Want to know what the song in the background of an episode of CSI: Las Vegas is?  Go here.  Curious about what "egalitarian" means?  Just a search and click away. 

Can't remember the name of the guy from "Silver Spoons", even though you adore him - his name just escapes you at the moment?  Google will give you 689,000 results in less than 10 seconds.

If knowledge is power, you would think that we'd all run around like digital Super Heroes and Villains.

"Knowledge is power" is a translation of a sentiment attibuted to Sir Francis Bacon in 1597.  (scientia potentia est)  Interestingly, a scant 10 seconds ago I didn't actually know had originated the dictum, nor could I have told you what it read in the original latin. 

Wonder what Sir Francis would have thought of our always streaming marketplace of ideas. 

The adage, my dear Francis, is incomplete and ergo wrong misleading.  Knowledge is not power; Knowledge is the foundation  of power.  The unspoken axiom, the completion of the adage which renders it Truth, is that in order to have power, one must act based on knowledge.

In this digital day and internet age, it is easy to dip from a shallow, though broad, stream of information.  But the acquisition of information, knowledge, is not the same as the attainment of truth. 

It takes deep contemplation, usually through dedicated practice, to come to a place of profound understanding.  A true 'knowing' of Truth, that transcends the base of knowledge from whence it came.

But our work, such as it is, even then is unfinished.  It is not enough to merely obtain knowledge and understand Truth; one must put Truth to action - otherwise such understanding is merely intellectual.

The second you think, "I know that", you must realize that you don't.  For when we recognize a truth we fully understand, we embrace it and take joy in it's expression.  Our souls cries "yes!" and we are grateful for the multitude of ways that this Truth manifests in our lives.

A Buddhist, upon the attainment of enlightenment, continued to meditate and contemplate the Truth of things.  "Master," asked his disciple "why do you continue to meditate?  You already know."  The Master smiled at his charge and asked gently, "Where is knowledge?"

título original: Hancock
de Peter Berg
escrito por: Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan
com: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head, Eddie Marsan, David Mattey, Maetrix Fitten, Thomas Lennon, Johnny Galecki, Mike Epps

Um super-herói mal-amado, um filme mal-amado. É isso que Hancock é.

Los Angeles é uma cidade protegida pelo pior super-herói que se possa imaginar. Alcoólico, atrevido e preocupando-se com nada a não ser ele próprio, John Hancock (Will Smith) não consegue ser aceite pela população de L.A. Ao salvar Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), um agente de relações públicas que pretende mudar o mundo, Hancock recebe a oportunidade que precisa e que não quer. Ray fará tudo para que Hancock seja amado pelo povo Angelino. Mas quando o plano deste começa a resultar, Hancock descobre uma verdade sobre a sua existência que o fará cair em desgraça, caso não consiga parar as consequências que essa verdade acarreta, assim como as consequências das suas acções passadas.

A história de um herói fora dos padrões conhecidos. A história de um herói odiado pela maioria da população pelas suas más condutas. Esta é a premissa de um filme que, por si só, cria grandes expectativas. E para isto funcionar, era indispensável a presença de Will Smith, que continua a impressionar com o seu indiscutível talento no campo da comédia, como fazia em ambos os MIB. Mesmo as mais exageradas cenas de acção do filme têm um humor inerente que só Will Smith podia dar, com a sua calma instintiva.

Também Jason Bateman dá um certo conforto ao desenrolar da história, com a ingenuidade e perseverança da sua personagem. Já Charlize Theron fica um pouco aquém do que se esperava para a sua personagem – de início aparentemente receosa e, mais tarde, forte (em todos os aspectos) – deixando a sua beleza interpor-se na sua actuação, como aconteceu em Æon Flux.

Mas é então que, no meio desta história que tanto prometia e que estava aberta a tantas ideias e oportunidades, e após algumas almôndegas e muita destruição, Hancock descobre que a mulher do seu novo amigo é, na realidade a sua mulher, através de um beijo de deitar uma casa abaixo… literalmente. A partir daqui, toda uma história inteligente e bem engrenada dá lugar a um dramatismo despropositado e repentino que apenas se dá a exageros, quer visuais, quer narrativos. E a este dramatismo junta-se uma história secundária, um pouco absurda, em que vários reclusos fogem da prisão com o único propósito de se vingarem do que Hancok lhes fez, muito provavelmente na busca de uma justificação para a cena no hospital.

Um outro problema, este já presente ao longo de todo o filme, é a inconsistência da filmagem de Peter Berg. Aproximações e distanciações de câmara desnecessárias e demasiadas mudanças de ângulo fazem com que muitas vezes a acção não tenha o efeito desejado no espectador, para se tornar um pouco confusa, à semelhança de Paul Greengrass (com Ultimato), apesar de não tão extremo quanto este. Atrevo-me mesmo a dizer que Berg tem mais jeito para as cenas de diálogo do que para as de acção.

Assim, uma boa ideia mantém-se num filme medíocre e não se torna num filme bom, apesar de Hancock se conseguir tornar em alguém amado por todos. Ainda assim, o filme leva uma vantagem aos demais filmes ditos de acção pela ideia que lhe dá origem e aconselho a todos a irem ver esta longa-metragem, nem que seja para apreciar Will Smith a actuar com grande sucesso… mais uma vez.

