Expresiile de genul: vă potriviţi sau ce bine vă stă împreună fac parte din acea tendinţă a oamenilor de a defini gusturile, mai ales când se referă la alte persoane şi felul în care le percep ei. Cupluri perfecte, cum pare cel de mai sus, nu ştiu câte sunt dar cu siguranţă arată altfel.

Aşa cum de-a lungul timpului moda a fost şi este un criteriu după care se orientează anumite mase, alegerile stau uneori ca-ntr-un corset, numai de dragul timpurilor sau al prejudecăţilor. Poţi căuta un Adonis sau o Afrodita, uitînd că de fapt frumuseţea nu vine din exterior.

Am văzut la o emisiune celebră în USA cum diverse persoane apelează la chirurgia estetică doar pentru a arăta precum unele vedete care au ajuns faimoase şi arată extraordinar de bine, în concepţia lor. Bisturiul devine instrumentul salvator şi existenţa piperată cu apariţii în diverse reviste sau show-uri.

Este firesc să căutăm frumosul şi să-l urcăm pe un pedestal însă ceea ce rămâne în urma lui este mai mult decât jumătate. Femeile suferă decepţii dacă nu au magnificele dimensiuni 90-60-90, buze ca la Angelina, posterior ca al lui Kyle, etc. Bărbaţii vor să arate traşi ca prin inel, tonici şi în acelaşi timp, neîncăpători... în tricourile cu bicepşi.

Poţi trăi cu o imagine în minte despre felul în care ar trebui să arate lumea  şi să fii nemulţumit sau să o priveşti aşa cum este şi să te raportezi la realitate, indiferent că aceasta nu te menajează.

Nu ar fi mai simplu să acceptăm lucrurile aşa cum sunt şi să ne bucurăm de ele? NImeni nu s-a născut perfect şi până acolo este cale lungă. Vorba unui prieten: învăţăm toată viaţa şi tot proşti murim. Am râs când am auzit-o prima oară dar mi-am dat seama că este adevărată.

În cazul de faţă putem să omitem lucruri esenţiale, fiind eclipsaţi de trend-uri, avînd idei fixe sau aşteptînd ca marea să nu mai fie sărată.

Wouldn't it be extremely funny if the movie was called Handcock ?? Talk about a fruity movie ...And the premier would defo be in San Fran [ as Chapelle once said, that's America's anus right there !! ]

Anyway the past few days have been really unorganised and unproductive. I can't seem to get a hold of myself and really put things in perspective. But this post is supposed to be a review of a movie I went to yesterday, so I'll leave the personal life stuff out for the time being.

Me and my friend really enjoyed going to the movies on my birthday, so we decided to make it a regular thing. It's enjoyable, not very cheap ... about 10 euros including food, drinks and tickets, but we had a great time, so what the hell. Yesterday at 6 pm we went to see Will Smith's latest flick, Hancock, a cinematographic production about a homeless super hero, really hated by the all the people because of his sloppy way of dealing with criminals, damaging more than saving. So after stopping a train on the tracks in order to save someone who was stuck in his car, Hancock realises that he just saved a skilled PR person, and that that person wants to help him improve his public image. So from then on Hancock tries to turn his life around by wearing a proper super hero suit, stop drinking and swearing, saying polite things, saving people without causing mass destruction while he's doing it. But there's a twist: turns out the publicist's wife [ played by CharlizeTheron - who has amazing boobs ... just a remark ] is exactly like Hancock, a person with unlimited powers and used to be married with Hancock several times [ they don't age ], but Will's character doesn't seem to remember her as a result of an accident 8 years ago when he cracked his skull. So you start to wonder: if not even bullets can't hurt him, how could he have a cracked skull ? It turns out that these creatures were created in pairs, so they are attracted to each other in order to meet, lose their powers and live as humans, fall in love and all that shit. So every time they met their powers started to fade away. However, after a climax when it seems like they both died, Hancock, using his last powers, flies away from her and she comes back to life, only to return to her husband and their kid. Will Smith leaves town and goes to live and protect the citizens of New York, as they all live happily ever after .

