurateWhy? Why the hell do you care if ppl change their mind after reading a review?

Posted by: EricD at July 6, 2008 5:09 PM

No clarity needed, Riley...you were a twatwaffle earlier and a twatwaffle you remain. Sorry you didn't like the review, but you could easily have just come in here like so many others did and said, "Eh, I disagree with the reviewer - I liked the movie and I recommend it." However, you went on the offensive and got your panties in a bunch, and now you're reaping the rewards. Good on you.

Also, since when do you get to decide when a reviewer has "fucked up the review"? Is that code for "they didn't agree with me"? I think it might be.

nadine, sorry babe, but you are indeed an idiot. To claim that using a review to decide not to see a film is somehow "not making up your own mind" is ludicrous, and it's painfully clear that you do not understand the concept of reviews at all. If you find reviews to be such awful things, why in the blue fuck are you here?!

Posted by: Jen at July 6, 2008 5:24 PM

Calling me on what? Disagreeing with you? Pointing out why your argument is flawed, illogical, and as retarded as that precious Gump boy?

You'll note, I haven't said anything else for you to "call me on."

(Go ahead, scan the comments section again. I'll wait. I know that reading comprehension is hard.)

Does someone have to actually beat you with a clue-by-four for you to get one? Or is not getting a clue some sort of super power, like being here when you've said you're gone?

Look, you're every bit as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. But if you say stupid things, people are going to point them out. And also think you've been hitting the wall candy. Or that you're been running into the lobotomy stick repeatedly. Or both.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 6, 2008 6:04 PM

They're right. I am a sheep. Must not have independent thoughts. Must not have dependent thoughts. Must do what others tell me.
Must kill Phillip Stephens...must kill Phillip Stephens....
Baaaa! Baaaaaaa!

Posted by: hatemail at July 6, 2008 7:02 PM

Riley, thank you, genuinelly, its nice to see some one here being polite

everyone else, okay right, i'm not coming here to complain about the review.

If you'd do me a favour and read ALL My posts before you jump into the discussion, that'd be great, i'm just repeating my self for the ignornat at this point, but here goes;

My only problem with the review was that it surprised me is all(once again, if you look at all my reviews i say quite pointedly that i dont give a shit about the film either way), i really really enjoyed the film and was genuinely surprised by the negative critiques its gotten, so far everyone i've spoken to in 'real life' (for want of a better term) has enjoyed it and found it a well made movie, a well written narrative etc, the theatre full of people i saw it with certainly enjoyed it and everyone else from my friends to my family have.

clearly, those who dont like it are seeing something i dont, but what ever, thats neither here nor there

My issue here isn't with the review its self, if he thinks the film was shit, hey, its a SCATHING review site, obviously he's going to be harder on a film he doesn't like than other reviewers, or indeed, corporate reviewers being basically paid by the film company might.

I understand the concept of reviews for fucks sake, how many times do i need to say it before it sinks in, i get it, i know what reviews are and what they're for...i'm saying you dont have to base your movie going life around them.

I come here because i think/thought it was a clever, witty site that gives honest and thoughtful reviews, that i make a point of only ever reading AFTER i've seen the film, i do it with all films i watch, read the review afterwards.
I dont know why, it doesn't change my views in any way, i just like to do it.

Maybe i dont like basing my life around what some dude i've never met thinks...

oh and one favour?

Stop calling me fucking stupid, or an idiot.

I disagree with your opinions, i disagree with how you choose to see films, my grammar and spelling may be a little off because i'm typing too quickly or i'm distracted by having a LIFE, but i'm clearly not stupid so just stop calling me it.

To call some one stupid when they're obviously not is a lazy, weak insult.

I know you can do better, you know you can do better.

Insult my personage.
Assume i'm a fat, greasy friendless loser who trawls review sites and picks fights with strangers, decide i must be a limey british snob, call me a bitch, call me a whore, call me a scientologist drone tryna plug the fresh fucking princes latest flick.
I know at least one of you will copy and paste this whole list thinking you're clever and witty and even though i've pointed it out, one of you will still do it, so go ahead.
Call me what ever you like, but stupid?
Really?