Classificação:

Escrito por Eduardo Antunes

Editado por Carlos Couceiro

Päähenkilö Juno oli ärsyttävä teini, jonka sarkastiset lausahdukset rupesivat loppua kohti tuntumaan yhä enemmän kiinalaiselta vesikidutukselta.  Jason Batemanin esittämä Mark oli ällöttävä pedofiilin alku ja Jennifer Garnerista ei saa irti hyvää roolityötä kirveelläkään. Ainoa valonpilkahdus puolitoistatuntisen viemärin aikana oli J.K Simmonsin esittämä isä; ikävä kyllä J.K ei hartaista toiveistani huolimatta tarjonnut Spiderman-elokuvista tuttua J. Jonah Jameson verbaalitykitystä.

Seuraavan kerran, kun vaihtoehtoina on katsoa joko uusin Oscar-ehdokas/voittaja hyvänolon draamauloste tai esimerkiksi Steven Seagal toimintapätkä, minulla ei tule olemaan valinnanvaikeuksia. Seagalista ainakin tietää mitä saa. Ja vaikka käsikirjoitus olisikin kasa homeista pastaa (kuten Junossa), Steven silti potkii joltakulta pään irti ja katkoo luita. Se on postmodernia ajatuksia herättävää taidetta parhaimmillaan. Perkele.

Vizyon Tarihi : 4 Temmuz 2008
Süresi : 100 dak.
Yönetmen : Nicholas Stoller
Tür : Komedi / Romantik
Senaryo : Jason Segel
Görüntü Yön. : Russ T. Alsobrook
Yapım : 2008, ABD
Oyuncular : Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, Maria Thayer, Mila Kunis, Jason Segel, Jack Mcbrayer, Russell Brand, Liz Cackowski, Taylor Wily, Davon Mcdonald, Steve Landesberg, Kala Alexander, Kalani Robb

Filmin Özeti

Peter kendi halinde bir müzisyendir. Sevgilisi Sarah ise bir televizyon yıldızıdır. Peter sevgilisinin aynı zamanda asistanlığını da yapmaktadır. Gözünde idolleştirdiği Sarah bir gün Peter’ı terk eder. Bu durum karşısında kendisini tek başına kalmış hisseden Peter bu durumdan kurtulmak için Hawaii’ye tatile gitmeye karar verir. Ama o da ne eski sevgilisi Sarah ve onun yeni erkek arkadaşı Aldous’da aynı tatil köyünde tatil yapmaktadır. Kıskançlığını gizlemekte zorlanan Peter için tatil biraz farklı gelişmektedir.

[dailymotion id=x3wa08]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis pellentesque. Aliquam consequat sagittis tortor. Cras non eros ut erat ullamcorper consectetuer. Donec vitae elit. Fusce nibh. Proin eleifend viverra sapien. Vivamus dapibus tellus tincidunt ligula. Morbi tempor nunc ac enim. Donec ligula arcu, viverra nec, pretium in, auctor in, nunc. Cras sit amet elit. Sed neque. Nunc fringilla nisl ut nulla. Ut pharetra ante eu lacus.

Grade: B-

I went to go see Hancock while in Tennessee on July 5th.  It wasn't exactly what I was expecting and while it wasn't a super awesome blockbuster it was enjoyable.  With that being said if I knew then what I know now I'm petty sure I would have waited for it to come out on video.  Another great idea for a movie where they rely more on the special effects than the story itself.  BUT, still good, just not as good as I was hoping for.  Not disappointed, just not thoroughly pleased.  They left it wide open for a sequel, but I'm not sure if they will.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  If they do decide to make a Hancock 2 I'll be waiting for it to come out on DVD. ;)

I got to see Hellboy II: The Golden Army while at home in Arizona on opening day, July 11th.  I wasn't the biggest fan of the first Hellboy movie, but I liked it.  I found it to be theater worthy, but just barely.  Well guess what folks... it turns out that Hellboy II is even better than the first.  This is such an amazing trend as of late (sequels being better than the originals).  Hellboy still hasn't attained the comic book movie quality of a Marvel (Hulk, Spider-Man, X-Men...) movie, but it seems to be gaining momentum.  Hellboy II was also left wide open for another installment, and I see no reason for them not to do this one.  I'll be standing in line of opening day for Hellboy III when the time comes. :mrgreen:

Sorry guys, no rage reviews this time around.  Two good movies, but only one good enough for the price of admission, and that's only if such movies are your cup of tea.  If you're thinking of going to see one of them, I suggest Hellboy II be the one. ;)

Türkçe Alt yazısını indirmek için tıklayınız!!!
Vizyon Tarihi : 4 Temmuz 2008
Süresi : 100 dak.
Yönetmen : Nicholas Stoller
Tür : Komedi / Romantik
Senaryo : Jason Segel
Görüntü Yön. : Russ T. Alsobrook
Yapım : 2008, ABD
Oyuncular : Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader, Maria Thayer, Mila Kunis, Jason Segel, Jack Mcbrayer, Russell Brand, Liz Cackowski, Taylor Wily, Davon Mcdonald, Steve Landesberg, Kala Alexander, Kalani Robb

Filmin Özeti

Peter kendi halinde bir müzisyendir. Sevgilisi Sarah ise bir televizyon yıldızıdır. Peter sevgilisinin aynı zamanda asistanlığını da yapmaktadır. Gözünde idolleştirdiği Sarah bir gün Peter’ı terk eder. Bu durum karşısında kendisini tek başına kalmış hisseden Peter bu durumdan kurtulmak için Hawaii’ye tatile gitmeye karar verir. Ama o da ne eski sevgilisi Sarah ve onun yeni erkek arkadaşı Aldous’da aynı tatil köyünde tatil yapmaktadır. Kıskançlığını gizlemekte zorlanan Peter için tatil biraz farklı gelişmektedir.
[dailymotion id=x3wa08]

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

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!