The movie isn't spectacular, as far as the story line. It's the typical action hero movie blockbuster that Will Smith does . It has however some nice lines, funny happenings and good actors. By the way, the publicist is played by the guy in Arrested Development, Michael . So it's not a movie that you go and see when you want to enjoy a meaningfull drama. It'a a movie you go and see for the drinks, popcorn [ or cheese dipped tortillas in our case] and just the experience of going to the movies. I don't regret seeing it though, despite the fatc that it's not really the type of flick I generally want to watch. But that's partly because Will Smith was and still is a very very very hot looking guy, great movie actors, great comedian and he just delievers as far as entertaining people goes. So, bottom line, go see it if you're not too busy and want to have a nice laugh and a great time !

Vi var nog alla överrens om att det var en jäkligt bra film faktiskt. Väldans bra. Jag delade ut hela 4 N av 5 & det är inte fy skam må jag säga.

Se den.

Imorgon bär det av för mina vänner, mot stockholm & sedan mot oz på måndag så ikväll är det lite familje middag med alla familjer som är inblandade:) Kommer nog bli en himlans trevlig kväll med både god mat och trevligt folk, perfekt.

Ha en trevligt kväll!!

Pusskalas.

Le film de guerre motive une vision extrême de l'homme, déchargée de toute pesanteur philosophique, normalisant la mort et la folie. In the valley of Elah pourtant, n'appartient presque pas à ce genre : le personnage principal, Hank, est militaire à la retraite, il ne connaît pas l'Irak. Cette guerre est incarnée par son fils, disparu et retrouvé mort peu après son retour ; le récit prend donc la forme d'une enquête policière, en marge des combats. La guerre, référent absent, est matrice de la tragédie mais, comme dans Apocalypse Now, sa présence est un trou noir qui ne produit que des images dérivées. En l'occurrence, des séquences parcellaires et dégradées, récupérées d'un téléphone portable, lesquelles ne symbolisent pas uniquement l'impossible compréhension de la réalité du front, mais établissent directement le parallèle entre l'image idéale que Hank se fait de son fils, héros américain / bon combattant, et l'effet dévastateur de son séjour en Irak. Il faut évidemment lire dans cette crise de la filiation une métaphore de l'Amérique des pères fondateurs, idéalement intègre, manichéenne, saine, et ce que ces valeurs deviennent sur le terrain. L'insistance sur le caractère rigide et hygiéniste de Hank dessine un personnage tristement anachronique, aveugle et impuissant. Autour de lui, le film se construit comme un thriller, autre reflet d'un mode de penser révolu. Qui a tué son fils ? Pourquoi ? Comment ? Il y a comme un rappel des films de complot des années 80, un écho de Missing (Costa-gravas, 1982) où une pareille enquête conduit à la mise à jour d'une situation politique insoupçonnée (voir, à ce sujet, l'étude de Benoît Deuxant, sur son blog Noreille). Mais les temps ont changé, et cette théorie ne fonctionne plus. Démonstration par l'absurde, la syntaxe du film se calque sur les préjugés paternels : l'enquête doit déjouer le temps, les mensonges ; elle produit nécessairement un récit, une explication rationnelle - une conspiration - dont l'importance seule pourra racheter la perte du fils. Grille interprétative que la structure feint de soutenir, suspense, rebondissements, cible évidente de l'émigré / dealer mal intégré à l'armée, et toujours le goutte à goutte des images numériques récupérées du téléphone, dont on ne doute pas une seule seconde qu'elles sont la clef de l'énigme. Et si tout cela n'est qu'un leurre, c'est le cœur même de l'idéologie nationale qui s'en trouve renversé, tel le drapeau américain retourné qui s'élève funestement dans le ciel américain.