If thats the best you can come up with i'm going to have to start monitoring my language since i'm clearly dealing with six year olds.

actually, no, six year olds would tell me i have a booger face or smelly feet...who calls people stupid...i cant actually think of anyone who does any more...even teachers dealing with stupid children dont call them stupid


oh and by the way guys, you all may not see the film and in a few months you may forget was ever relased, but you have, at this point, engaging in this discussion?
Given it all the attention you've tried so hard not to by not seeing it.

It may have cost you nothing but time but its as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity.


Oh, and i dont like to make it personal, so, certain people, do me a favour,If you're gonna be a bitch, be a bitch from word one, don't try and sugar coat you're a bit sweet and just trying to put me straight then insult my intelligence.

Once again i'm dragged into an argument online...what the fuck

right, fuck it, the saying goes, arguing online is like competing in the special olympics...you may win but you're still fucking retarded.


You'll notice i dont exclude my self from that?

Are we at least all aware of the pointlessness of all of this?

I dont want to sound like i'm making threats because i'm really really not, but we can never meet face to face and have a proper discussion about this, putting the right emotional spin on stuff we 'say', so everything is always going to be taken the wrong way, it's inevitable.

As such, this whole discussion is rendedered pointless.

You people aren't going to see the film, nor are you going to suddenly agree with me...i'm not going to suddenly decide the film was shit and Philip is my God and take his every word as gospel...


I....i've already said this though, and even repeating myself seems to get me no where with you people so...one last time...this....is pointless...

I honestly dont know why i keep coming back here. I've been raised to defend myself i suppose...not to mention some...morbid curiosity...

I'll almost definately be back tomorrow, we all know it, and so will, i imagine, more than a few of you


so...till tomorrow?


oh and the last little note, when the hell did this site turn into IMDB?

thats the standard we're falling too here, dont DARE express an opinion or ask a question that might be a bit offensive or the rabid fan hoarde will have at you.


Well done to all of us.

Posted by: Nadine at July 6, 2008 8:45 PM

i'm re-reading through some of these comments and seriously, can not say it enough, MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE REVIEW OF THE FILM, IF HE THINKS THE FILM SUCKED BUFFALO BALLS THEN FINE, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE REVIEW OF THE FILM.

Posted by: nadine at July 6, 2008 8:51 PM

I'm "calling you stupid" because you obviously do not understand what many of us (myself included) have said to you. You refuse to acknowledge any of the points that anyone else has made, or any of the fallacies that they've pointed out in your reasoning, and you haven't defended your positions. You have instead stuck your fingers in your ears while going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LET ME REPEAT MYSELF AD NAUSEUM, EVEN THOUGH WHAT I AM SAYING IS DUMB BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT THE REVIEWS HERE ARE THE *ONLY* THING THAT *ALL* PAJIBANS TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE DECIDING TO GO TO A MOVIE. THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY FACTOR *ANYTHING* ELSE INTO THEIR DECISIONS, AND THEY ARE *ALL* DECIDING NOT TO GO TO SEE A MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE BAD REVIEW ALONE."

Which, even if a few of them ARE, does not make you some superior entity, missy. Just because you like to read a review after you see a movie doesn't mean that's what everyone else has to do, and it doesn't mean people are sheep for using a movie review for its intended purpose -- as ONE tiny piece of information that, when paired up with other tiny pieces of information, can help a person decide which movie they are going to shell out eight bucks to see. Un. Twist. The shorts.

Or, in language that you might better understand: Purple fromage your earwicking ruler of notepadding glorified algae.

In short, I am calling an oblivious blowhard an oblivious blowhard. That's not cheap and easy. That's stating the obvious.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 6, 2008 9:11 PM

all right then, fair point, its entireley likely more than a few people here are as you say, only taking this review as a miniscule percentage of their reasoning not to see a film, there could be lots of other reasons, they may have had lukewarm feelings about it from the beginning, they may really really have serious enough financial issues that shelling out eight dollars to see a film being generally panned is something they cant afford, or hey, maybe they're letting ALL film critics dictate what films they see, you're right, i just dont know


and i have not once, at all, ever, claimed to be superior to anyone on this site.