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 

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.

I don't understand how "Arrested Development" never found its audience while on the air. It's consistently one of the highest-rated shows on hulu, I hear people quote it all the time and big stars with pull like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann have been known to plug it on a regular basis. There's no denying that it's one of the smartest shows to ever grace the broadcast airwaves — in that sense, I'd say it's on a par with "The Office," although that show quickly found the massive audience that always eluded "Arrested Development" during it's three years on the air.

But anyone that knows or is a fan of the show also knows that "Arrested Development" is far from dead.

Now, I'm sure you all remember the interest in the project that Jason Bateman was able to stir up during his busy "Juno" press tour (With he and creator Mitchell Hurwitz releasing a joint statement saying they're both in if the project ever gets made), and that turned a lot of heads. Bateman talked about the movie at any and every opportunity while he was out pushing "Juno," but he also promised that nothing would move forward with the project until the WGA writers' strike was settled.

This was great news, but a lot of it seemed like hot air from Bateman, who may have wanted to see a movie get made, but I really don't think he ultimately has a lot of pull with the bigwigs and executives at FOX; you know, the ones that would have to greenlight and finance the movie. The same guys that canceled the television series

But more recently (and more promising) Bateman used his press tour of "Hancock" to push the idea even further (I'm starting to see a pattern here. Use big movies to push other ideas. Interesting). Unlike the "Juno" press tour, where a lot of his words seemed speculative and wishful, Bateman seemed a lot more confident this time around.

What's the difference? He's 100 percent sure that everyone else, not just he and Hurwitz, are excited about a potential movie. This from the MTV Movies:

"We all want to do it. All the actors want to do it, the writers want to do it, and the boss wants to do it. And they are working on making a deal, probably as we speak," Bateman said. "But it's a long, sort of drawn-out, complicated business process. 'Arrested Development' is such a specific tone, it doesn't lend itself to mass appeal, as played out by the fact that it's canceled. So it has to be done for a price. They can't spend the money they spent on 'Hancock.'

"So they have to shoot it for a small price, and we have to figure out if we can do it for that price," he continued. "They're working it out, and hopefully we'll be able to know something in the next month."

It's not secret that FOX would be exponentially more interested in an "Arrested Development" movie if the entire, brilliantly put-together, cast and everyone else from the crew are back for the movie. If someone like Jeffery Tambor, David Cross or Michael Cera decided they weren't coming back for whatever reason, I can see FOX shooting this idea down as fast as ... well, something really fast. Like Bateman said, a movie like this doesn't have mass appeal, so it needs something — a dynamite cast for example, and that's exactly what the the "Arrested Development" movie would have if everyone came back. And to strengthen want Bateman said about cast's commitment to the project, I found this video of Will Arnett pleading wit fans to bug FOX about the project:

It sounds like the crew is moving ahead with or without FOX. Well, that is, as far as they can get without the production company's help. Hurwtiz and Co. have a tentative story arch (maybe even a full script) already, which can only help in the talks with FOX. Again from MTV:

"It's typically bent and twisted," Bateman said of the story concocted by series mastermind Mitchell Hurwitz. "He's got a really, really good idea for the movie version that would not be just simply the equivalent of four episodes back to back to back. It's actually something that would be specific to the medium of film."

Two things: I'm glad to hear it's going to be "bent and twisted," because that means they're keeping with the general idea that helped make the original show so unique. The only way I can really see this movie sucking is if they try to write a script that will appeal to a wider audience, thus forgetting the audience that even made the movie a possibility in the first place. Bent and twisted is good.

Secondly, I'm kind of nervous to hear the movie is "simply the equivalent of four episodes back to back to back." If you've seen the direct-to-DVD "Futurama" movies, you know that they did essentially the same thing (but even more so, with the eventual plan to break them up and show them on Comedy Central.) The result has so far been two really choppy and ill-fitting movies with a couple more on the way. Although Bateman followed that statement with "t's actually something that would be specific to the medium of film," it's a little weird that he would say the story was just four episodes put together. I don't want what happened to "Futurama" to happen with "Arrested Development," and I'm sure it won't. Hurwitz is an incredibley gifted writer, and I know he'll be able to pull out a dynamite script that flows as smoothly as it should.

Well, that's as up-to-date as I can get you on the "Arrested Development" movie right now. Hopefully the project really is as inevitable as Bateman's latest words make it sound. I'm a huge fan of the series (I once watched the entire first season in one sitting. I know that's not something to be proud of, but I just could pry myself from the TV) and would absolutely love to revisit the Bluths. Let's just keep hoping they get the ball rolling on this.