Autre piste de lecture, la métaphore biblique, portée en titre, la vallée d'Elah, lieu mythique de l'affrontement entre David et Goliath. Ici aussi, le film opère un déplacement inconscient. Car ce récit, parabole de la victoire sur la peur, ne se rapporte pas tant à la situation de Hank que cette autre scène primitive de l'Ancien Testament, celle du sacrifice d'Abraham, où Dieu adresse au patriarche cette demande impossible de lui sacrifier son fils unique. La substitution du mythe de la filiation par celui de la peur renseigne sur la teneur réelle du drame : le père refuse d'accepter l'enjeu véritable de la mort de son fils, gardant le plus longtemps possible l'image d'un héros courageux, dont la noblesse patriotique rejaillit sur lui-même, le père, qui, par l'exemple et l'éducation, a su lui communiquer cette force. Aveuglément, il reproduisait le geste définitif d'Abraham. A terme, l'évidence que la folie de la guerre s'empare inévitablement des combattants, transforme la vallée d'Elah, symbole de la partition entre bien et mal, en un champ de mort absurde.

Tommy Lee Jones et Charlize Theron dans In the valley of Elah, Paul Haggis (2007)

At first, I thought the protagonist, John Hancock (Will Smith) didn't know that he had super powers, that his superhero ability was regarded as a curse, that society didn't want him (but in the end, would need him), and that he was just an ordinary guy. It turned out that I was right. He was just an ordinary guy.
Hancock already knew of his powers, how to control them, and he was already a super hero from the very start. Well, with unsophisticated results. His so-called heroic acts would turn out to be acts of destruction. For example, in a car chase between police and robbers, Hancock gets pissed when the robbers shatter his bottle of whisky and call him an asshole. He then lifts the robbers' car, flies high, smashes them through buildings, and drops them on a building tower. Well, you get the picture. A destructive superhero indeed.

But all that changes when Hancock saves the life of Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) in a train accident. Ray is an advertising agent with lousy strategies of making the world a better place. As an act of thanks, Ray offers Hancock a chance to change his public image and to help him turn over a new leaf. Hancock reluctantly agrees. He goes to prison and begins a depressing journey of changing himself and accepting the change that happens. One day, he gets a big break by rescuing a policewoman ad hostages in a building taken over by terrorists.

So the protagonist is now a superhero. All is well as it ends well. However, as far as Los Angeles' crime rate drops, Hancock doesn't know who he is. He cannot remember his past. All he knows is that he is immortal. This is where Ray's wife, Mary Embrey (Charlize Theron) comes in. This is where the plot twist comes in. This is where the reason why Mary's constant appearance from the very beginning (which would seem insignificant) finally becomes significant. Well, I'm not telling what the twist is. :P

I found the movie to be great! It was actually one of the movies I would associate well with Will Smith. Despite negative reviews from critics (see Rotten Tomatoes), moviegoers (including yours truly) gave it the praise it so much deserved. The movie's striking feature, for me, was its dialogue/script. The dialogues were funny that I thought they could be compiled into a joke book. I was laughing almost all throughout the movie, even in the absence of slapstick acts (it still had a fair amount of funny acts), all because of the dialogue. It's a good movie for both young and old, but youngsters should be mature enough due to the use of vulgar language. Go watch it before it gets out of the movie house!

In Australia we have a saying. When I was growing up it was something of a catch cry. It was an emphatic indication to the recipient that whatever they’d been saying was complete wank, that they were by default a complete wanker and, therefore, that they should shut up. Get ya hand off it! That said it all.

I watched the movie Hancock yesterday and the cry came back to me. I love a good superhero movie, truth be told I don’t even mind a bad one on the odd occasion, I really wanted to enjoy Hancock but it was never going to happen. I concede that I got three decent laughs out of it, which in the past has been enough to turn a film for me, but not this time. The eminently watchable Will Smith plays John Hancock, an alcoholic superhero destroying Los Angeles despite his best intentions. I can just hear the coked-up pitch:

OK, OK, OK! How would people like Superman, huh, if he was...if he was a bum??? Get it? No cape, no suit, just stinkin' of booze, tryin' to fight crime, but fuckin' everybody's shit up like a...like a...an invincible drunk driver! Huh??? 'Cause he's got no fortress of solitude, he's got no Marlon Brando who loves him, he's just alone in the world with...with his powers!!! Eh???