If anything i've shot myself down more than you people have, i know you wont listen to me over Philip, i know i'm no one to you all, i'm just some commenter on a film review site, i'm not claiming to be better or smarter or what ever you think i'm claiming to me, what i'm saying is, from what i see on this site, SO often, is that too many people read this single review and think fuck it, i wont go and see this film, S/HE says it sucks so it must surely suck

As you say, this may not be the case but it sure as shit looks like it is.

and hey, well done, you haven't called me stupid and can i actually truthfully say, thank you , for having appeared to read all my posts rather than skim the first few, decide i'm the deviland start in, there's nothing more irritating than trying to debate/argue with people when you can tell they haven't bothered read everything you've said


and actually, i am 'listening' to people, reading their replies etc and the reason i'm not addressing the points they're making?

is that as near as i can see, none of them have made points worth addressing


as yet, no one barring you just now with the 'this one review might not be the only reason' has actually come up with a valid argument that shoots down what i'm saying


they've been patronising, insulting, claimed they're not sheep waaah not sheeeeeep!!!, but not actually said anything like 'actually, i read this review, ask friends who've seen it, read a dozen reviews both good and bad before deciding' and you KNOW they haven't so no i'm not sitting here with my fingers in my ears, i simply haven't yet found a valid response other than more people picking fights, very few of whom have, as i've said, read every comment and have a full idea of whats said


hell even the people who DO seem to have read every comment are pointedly ignorning stuff and still seem convinced i'm...Will Smith's PR person or something!
and dont call me missy, what are you eighty?


Until some one can come back to me with a really good response that totally shuts me down in way that not just me, or you, but everyone on both sides of this can see, then...i'm sorry but i fail to see why i'm being told i'm so wrong then...


Because this is like arguing with a younger sibling where they run out of points to make or get prooved utterly wrong so just start flinging insults or calling up old faults to grass me up to our parents with.

yeah i might be a blowhard, yeah i'm getting WAY too irate over such a tedious and stupid and pointless fucking argument, but you cant deny no ones yet (other,as i've said, than you, just now) been able to come up with a response that wasn't a string of insults scattered with claims of independant thought or indeed, admittance of wholly following a single review

Posted by: nadine at July 6, 2008 9:33 PM

*psst* nadine, doll, before you start talking about the "standards we're falling too here," you may want to proofread your posts. Trust me, folks around here respond better to a well-written comment, as it tends to imply that it's been given due thought before posting.

This includes, but is not limited to:

"I," not "i"
"rabid fan horde," not "rabid fan hoarde"
"don't," not "dont"
"trying to," not "tryna"
"definitely," not "definately"
"for fuck's sake," not "for fucks sake"

Okay, I'm too lazy to continue, but you get my drift.

Also, you say that "even repeating myself seems to get me no where [sic] with you people." Well, honey, that's because "repeating yourself" and "making a convincing and effective argument" are not the same f-ing thing.

I know I'm being a bit (okay, a lot) snotty here, but trust me--take my advice, and you'll have a slightly better foothold in your arguments on this site.

Oh, and I must address an early point of yours:

"Maybe wait for some friends to go and see it and then ask a few of them ?

rather than let one dude tell you how to live your life?"

*sigh* Sadly, I for one don't have any friends with similar taste in films to mine. However, the good people at Pajiba seldom steer me wrong, so I like to get their take on films rather than relying on the advice of friends.

However, like pretty well anyone here, I don't let their reviews substitute my own ideas of a film. For example, I went to see and quite enjoyed Sex and the City, and I recently watched and didn't absolutely despise The Bucket List (it was...meh). Similarly, the glowing praise of reviewers and commenters alike have not conspired to ignite any hint of desire to watch Wall-E.

Finally, and for the record, this lecture is coming from someone who fully intends to see Hancock, on video, anyway. I know to expect a flawed movie thanks to Phillip's review; however, I also know I find Will Smith ridiculously charismatic, and am sufficiently intrigued by the premise that I will watch and undoubtedly get some enjoyment from it.

Ooookay, I'm up far too late on a work night. Sorry to ramble. Oh, and PaleoLithchick: Blort, snargle--snuffleupagus!

Posted by: anony(MO)us pedant at July 6, 2008 9:55 PM

You're too late, anon. Nadine has left us. She was bored and she left.