Will Smith as Hancock

My sole incentive to go and watch Hancock was Will Smith, specially after i found out that the character he plays is that of a booze-guzzling, dirt-streaked super hero, who causes the State more damage than what a successful bank robbery might manage to. Interesting, you'd think. And rightly so. Only, beyond the conceptualisation and characterisation, something goes off the mark. Something that may have to do with two other extremely important aspects of film-making : Cinematography and Direction.

The movie is about a badass superhero, who goes from being lonely, vindictive and publicity-phobic, to finding love, a purpose to his life and the truth about his past. And all this is made possible by Ray Embrey, a PR executive out to save the world, and his wife Mary, who turns out to be a closet superhero herself. Embroiled in some enigmatic history, and fantastical theories of existence, the trio, and little Erin fight great odds in order to maintain his status as a 'likeable' superhero.

And now, the bad news first. It may seem like cinematographer Tobias A Schliessler was attempting to give us a feel of the real, but the end product was disappointingly...shaken. it makes you want to yell- stop moving the camera so much man! The pace of the movie is unnecessarily hurried-feels like there are parts which need more elaboration, but Peter Berg just couldn't be bothered. And then, the story-line : it is so disappointingly Bollywood-ish. The melodramatic end-sweet and soppy, literally, with the 'all heart' sign painted on the moon, and the scenes right before that, when every heart wrenching effort that Hancock makes brings Mary back to life, heartbeat by heartbeat, make the audience groan collectively.

But then, Will Smith manages to pull it off. He stinks, vandalises, doesn't give a shit, and yet, he charms the birds out of their cushioned seats. He brings to the movie what Charlize Theron was supposed, but didn't quite manage, with exposure that was restricted to extreme close-ups of furtive glances at Hancock. There's another waste of talent. Jason Bateman does a good job too, but the limitations of his character, then again, do not fully utilise his talent.

That way, the movie essentially belongs to Smith, from the time he threatens South Asian criminals of having their heads going upcertain other parts of other people's anatomies, to when he saves a policewoman in trouble, but not before telling her that she's doing a good job and that if he's gonna touch her, it is not 'sexual'. The comedy is good, the only thing really worth the effort, but at times is stretched to a point of no-return from vulgar-land.
All in all, its worth a watch. But don't let the slapstick humour escape you. It's what defines the crux of the movie, and the character, Hancock.

Too bad if the unappreciative louts don’t love him, figures the title superhero in “Hancock,” a lopsided load of metaphors that starts off funny, turns serious, and then gets lost in a raft of pretentiousness. While concerned with image expert Embrey’s mission to earn redemption for his savior, no such attempt is undertaken for the movie.

The getting to know you part has its whimsy. Taking no guff, the troubled Hancock carelessly tosses a mouthy adolescent into the upper atmosphere, executing a last second catch upon his return. It’s OK. He’s the brat who’s been bullying Aaron Embrey (Jae Head), the film’s perfunctory, cute little kid who, like his dad, sees the good in Hancock.

Rounding out the dramatis personae is Charlize Theron as Ray’s wife Mary. Curiously, the pretty gal has reservations about hubby’s campaign to improve Hancock’s reputation. You won’t get the skinny about that here, but take said segue two or three stops down the screenplay and ultimately you’ll find yourself at the crux of the oddly envisioned plot.

It’s sort of like what occasionally occurs in professional wrestling. Out of the blue, the good guy springs it on us that he is now a villain. Only here, the lighthearted mask of comedy, unexpectedly exhibiting the theatrical equivalent of multiple personality, suddenly declares its impetus is dramatic.

It is doubtful director Peter Berg could have better melded the dual natures of Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan’s script without a major rewrite. Hence, it is testament to Mr. Smith’s thespic ability and charisma that, despite being dumped down incongruity lane, we maintain our suspension of disbelief and remain dedicated to Hancock’s salvation.

He’s quite an angry curmudgeon. And again, later for the heavily baroque causes. In the meantime you can’t help but smirkingly acknowledge the albeit unrealized potential of a movie superhero who not only doesn’t fit the mold, but also entertainingly rails against it. Yet none of his radical allure would be possible if we weren’t sure he was true blue.
Sort of a twelve-step program for recovering, bad-mannered superheroes, Ray insists Hancock begins his atonement by volunteering to do a jail term. Nothing too lengthy, mind you. The usual prison clichés are trotted out. However, this soon proves a catch 22. For with the cat away, the rats get to play out their dirty schemes without compunction.

A call from a desperate police chief and Hancock’s subsequent swing into action appears to herald a new era for the superhero. A bit of group therapy back in the slammer and further counseling from PR wiz Ray---things like remembering to tell the cops they’re doing a good job---and it appears that he’s on the road to amelioration.

But the moment of optimism is short-lived. Two new bugaboos arrive to assure that there is no void of sturm und drang for Hancock who, by this time, has submitted to wearing a spiffy costume Ray had designed for him. Trouble #1 is the emergence of evildoer Red (Eddie Marsan) as a bona fide archenemy. Tsuris #2 is more complex.

Suffice it to note Mary Embrey knows more about Hancock than he knows about himself. Suffering from a super case of amnesia, he has no idea from whence he came and why he is so prodigiously empowered. The only clue to his past, kept in a metal tin at his trailer/fortress on a mountain, is two tickets to Karloff’s “Frankenstein” (1931) .