Director Peter Berg fucked this film right in its arse. How you take a cast like this, an interesting premise and $150 million and turn it into a turkey like Hancock is beyond me. Peter Berg, you’re a fucking goose! Other than some basic slapstick laughs the film is piss boring and as sappy as a week of Days Of Our Lives. It seems as though Berg has tried to make a fuckin’ drama out of what might have become quite an interesting and dark comedy. Gags like our hero shoving a crim’s head up another crim’s arse, how do you make that NOT funny? Berg did it, the lame cunt! How do you make Will Smith and Charlize Theron look insincere? How do you make Jason Bateman look lamer than he did in Teen Wolf Too!? At every turn the film got progressively fuckeder. Plot twists that were so heavily telegraphed that characters' surprise at their revelation was completely unbelievable, character histories referenced in a way that made them looked like tacked-on afterthoughts that even the actors didn’t know about. Everyone knows going in that it’s a superhero movie so suspension of disbelief is hard to break, but the banal misdirection of this film succeeds at smashing it to buggery. Peter Berg, you suck! You’re a fuckin’ douche bag, get fucked!

If you haven’t seen Hancock, don’t bother. It's cock - not hard cock, but floppy, stupid, useless cock! If you still want to see it, I say: wait till it comes on free-to-air TV then watch something else!

http://humor-blogs.com

Titulo: Hancock

Titulo Original: Hancock

Género: Acción

Nacionalidad: USA

Año: 2008

Director: Peter Berg

Guion: Vince Gilligan, Vy Vincent Ngo

Reparto: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Eddie Marsan

Sinopsis: Hay héroes... hay superhéroes... y luego está Hancock (Will Smith). Un gran poder conlleva una gran responsabilidad. Todo el mundo lo sabe. Todo el mundo, menos Hancock. Insatisfecho, atormentado, sarcástico e incomprendido, las acciones heroicas y bienintencionadas de Hancock cumplen su objetivo y salvan muchas vidas pero siempre provocan unos tremendos desaguisados. La población ya no puede más, y aunque está agradecida de tener a su héroe local, los buenos ciudadanos de Los Ángeles, se preguntan, qué es lo que han hecho para merecer a este tipo. Hancock no es alguien al que le importe lo que piense la gente, hasta el día en que salva la vida de Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), alto ejecutivo de una empresa de relaciones públicas. Y es entonces cuando el impopular superhéroe se da cuenta de que, al fin y al cabo, tiene un lado vulnerable.

Zajawka była świetna. Zapowiadała prostą ale zabawną czarną komedię. Pomysł na głównego bohatera jest oryginalny. Gdyby twórcy wpakowali do tego filmu jeszcze więcej humoru byłby hit (w zasadzie większość zabawnych scen znajdziemy w trailerze) ale i tak nie jest źle. Nie zgadzam się z zarzutem, że film w połowie zmieniając swą formę o 180 stopni traci wiele ze swego potencjału. Co ciekawe w tym właśnie momencie potrafi zaskoczyć widza, a to w takich filmach zdarza się rzadko. Oczywiście druga połowa jest jeszcze bardziej kiczowata (patrz np. przysięga zemsty na głównym bohaterze)  ale moim zdaniem nie psuje to odbioru tej komedii a wręcz jej nieco pomaga. Polecam.

Ocena: 4/5

Director: Peter Berg

Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman

Another year, another July 4th outing for Will Smith. After being out of the spotlight for last summer with Transformers getting the 4th of July time slot, Will Smith must have felt a little bit left out. In Smith's current summer vehicle Hancock he plays a troubled superhero. By troubled I mean he's got a drinking problem and an attitude problem. The basis for this film is very interesting and since Will Smith seems to put his heart and soul into every role he takes it ends up working, even if the execution of the plot wasn't quite up to par with expectations. The definitive strength of this film is the actors. Will Smith, as stated before, puts his full effort towards everything he does and he's excellent in this outing. The always stellar Charlize Theron puts together another great performance as well. Last, and maybe the most under-appreciated of the performers, is Jason Bateman. He is always funny and it always surprises me how good his performances actually are. 