She left fourteen or fifteen posts ago. 'Cause we bore her.

Posted by: Jerce at July 6, 2008 10:09 PM

I'm still debating if this movie is worth it, just to see Jason Bateman. Or, as my local newspaper called him, Justin Bateman and Ray Bateman (I think he plays Ray?).


What dicks.


And wow, lots of comments about this movie.


I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD, or until someone I know goes to Bali and brings back pirated DVDs.

Until then, I'll just enjoy my preview screening of the Dark Knight next Monday.


There is no emoticon for what I'm feeling.

Posted by: Chantelle at July 6, 2008 10:20 PM

People, people...

None of you can accept that a master rhetorician amongst us has undeniably dominated your feeble attempts at rebuttal.

From the outset, upon whence she truthfully postulated and clearly identified the oh-so-common lack of individual thought engagement occurring via the channels of this here very site, all the way down to her indefatigable assaults on our lame attempts at 'reasoning' with her scathing barrage of REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT - none of you is man nor woman enough to hail the coming of the Singular And Correct way of engaging with the text and meta-text that comprises the filmic and critical apparatus. For shame, you self-conceited mass of wannabe intelligentsia. Can't you see that one who challenges the very laws of spelling and grammar - nay, the established ideology of written communication as we know it - is above and beyond the reproach of mere mortals? I for one, will, however meekly I may, at least try to bend my mind away from an intellectual diet of strict adherence to one person's internet opinion...

Thus:

It's a new day. A sword day.

NOW FOR WRATH, NOW FOR RUIN AND A RED NIGHTFALL!!


Also, this just in: Jimburt the sleepless can only decree that in the isle of a unicorn presumption, only the furthest and most unrepentant man-boy may unstipple the yellowing from a well oiled triangle of presupposition.

Ergo, boobs.

P.S. Hancock - haven't seen it. Looks like a piece of shit.

P.P.S. Hey JP, your contribution with the neverending paragraph, way up above my post here, had me literally crying with laughter :)

Posted by: Klaatu's Angry Face at July 6, 2008 11:07 PM

I never read comments composed of more than two paragraphs. They're always so cranky.

Posted by: Mella at July 6, 2008 11:30 PM

How is individual thought not a valid or compelling argument? nadine, how many people have to tell you they think for themselves for you to believe them? Would they all be sheep for telling you they think for themselves because you asked if they did?

You made the individual decision to read the review after you saw it, disagreed with it, commented as such. Other people made their own individual decisions about seeing the film, and also commented as such. Maybe I'm clueless here but what is the fucking problem? If someone wants to not see a film because of a review they read, who gives a shit?

Dude...did you see the same film i did?
I mean usually you're on the nose with this shit but you....what??
Seriously??
Hancock was brilliant.
I'm off to have MY OWN OPINION, an alien concept to you people.

In case you can't tell, nobody saw the same film you did. Only nadine sees a film the way nadine sees a film. People might find a movie review useful because the critic reviewing the movie shares similar tastes as they do. How much the critic's opinion holds weight in an individual's decision to see a movie is entirely up to them. As you said, it's MY OWN OPINION, and if you can choose how to generate your own opinion, so can everyone else.

Posted by: lol wut at July 7, 2008 12:37 AM

Aw, nadine, you are so cute! You must have, like, infinite amounts of time on your hands. I bet conversations with you in person are lots of fun.

Bless you, dear.

Posted by: Jen at July 7, 2008 12:53 AM

Movie is fine - this review is way too harsh. Lighten up.

I liked it. Its NOT the best movie ive ever seen, but still cool.

Posted by: Mark at July 7, 2008 1:30 AM

(Double sigh)

Ok, Jen, obviously you went on the offensive (even when I went out and gave a better explanation as to who I was addressing myself to; i.e., not you), and you still go out and call me...whatever the fuck that was. I don't know whether to be angry, or pat you on the head for coming up with a new word. Don't worry, I'll feed you a milk-bone later!

So, just so you'll shut the fuck up, here ya go!! Just for you!!!

Eh, I didn't like the review.

Can you rest easy now, as I've now done it the quote, unquote "proper way"?