Gosh, he doesn’t look that old. Precisely. And all that attends that observation is ultimately, slowly explained…much too slowly. Considering the volumes of exciting lore detailing the origins of superheroes, this is a drab, pseudo-dark, rather uninteresting account. By this juncture, the film has officially and irretrievably sunk into maudlinness.

It paltrily tries to say something about contradictory facets of the life experience being opposite sides of the same coin. But while the lessons prove banal to anyone old enough to witness its PG-13 sentiments, the irony is that “Hancock” plays like two halves of two different movies. All of which suggests “Halfcocked” might have been a more apt title.
….
“Hancock,” rated PG-13, is a Sony Pictures Entertainment and Columbia Pictures release directed by Peter Berg and stars Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman. Running time: 92 minutes

IMDB

Release: (2008 )

Runtime: 92 Minutes, PG-13

Starring: Will Smith, Jason Bateman, Charlize Theron

Venue: Stadium seating at the big theater

I was excited about this movie for a couple of reasons.  The main one was the humanizing feel that the trailers made me feel the main character had.  A guy with super powers that is neither a hero, dark hero or super villian, just an asshole that tries to do good sometimes.  I liked the idea of a drunk that knew he should be helping people but who just didn't care most of the time.  Along with all of this, Jason Bateman is in it, and he, along with all of the Arrested Development cast members will always be on my good side.

So the beginning of the movie is pretty much what you would have expected if you've seen the previews.  Its pretty funny, and enjoyable.  Then we get into the plot twists of the final act and it lost me.  No need for me to ruin it, but the way the movie ends up just didn't seem like an appropriate ending for a movie with such an original idea to present.  There is a final battle and a lot of special effects and for a while I wasn't exactly sure who the bad guy was and then its all over and you get the wrap up scene that hints at a sequel.  I sure as jawnz hope they don't make a sequel.  I would say it is worth watching, but couldn't follow through with the same creativity the pitched idea had.

Accessibility: 8

Technique: 4

Thought Provoking: 2

Originality: 7

Entertainment: 7

Before I talk about the movie I have to explain my scale.  I have different scales for different types of movies.  In the history of cinema action films have yet to breakthrough to Citizen Kane status.  That being said, I dumb the scale down for them.  For me an action film must have passable acting, good to amazing special effects, a storyline that is engaging while also moving forward and good dialog amongst the characters.

Hancock is a decent action film.  Will Smith, Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron  play their roles well, the story moves along and, in a bit of a surprise, the plot contains a decent twist.  The down side for me is toward the end of the movie Theron's character suddenly explains a whole lot of the parameters of the character- a better written script would have found a way to incorporate those things and slowly reveal them throughout- instead we're given an info dump at the end of the film as a bridge to the next scene.  It's not terrible, but it is inartful and could have been presented better.

It's a good enough movie that I recommend you go see it.

Cheers.

Tom

Have you seen the second half of the movie? The movie started out so great. We've got Will Smith as a down-and-out with superhero abilities. He's trying to help but unable to. He's a lonely alcoholic and no one ever told him how to do his job, which everyone expects him to do because of his raw ability. This is a fresh take on the superhero angle, and a lot of it is good. The comedic paring Smith with Jason Bateman as his PR Agent is fresh, and it culminates in Hancock's successful post-prison assist.

The movie could have gone in so many directions from here. But instead, they strike up this crap with Charlize Theron's character that makes no sense and eclipses the rest of the movie without any regard for the first half. The movie "culminates" in this ridiculous hospital scene with a lot of requisite writhing and screaming and me scratching my head and wondering how these poorly described limitations on Hancock's power are supposed to be working. Did you notice that when Hancock is (kind of) told of his identity, he doesn't even ask what his name is? They should have at least had Will Smith speaking Greek or something interesting. That won't make any sense to you if you haven't seen the movie, but you probably shouldn't. I'm inclined to agree with the age-old Filthy Film Critic. Or, better yet, get it on DVD and stop watching after the bank scene.

photo courtesy of Dwarf Hippo blog

The movie was released after lots of sensor cut. A full length entertaining comedy flick. As usual a will smith movie which implies human life is better than anything ( may be a superhero or robot or alien etc.,) . Not much impressive but a good entertainer. Will smith scores good in this movie. apart from smith "Jason Bateman" the public relations officer attracts everyone. We got to see another super women "Charlize Theron" PRO's wife and told as a wife of Hancock several decades back. Still lots of confusions with her character in this movie....!

This is a normal movie and not as usual superhero movie. The movie opened with great promise, offering a solid action sequence blended with a nice character study but nothing was met in this movie. But Smith makes you love him, from the moment he wakes up on a bus bench, surly and hungover, and snaps crabbily at the little kid who roused him with the simple call to arms, during anger management in the prison, while testing the PRO's wife in her kitchen about her power,while saving a police women, while getting angry with a playing kid, in all his super heroic scenes, his reactions when someone calls him Asshole etc., I just love Will Smith for whatever he is.

This was given a big image bcos of Will Smith. Seems that Peter berg, the Director of this movie got inspired by some comic super hero and started doing this movie. Lots of illogical things go with this movie. Anyways Smith took it in a better way. Wish this movie should not have a sequel.