Since the flaws don't come from any of the actors here one may ask where they do come from. The downfall of this movie is in it's presentation. I didn't care for the way the action sequences were filmed. I felt myself wishing the action would actually end so the more intriguing part of the film, the family dynamic, would come through more. It was much more interesting to see Hancock trying to fix his public image and being in real life situations than seeing him saving people and fighting bad guys. Granted it's like that in most of the superhero movies to me, but there is normally a good balance in other more well-executed stories like Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins. I normally don't find myself not caring at all about fight between the villain and the hero like I did in Hancock partly because the main villain is weak. 

Having said that, the actors do manage to barely save this film. While it is not quite on the level of the other good movies of this summer like Iron Man or even Wanted it is worthy of a recommendation. I also found it to be a little better than the new Indiana Jones movie. After all, it is a Will Smith summer blockbuster. It can't be all bad.

Kevin's Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Let's talk for a moment about the art of the twist. Not the dance craze, kids. We twisted last summer, and this time we're not going to twist again. No, I'm talking about the plot twist, that ever mysterious device that can make or break a narrative. In The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, for example, the twist works as a real art form, elevating an otherwise pedestrian movie to a sublime climax. We remember these films fondly because they messed with our expectations, leaving us wondering about the clues we missed all the way out of the theater. But sometimes (or more often than not, maybe; I don't have stats on this), a misplaced plot twist can ruin an otherwise pleasurable experience, by trying to deliver a little more than was really necessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hancock, a film that's thematically creative but underwhelming because it ends up shooting at the wrong target.

Quite essentially, spoilers will follow. If you haven't seen the movie (and I don't necessarily recommend that you do), you may not want to indulge the rest of this post.

But if you're up for it, let's jump.

Hancock, I thought, was going to be the kind of movie that was completely telegraphed in the trailer: Will Smith, a drunken superhero unpopular with his public, finds a P.R. specialist (Jason Bateman) who gets him on the right track. He does some jail time as retribution for stepping out of line, then gets called upon to save the day.

A little basic, of course. But a perfectly serviceable movie plot, definitely. Especially considering Smith and Bateman are pretty much poured into those roles. Get a script punch up with a few extra jokes in it, and you've got a pretty original buddy comedy on your hands.

But the story gets a bit more complicated than that, and not in a good way. The first half of the film proceeds amicably, but the Hancock-saving-the-day part takes place squarely at the midway point. Enter Charlize Theron as Bateman's wife, who had spent the first half of the movie as Hancock's chief skeptic. After the mini-climax, we find out why. Theron and Smith have a history, and a long one. Like, centuries long. Though Smith doesn't remember it due to amnesia he suffered decades ago, he and Theron had comprised one of several pairs of superheroes who had saved humanity throughout history. Only when the pairs get too close together, they lose their powers, and eventually become mortal. Theron and Smith are the only remaining dyad, and have remained superhuman due only to Theron's persistent avoidance of the protagonist. So Theron has been keeping her powers a secret, but the situation changes when Smith unwittingly reenters her life.

So the rest of the film sees Smith lose and regain his powers a number of times, while the bad guy he thwarted in the first half is nearly successful in sending Hancock to meet his maker. But of course, he isn't.

How spoiler-y was that?

The moral of the story is this: screwing with the audience's expectations isn't always a good thing. The filmmakers set the bar way too high and tripped over their own feet on the way over it. If my summary above reads like a convoluted mess, it's probably still not much worse than what actually shows up on screen.

The second half is part love triangle, part search for life meaning, a dash of shit blowing up, and no comedy. Like Get Smart, this was an action comedy that's a bit short on the comedy end, but at least Get Smart didn't make a blatant grab for a pathos it couldn't find.