Lay the fuck off. And once more, when does someone else's opinion overcome another? So because it can't be found on the Internet, that makes it invalid? Shit, reviewing movies seems easy. Maybe I might actually give the flick a fair review, and not totally bomb it when it's really not necessary. Was it an okay film? Yeah. Was it a total Epic Failure? Not at all.

Yeah...I didn't agree with it.

And alas (for now), EricD:

Why the hell do you care that I care? Maybe because no one (should) command. And just to bring this to a point, if someone is all for something, they shouldn't let anyone else trump that. It's like, if Pajiba reviewed that "The Dark Knight" has horrible, I believe there is no way that that would prevent anyone who reads the reviews of this site to make them think otherwise. You are going to attend that flick because you want to, and there's no fuckin' way that you can be told otherwise.

Here we go again: If you wanna see something, go for it, and regardless of what people might say to you, if you want to go see it (and you've wanted to go see it), then just take a chance. If you think it looks like shit (and had always believed from the get-go that it would be shit), then stay away from it. But don't always take someone's word for it. Realistically, the only way you'll ever figure out anything is to go through with it first-hand.

(Laughs) Maybe I should've just gone with Mark's take on the film...granted, you guys don't chastise him to death for having a different opinion than the rest of everyone here.

Posted by: Riley at July 7, 2008 2:44 AM

mark said: Movie is fine - this review is way too harsh. Lighten up.

I liked it. Its NOT the best movie ive ever seen, but still cool.

hey nadine, compare Mark's comment to the first one you made in this thread.

...Also, once a fuckin gain, people reading this and deciding they're not gonna see the film...try thinking for your selves once in a while, its actually quite fun...

...off to have MY OWN OPINION, an alien concept to you people.

So you don't like to make it personal? You're only problem was the review surprised you? And you were never coming back?

You are not only stupid, you are a liar.

Posted by: EricD at July 7, 2008 2:59 AM

your*

Posted by: EricD at July 7, 2008 2:59 AM

riley you are the one getting all frustrated and shit with people acutally using a review for what its meant.

and this: Here we go again: If you wanna see something, go for it, and regardless of what people might say to you, if you want to go see it (and you've wanted to go see it), then just take a chance
So people should always go by their first impression? Not find out more about a subject so they can make a more informed decision?

Posted by: EricD at July 7, 2008 3:05 AM

(Laughs) Maybe I should've just gone with Mark's take on the film...granted, you guys don't chastise him to death for having a different opinion than the rest of everyone here.

Riley, I'm not chastising you because you liked the movie or disliked the review. I'm chastising you because you came in here and called people "automatons" and accused them of "riding dick" for allowing this review to scare them off of seeing Hancock. You and lil' nadine up there have spent countless words trying to convince the masses that nobody who originally wanted to see this film should be swayed by this review, and we heard you the first time. And the second time. And the third time.

But look here, fella - those people can do whatever they goddamn please, and if they choose to avoid Hancock because they trust Phillip and Phillip said it sucked, then that's what they're going to do. Sorry if it "aggravates" you or makes you feel "nauseated", but that doesn't mean you should roll up in here and call people names. Trying to convince people to see a movie by calling them "automatons" is sort of like shooting yourself in the foot, no?

God, I can't believe after all this you still think I'm giving you shit because you liked the fucking movie. Somebody is confused, and it ain't me.

Posted by: Jen at July 7, 2008 6:46 AM

I could go on and on about the replies, but honestly, its amusing me too much that you all are so adamant about not seeing this film, not spending money or time on this film...and yet day after day, here you are giving it all your time and information

You're sayin *I* must have so much time on my hands, and yet you people who are so unwavering in your resolution to avoid this film like it's a plague carrying, leperous hobo cock, you're letting your self be pulled into a pointless and inane discussion about a comment made by a single poster on a comments thread.


Seriously, thanks for the laughs guys, made my whole day.

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 9:59 AM

oh yeah, and as yet? there's STILL no valid reply to my initial accusation, still no retort that prooves me unwaveringly wrong.

Since PaleoLitChick made the valid point that this review might be just one part of peoples decision not to see a particular film, you all have all of a sudden jumped on THAT bandwagon, but as yet?


Nothing.

Me and my victory and amusement thank you again.(you all might not think i've won, but I do, and to me, thats all that matters isn't it?)