A good movie only for Will Smith Lovers.  Just waiting for his next movie "Seven Pounds" and this will defenitly be a exellent movie. A movie deals about a  man who change the lives of seven strangers.

The Fall: Brilliant, original film-making and an excellent juxtaposition of the dark side of film: a suicidal actor (Lee Pace) with fantastical escapism narrates a story about a motley crew of outcasts taking on an evil governor to an idealistic young girl (Catinca Untaru). The performances are pitch perfect and the visuals, filmed on location in a variety of breathtaking locales, house an epic adventure, which form an improbable yet highly effective contrast to the interior struggle of Pace's paralyzed actor with his condition and his failed romantic relationship. This unique film, helmed by the Indian film director Tarsem Singh (who often goes by just Tarsem) and "presented" by David Fincher and Spike Jonze fuses various genres and ideas so seamlessly that it demands to be seen and enjoyed.

R.H. on The Fall: Beautiful, beautiful film. Breathtaking, visually. The story is a bit weak. But being such a visually stunning film, you want to forgive the movie of all its missteps.

The Wackness

Savage Grace: A highly controversial movie that one cannot help but have an opinion about. The incestuous and extremely unsettling relationship between a divorced mother (Julianne Moore) and her son (Eddie Redmayne) is based on a true story and is likely to dominate the coverage of the film. This development, though expected, is highly unfortunate in that it precludes notice of Moore and Redmayne's excellent performances. The queasy chemistry they establish, though not something to be relished, is certainly something to be admired as an excellent exercise in craft. Stephen Dillane turns in another disturbing performance as Moore's estragned alpha male, explorer husband. Director Tom Kalin, imbues the movie with easily overlooked subtext concerning the nature of masculinity and sexuality. Again, the issue of the affair between Moore's character and her gay son, ultimately grabs much of the attention and overshadows the careful character studies at play in this movie. That is why, I, your humble reviewer, ask that you put aside your own trepidations regarding incest and give this stylish and perfectly made movie a chance.

Wanted: James McAvoy brings his own charm to this film, mainly in that he cannot act without bringing out the humanity in his characters, whether it was as a half-goat, half-man in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or a working class young man in over his head in 2007's Atonement. Predictably enough, McAvoy cannot "make an action movie that's actually good" as he told Jon Stewart he aimed to do. The sheer ridiculousness of the plot inspired stifled laughter among my movie watching mate and your humble narrator. Of course, all action movies are ridiculous but Wanted takes it to such high levels and sorely lacks any of the philosophy that made the outrageous stunts of The Matrix so worthwhile that one is left with a naked Angelina Jolie, a sleepwalking Morgan Freeman and lots of bendy bullets but not much of a film.

Hancock: Many viewers, critics included went into the film expecting another pleasing but not excessively demanding genre film from Will Smith. Disappointment set in as they realized that Peter Berg, with his handheld camera close ups and focus on character, is trying to do more with the story than create a few huge digital action set pieces and collect his paycheck. Hancock is easily one of the most severely underrated and exceptionally good superhero movies ever made. This is a movie, that although will clearly make ridiculous amounts of money, will not be fully appreciated by its current audience. Perhaps filmgoers in the future, free from the expectations of viewers today, will be able to appreciate the way Berg makes a character-based superhero movie. Will Smith refuses to rehash the cocky smartass protagonists he has been asked to portray so frequently in films such as Wild Wild West and Men in Black and plays Hancock with the sense of melancholy, turmoil and even humor that the material requires. Sure, there are tonal shifts but such is life; it can be a Shakespearean comedy and a Greek Myth at the same time. Hancock has strains of both and emerges as a severely under-appreciated, very good film that asks the viewer to take a leap of faith into experimental superhero film territory  in its finale, those who do will surely be rewarded.

R.H. on Hancock: The critics were mostly right. The first two acts are pretty entertaining. The third though... a wee bit weird. The third act introduces a concept that could easily carry its own full-length, sci-fi/fantasy film. But the ferocious speed at which silly ideas are catapulted at the audience boggles the mind. Even the "villain" that reappears later in the film... Not creepy or disturbing. Just plain annoying. Blame the writers, but blame "actor" Eddie Marsan, as well. Hancock is not as horrendous as the mass of reviews would have you believe. It's good. But it could have been much, much better.

Get Smart: It's a funny, mainstream comedy with excellent comic performances from all the players. It is a consistent laugh-maker. Thank whoever (Get Smart TV series co-creator Mel Brooks?) that these type of movies (funny films that are actually good) still exist. - R.H.