I have a feeling that when Hancock shows up on TV, I'll sit and watch the first half and have some fun, but the second Theron throws the Fresh Prince through a brick wall, I'm checking out. It's all downhill from there.

Film: Hancock
Director: Peter Berg
Stars: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman

Viewing Situation: Weekend matinee, large crowd; digital projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 37%
My Grade (Out of 10): 4

Next Up: Journey to the Center of the Earth 

It turned out to be another almost awful Thursday except for the Hancock movie.

I was urging my youngest brother to go with me to watch the movie but he wouldn't. I even tried to persuade him that I will pay for everything because I just want to be with somebody that day but he really would not since he just had an accident the night before.

It was a reigning 32 degree celsius day. I went out after lunch time since I woke up very late.

My first goal was to watch Hancock only to find out that Mamma Mia and Dark Knight (Batman) were already showing. Nevertheless, I did not hesitate in choosing Hancock since it was on my first to-do lists.

The movie was short. It was not an action-packed movie I expected (even if I have already watched the trailer) but I like it.

I like the plot of the story. I love the 'love story' in which Hancock (played by Will Smith) and his kind were fated to be with their exact opposites like a soulmate. Their kind or race, whatever you call them, are gifted with super strength and immortality like gods but when they have exactly found their opposite and be with them, they become mortals and experience love, to be loved, get hurt, to feel and die eventually. However even if they will be separated, fate will always bring them together.

Hancock's wife (The beautiful Charlize Theron) sacrificed being separated from him so he can save people. Also in the movie was Jason Bateman whom I saw in movies Juno and The kingdom  (which was more likely a war film) so he was together with Jennifer Garner in a couple of films.

I realized that sometimes to become great, we sacrifice something/someone very dear to us and that's really heart-breaking!

The story was more than what I have hoped for though it was light but I really like it very much.

Unlike the previous week where the videos I rented were all a disappointment to me even Nicole Kidman's Margot at the wedding   with Jennifer Jason Leigh and funny man Jack Black.

Wieners on the other hand was wickedly and grossly funny. It was one of those nonsense movies anyway. The only thing cute about it was Zachary Levi (from the TV series Chuck). 

 

Ahora sí me está costando trabajo escribir la reseña y creo que es por que aunque la película está muy palomera no me pareció por demás fabulosa, no es la primera vez que nos plantean a un "heroe" que mejor dicho es un super humano (vieron The Unbreakable, con Bruce Willis y Samuel L. Jackson?) en esta ocasión existe un wey que aunque tiene todo para ser un super héroe pus la neta sobrevive a duras penas ai disque salvando el día de vez en cuando aunque la neta los side effects salgan muchíssimo más caros que la enfermedad en sí, no por nada de asshole no lo bajan en toda la movie.

Hancock no es otra cosa más que un alcohólico con super poderes, lo que desata la trama cuando nos preguntamos, Y de dónde chingados saliste? Por qué tienes superpoderes? y lo que es mejor, Para qué chingados los quieres?

Pues las respuestas las tiene la chida de la película, que es ni mas ni menos que Charlize Theron, que by the way se ve y valga la redundancia súper chida, Jo. En fin que la movie deja de convertirse en una peli de super héroes para mostrarnos a un wey que vive el drama de no saber ni quién es, ni de dónde viene ni por qué está taaaaaan solo en la vida, precísamente por eso es alcohólico y todo le vale madres, hasta que conoce al wey "todo corazón" y a su familia, con lo que pus le dan ganitas de hacer algo por mejorar su situación y es cuando se entrega pa que lo metan a la cárcel por todos los daños materiales que ha causado durante sus "rescates", igualito que en Los Increíbles, jajajaja.

Creo que lo que en verdad me llamó la atención es la histora de dos seres que fueron creados perfectos y que resultan espectaculares cada uno por su lado, pero que se vuelven de lo más comunes y corrientes al reunirse para vivir una vida juntos, uuta qué chale!

Bien dicen los gringos que: There's not such thing as a free meal.