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 10:09 AM

Someone^ hasn't raped a panda today.

Posted by: jM at July 7, 2008 10:22 AM

That's it. This thread is now about Will Smith's gelatinous grumblecog and MurderPonies. Otherwise I am turning this internet around.

Posted by: PaleoLithchick at July 7, 2008 10:22 AM

You know what?


Obviously i've said something that's touched a nerve or just pissed people off or what ever


I'm not changing my opinion or views BUT, as I've said before, this IS a great site, you are all intelligent and (usually, when not all riled up) friendly people.


I dont want to feel like I can't comment on this site any more because I like it, I dont want to be one of those people I've see(and helped get rid of) who get scared off.


Can we call it quits?


We're never going to change each others minds.

Will it help if I say sorry?

I mean I still think its ridiculous to base yourwhole cinema going life on other peoples reviews BUT, what ever, if that's what works for you then fine, you seem happy and content and clearly dont feel like you're missing out.


SO how about it eh?

Friends?

Or at least not having tedious arguments online?

Mutual....somethings?

and since the olive branch has been extended, Paleo......huh? What's a grumblecog?

Do girls have those?

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 10:29 AM

Awww, your spelling has improved considerably, and is that a capital "I" I see there? Atta girl, nadine!

Posted by: anony(MO)us pedant at July 7, 2008 10:32 AM

yes yes I'm making the effort now but please dont patronise me, I'm trying to be nice here, don't shit all over it

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 10:38 AM

But if you comment where the sheep go, doesn't that make you a sheep also? Oh wait, you read the review afterwards so you're special.
You can't prove anyone else unwaveringly wrong because even when you tell them every single reason why they are, it all comes down to their own opinion. Kinda like movie reviews, and how you use them!
But hey, nadine knows how everyone on this site uses the review, so she is clearly victorious.

Posted by: lol wut at July 7, 2008 10:39 AM

Yeah, I am sorry nadine, I realize that came out sounding completely snarky and mean. Sincere apologies.

Trade olive branches?

Oh, and you can totally grope my grumblecog. I usually wait until the second date at least for that, but I feel I owe you something here.

Please, though, I can't stress this one point enough: I don't think we are basing our movie-going lives on what the reviewers say. I just think the reviewers' opinions either solidify our preconceived notions (based on previews), or else we may disagree with the review and will see for ourselves regardless of the review. I believe that true "sheep" are actually few and far between on this site.

Sorry again. Peace out, chickie?

Posted by: anony(MO)us pedant, aka MO(meaux) at July 7, 2008 10:51 AM

Olive Branches traded anony(MO)us pedant...aka...MO(Meaux)...is that like Moe? in terms of pronunciation

and...I'm afraid I cant go a-groping of grumblecogs until i know what one is

and yes, I'm just going to assume that now, but...to me its how it looks, I'll read the review and think 'huh, i agree/disagree' and then see comments saying that SEEM, I stress, SEEM to say that people wont be going to see a film based on JUST this review...it just frustrates me because it LOOKS ...bad, I suppose, because I generally consider people on this site to be much smarter than to take one review as gospel.

That's my bad though, it never occured to me you all might already not want to see the movie or etc, thats my fault for thinking badly of you all and I'm sorry, I just get frustrated when it looks as if intelligent people are being, indeed, sheep like.

My sincere apologies to everyone and I hope this doesn't reflect badly on me, I did mean it with the best of intentions, more 'Hey guys you're smarter than that' than 'You're all mindless drones mwahahah!!'


I do want to say though, I have nothing against any of the reviewers on this site, even when i disagree with their take on a film I still consider them to be amongst the best reviewers out there...I...just dont listen to what they have to say, hehe


But yes, peace out indeed

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 11:02 AM

Groovy, baby! Looking forward to hearing more from you around here. And hey, are you the same nadine who gave a shout-out to Frasier on one of the TV comment threads? 'Cause I am totally with you on that.

P.S.: Yup, 'tis indeed pronounced like Moe.

P.P.S: Dammit--I was hoping I could get you to grab my grumblecog, so that I could figure out what the hell it is myself! Guess I'll have to go proposition PaleoLithChick now....