The Incredible Hulk: This movie was made to make money. According to press reports, Edward Norton wished to do more with it but was severely limited in his attempts to flesh out the character by Marvel Studios (trying to match their recent success with May's classy action film Iron Man) who correctly guessed that the average moviegoer would rather see the Hulk smash rather than Bruce Banner brood over his tragic condition. Ang Lee's original Hulk (2003) was a mixed bag but there was a great film in there somewhere. This iteration of the Hulk story wishes to show you flashy special effects and I suppose, "entertain" the average viewer, which it manages to do to a large degree. Still, one cannot help but wish that the studio bigwigs had given Norton a little bit more freedom to truly show us who Bruce Banner was and not just give the director of The Transporter 2, Louis Letterier, lots of money to blow lots of stuff up.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Continuing the trend of movies simply made to make a buck, this series of reviews shall be concluded with the latest Indiana Jones movie. Harrison Ford is back, the fedora is back and so is the iconic John Williams score. Indy is fighting the communists, represented by Cate Blanchett, who although mired in a quest for world domination are in an odd Plato-like quest to attain ultimate knowledge. There is an unintended tragic nobleness about the culmination of Blanchett's evil Communist's quest to solve the mystery of the crystal skulls that led me to care a bit more than your humble reviewer should have, considering that this film featured an action sequence in which the chief protagonists were friendly commie-hating monkeys and then commie-hating ants. Clearly, everyone here is mailing it in, but the movie is not without its small pleasures, such as a bar fight between the greasers and the socs. Shia LeBeouf is an actor that continues to inspire indifference and a stray chuckle or two. The latest Indiana Jones movie accomplishes the goals of its creators, to replicate the adventure films of Spielberg's earlier days, and more importantly, make everyone a lot of money.

On that slightly depressing and cynical note, I bid you adieu and sincerely hope that you can process the flood of movie criticism unleashed by your humble narrator.

-Vman

I wasn't originally planning on watching Hancock in theaters, but considering I haven't seen the first Hellboy, and my wife and I didn't want to wait an extra 30 minutes to watch Kung Fu Panda, Hancock had to do. It's not that I had zero interest in the movie either. I have nothing against Will Smith, in fact I find him one of the most consistently entertaining people in Hollywood. Hancock is usually my kind of flick, but reports of rewrites and re-shoots late in the films production process had me skeptical. Re-shoots and rewrites most of the time indicate problems, or more optimistically they indicate a good filmmaker realizing he needs to hone his/her work. I had no problem giving Director Peter Berg (Ethan Hawke's bastard twin) the benefit of the doubt because his previous films delivered, with the most notable being "The Kingdom".

Hancock's end result was a mix between a compelling tale and a jumbled mess. The first hour of Hancock was solid. It was funny, original and heartfelt. You felt Hancock's pain, as his unique abilites left him isolated and angry with the world. Jason Bateman (Ray) and Charlize Theron (Mary) were also set up nicely, Bateman as an idealistic PR guy and Theron as his supportive wife and mother. Hancock and Ray are cleverly introduced as Hancock saves Ray's life in a drunken stupor. In order to repay his debt, Ray offers to help Hancock improve his image. It's a decent enough premise and both Bateman and Smith are very funny in the scenes that follow. At this point I'm thoroughly enjoying the movie, maybe even considering it the surprise hit of the summer. Unfortunately that feeling didn't last.

During the last third of Hancock the tone of the movie changes from comedy, to a sci-fi soap opera. The plot twist itself is very interesting, but the way it plays out on screen is clumsy and abrupt. Everything you thought you knew about the characters is thrown out the window and then magically put back together in the last five minutes. Which is unfortunate, because the twist itself was interesting, only it didn't match up with the tone of the rest of the film. If the ending had been properly executed it could have catapulted Hancock to a whole other level. Instead you get a film with an identity crisis. It's a comedy, then it's a super hero movie, then a sci-fi, then a romance, then a comedy again.

I didn't hate it, but I surely didn't love it. Hancock was filled with great ideas (including a pretty decent twist), but none of those ideas gelled together to form a cohesive story. If only it had been about 20 minutes longer then some of the interesting twists could have played out. Instead, the film comes to a crashing halt with an ending that left me scratching my head/throwing up in my own mouth. You would think with the budget the talent and budget attached to Hancock that they could have figured out a more creative way to wrap up what had been a pretty good story. Unfortunately, they didn't.

6/10

]]> http://gadon.wordpress.com/?p=280 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:42:13 +0000 Gadon http://gadon.wordpress.com/?p=280

Una vez más, traigo una crítica de una sonada novedad del cine.

La verdad es que no tenía ni la más remota idea de la existencia de esta película hasta que hace menos de una semana comencé a ver anuncios en televisión. Me quedé bastante pillado y he de decir que no llamó mi atención en el mejor de los sentidos. En fin, que me picó la curiosidad, pero mis espectativas con respecto a la película no han sido en ningún momento espectaculares.

El caso es que decidí que para poder criticar, tenía que verla, y así lo he hecho esta misma mañana.

John Hancock (Will Smith)  es un tipo... ¿cómo decirlo? Bueno, John Hancock es un tipo peculiar. Es un pobre borracho con superpoderes y una inexplicable necesidad de salvar vidas, sin importar el coste (económico) que esto conlleve. Hancock es capaz de volar y tiene súper-fuerza y súper-velocidad, al más puro estilo de Superman. El problema es que debido a su embriaguez perpetua es incapaz de controlarse, especialmente si le llaman imbécil. Al perder el control, los destrozos que causa en sus rescates son tremendamente caros, por lo que todo el mundo le odia.

Pero verá una oportunidad de cambiar cuando, casualmente, salva la vida a Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), un emprendedor decidido a salvar al mundo de sus miserias. Ray decide ayudar a Hancock a ser un héroe. Le indicará qué hacer para conseguir el respeto y el cariño de las masas, comenzando por una disculpa pública de Hancock, seguida por su entrada en prisión como castigo por los destrozos causados en la ciudad de Los Angeles. Hancock aceptará todo esto a regañadientes, a la vez que se sentirá intrigado por la esposa de Ray, Mery (Charlize Theron).