Posted by: MO(meaux) at July 7, 2008 11:11 AM

I wasn't terribly interested in seeing this even before reading the review and some of the endless comments, but Nadine and Riley have me convinced I definitely don't want to see it now. Good job, you two!

Posted by: snapnhiss at July 7, 2008 11:16 AM

Good to know I haven't been...hoisted by my own petard...what ever the hell that means...

and ...I might be that Nadine, I'd have to check...I've commented before fo'sho, and I do love Frasier...Kelsey Grammar is like God but...real and awesomer

Actually there IS another Nadine floating around...she uses a capital N...I'm happy not to...I like to egotAstically(intentional misspelling) think my reputation speaks for its self

as I write this i have other pages open re-reading my own comments on different pages...I once went off on a rant about the worst cinema dads ever...or just worst dads ever, I forget...

And Moe it shall be then, if I may

and damn it! Now we'll never know!!!

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 11:22 AM

[door flies open]

ALRIGHT, WHO WANTS TO FUCKIN' FIGHT?! I HEARD THERE-

What?

You guys made up?

Aw, balls.

Fine. Internet hugs all around, you bastards.

Posted by: TK at July 7, 2008 11:40 AM

how can a door file open?

heh, but yes we made up...sorry...


Internet hugs indeed


mmm binary

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 11:47 AM

I saw this movie last night. I have to say that at times the movie did shine through and I really thought Will Smith did a good job portraying the persona he was trying to play. The problem was the writing. Pure and simple. I left the theater, turned to my friend, and had only one thing to say "what the hell?". The ending made no sense. It was like they had three movie ideas and just decided to mash them all together. If they had stuck with the first part of the movie and left his origins aside it would have been a great movie.

I've always wanted to see a superhero movie like this. Let's face it, if you were immortal and invicible, you'd be an asshole too. I know I would. Fuck you. Save yourself. It could have been so good. It ended up being so bad. Shame.

Posted by: LittleDeadGirl at July 7, 2008 12:45 PM

thats something I actually didnt really address, and just for pure discussional fun( I invented that word, learn it, live it, love it...or dont)

I actually really liked the film, yeah saw the twist coming but still loved it...do other people really not like it?


that, honestly, really surprises me...usually I have the same opinions as people on this site but...huh, ah well...

what do people think(obv, those who didnt like it) could have made it better?


Like...the twist not happening maybe and the story being just about Hancock? Or it maybe being a darker, more adult themed?

I mean like I say, I loved it, but i do think it could have played just as well as a fifteen rating or higher(I apologise I have NO idea about american ratings, ours goes U, PG, 12, 12A, 15, 18 so figure it out from that if you can), made it much darker, maybe made Hancock a superhero who was more morally controversial than just being an asshole, like actually have him killing criminals, not indiscriminately, not just some mugger, but...and maybe if they did keep the twist in, have it be that his fellow heroes abandoned him because of this?

What do you lot think?


Like, expressly people who didnt like it, what would you change?


(totally off topic side bar, finally saw the Wicker Man remake last night...hooooo my god)

Posted by: nadine at July 7, 2008 1:02 PM

Hah.

Hah.

Posted by: dandy at July 7, 2008 5:27 PM

Been watch this movie it certainly is different than usual superhero, even is a litle bit short on duration but still wort to watch...

www.jazili.com

Posted by: Jaz at July 7, 2008 6:37 PM

OK. Jen, I understand where I went went wrong (more specifically, where I went out, sure, shot myself, and called out everybody).

If it makes it any way to deflate the argument, I'll admit I was wrong for doing that.

Fine. I liked the film, and thought the review was a little too crushing, and thus, I felt it wasn't given a good enough chance.

Nevertheless, people will come to whatever terms they want, and how they feel about a particular film, and I am no one to condemn them because of that.

Yeah, I went off the deep end and I fucked up.

Sorry about all that. In the future, I shall be more pensive in my thoughts posted up on here.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and that you'll forgive my stupidity and blind anger.

Posted by: Riley at July 7, 2008 10:08 PM

Before I stride off on to derision I have to say that this piece is really well written and extremely funny. It has inspired me to await the release on video for this film, rather than waste my hard earned on a farce on the big screen. Howevever, I have but one gripe. "...loosing [sic] a tremendous fart." Presumably it was meant to be Losing. I know it's petty, but it irks me so...

Posted by: Grammar Police at July 8, 2008 6:30 AM

i like it when we can get along

What say you other guys?

friends?

Posted by: nadine at July 8, 2008 7:32 AM

Grammar Police- no.

loosed, loos·ing, loos·es
v.tr.
1. To let loose; release: loosed the dogs.
2. To make loose; undo: loosed his belt.
3. To cast loose; detach: hikers loosing their packs at camp.
4. To let fly; discharge: loosed an arrow.
5. To release pressure or obligation from; absolve: loosed her from the responsibility.
6. To make less strict; relax: a leader's strong authority that was loosed by easy times.

Posted by: lilianna28 at July 8, 2008 8:49 AM

Dear Steve Jobs wank suckers,

Fuck prepackaged, proprietary bullshit. Be a REAl man, build your own computer, and put a real OS on it like Linux.

Posted by: Faye at July 8, 2008 10:41 AM

Thanks, Riley - and I apologize for calling you a twatwaffle. Sometimes we get a bit too pissy around here, me included.

Ditto for nadine, sorry for the condescension.

Hilariously enough, I'm headed out to see Hancock this afternoon...hopefully I'll like it as much as you two did!

Posted by: Jen at July 8, 2008 4:57 PM

This movie struck me as the closest thing I have ever seen to cinematic Tourette's syndrome. Instead of "Fuck, shit! BALLS!" we have funny, tragic, pathetic.

Posted by: TheLastFearfulMonkey at July 8, 2008 5:09 PM

I stand corrected. Thank you for the insight lilianna28. Having read your correction, and subsequently the article again, you are right. Looks like I shall be back to walking the grammar beat after that faux pas.

Posted by: Grammar Police at July 8, 2008 7:32 PM

Aw, shit. Just when I finally found the chloroform teddy bear, ya'll gotta make up.

What the hell am I supposed to do with all these Valium darts?

Nvm, I can think of something.

Heheheheh...

Posted by: Jaci at July 9, 2008 10:07 AM

thanks Jen =)

and i really hope you enjoy it, i mean i thought it was lots of fun plus it'd suck balls if after all this you came back all 'YOU FOOLS IT TOTALLY WAS SHIT!!' hehe!

so yeah have fun =)


also...um...can i borrow Twatwaffle as an insult?

cos that? is genius.

and Jaci...we may have made up but if you have a valium dart going spare...i could happily get all ragey again

Posted by: nadine at July 9, 2008 8:26 PM

I usually agree with the reviews here, but I think this time you're way off base. I really like this movie. More intense than we thought it was going to be.

Posted by: El at July 10, 2008 6:03 PM

I wish they had gone with Martin Lawrence instead.

Posted by: madmaxmedia at July 10, 2008 8:44 PM

And I thought I was the only one that thought this film was shit since the trailers. I know a bad film when I see a comedy that takes itself too seriously. Cheap laughs are always a turnoff.

Posted by: Jonathan at July 14, 2008 5:10 AM

PPPS Nope, you did not use "an" correctly -- the word after it needs to begin with either a vowel or an h.

PaleoLithchick-

Thank you! I never knew that grammar rule, although I always use 'an' correctly, as I am a genius. I took a test on the internet that said I was a genius, then I went to a seminar of other geniuses and I bought myself a Ph.D (since I am a genius). My husband didn't think I was a genuis and made my niece take the test and when she was a genius, I knew the test was a fake (althgh not inaccurate). So I went to get my money back from the guy and he wouldn't return it! Then, my husband though he had to 'clean up my mess for me' so I set up a fake betting parlor, trusting that this guy couldn't pass up a big score. He took his winnings to his hotel room and my husband showed up and distracted him and I had my helpers steal the money out of the safe through a false back that I had them install while he was at the fake betting parlor. Genius.

True story.

Posted by: TWoP Fan at July 15, 2008 12:57 AM

First half was fun but by the time the second half started, i was like, WTF?!

Is the original second half goin to be on the dvd or what? bcoz it sure felt weird to me.

Should have stopped at the trailer.

Posted by: haplo at August 11, 2008 7:23 AM