No puedo contar nada más sin destripar la película, salvo el importante papel de Mery en la vida de John Hancock.

Sí puedo decir, en cambio, que el filme está hecho a medida para Will Smith, cargado de humor, tensión, acción, algo de drama y esa rudeza que le sienta tan bien.

Peter Berg (Collateral, Lions for Lambs) dirige el guión escrito por Vincent Ngo (Hostage, Halo 2 -videojuego-) y Vince Gilligan (The X Files Revelations).

La película en sí es bastante trepidante, de forma que se pasa volando el tiempo que estás en la butaca. Los diálogos no son maravillosos pero tienen el ingenio suficiente para que no se haga aburrido. Los efectos especiales, del montón, teniendo en cuenta los tiempos que corren... Aunque, sin duda, no son el centro de la película (como ocurre en otras ocasiones).

Resumiendo, diré que es un largometraje más que apto para pasar una buena tarde de cine con amigos y olvidarse por un rato de los problemas propios.

Le doy un 7.

Hancock is Will Smith's newest film that attempts a needed twist on the superhero genre. A twist that works pretty well and Smith, unlike other contemporary stars like Tom Hanks, realizes that he can hold onto the dark side of his character without driving off audiences. Smith has figured out how to physically hold onto his characters, in his shoulders, his facial expressions, while maintaining all of the reasons why we like to watch him on screen. He's not only a damn good actor, but he's a smart one, unafraid to try new things and to fully commit to what's happening on screen. Would Mr. Hanks throw out the F-bomb so casually to a crowd of people and still remain the most likable person on screen!?

But now let's talk about Hancock, the movie and the character. A put upon anti-hero, the only one of his kind. He boozes and destroys things. He does what's right only perhaps when he's passing by or to get someone to stop nagging him, and even then it's just kind of right. It's hilarious and entertaining.

Jason Bateman is saved by Hancock (though I'm not sure how many trains actually pass through Los Angeles anymore - I've never seen them), and becomes his PR person. Great concept. And right away you get that there's something going on with Bateman's wife played by Charlize Theron. It provides a nice twist in the film later on.

But after that twist the film loses it's footing a bit. The only thing that we have to pull us from the first half of the film to the second is a few awkward glances and not knowing Hancock's past and the tension and story that's been built is kind of released and the audience has nothing to hold onto.

***Minor Plot Spoiler in this next paragraph***

I dug the mythology that the writer's tried to cram into the movie. But it amounted to too much cramming at points. The film tried to be two different stories and didn't succeed at bringing them together. I think audiences would have understood and loved the movie just as much if we didn't find out what Hancock was until a sequel.  It would have allowed the filmmaker's more time to invest in who Hancock is now. *****And would have given them more to do with his character in a second film if suddenly his powers started to disappear and he found out he was a guardian angel. Simplicity.*****

It would have also allowed them some time to create a far more threatening villain that didn't stumble upon Hancock so conveniently in the final moments of the film. Now we can argue and say that's not what this movie is about...but come on. Every good hero needs a villain just as bad.

Peter Berg the director makes all of this so flashy it almost seems like he wants us to overlook the films flaws. Keep the camera on Will and Charlize and we'll be fine. And it almost works, until his directorial choices become so heavy handed that the card house starts wavering. If a film has done it's job there's no need for overcompensating with extreme slow motion close-ups of faces being drenched with water as they near death. If you care about the characters you don't need to circle the camera around Will Smith as a new found superhero the extra 10 times. By artificially heightening the emotional moments of the film you only help identify the real flaws of the film itself. If Berg (a director who I like) had stepped back and let these abrasive moments speak for themselves, perhaps it would have been easier to overlook the plotting trip ups. Many of these same directorial tics appeared in Berg's last film The Kingdom, hope it isn't becoming a part of his repertoire.

By and by I did enjoy the gritty urban feel of the modern city (boy did they capture LA) and thought it helped amplify the timliness of the story and gave it the grounded, human quality that Smith works well with. And it's what makes his final sacrifice that much more heartbreaking. If nothing else the filmmakers and creator of the comic book from which this is based, understand how lonely LA can feel.

My friend Andy and I trucked it down to LA to see one of my (maybe him too) heroes. Ricky freakin Gervais. 

truly amazing.

We started off the night by going to what looked to be a shady bar called...Hollywood's HappyEndings. I was hoping it was a gay bar with dodgy food and happy hour so Andy could get us free drinks. Nope!

Turns out it was really nice and pretty rad on the inside..not shady and seedy liked we had hoped. next time LA its on.

After that, we head over to the The Kodak Theatre. We stand in line and who is standing in front of us....you guess it Jason Bateman. Being huge fans of Arrested Development, we debated whether or not to ask him for a picture..I say yes because who cared really, are we ever going to see him again...prolly not.

so we did..he's cool, he's a real person , he stands in line and was even text messaging..he's just like us!!

On to  Ricky Gervais. He is truly a genius. Creator of both the Office and Extras...it doesn't get better than this guy.[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7520848619246996399]