MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Going Off Half-Cocked

Based on the early test screening reviews of Hancock… reviews of a film that is different in many ways from the one being released into theaters… I kind of understand the general negativity surrounding the film.
But that

Be Sociable, Share!

31 Responses to “Going Off Half-Cocked”

  1. berg says:

    Hancock is butter, Iron Man is margarine …

  2. martin says:

    All I’ve heard about Hancock is the AICN reviews that indicated it was a Wild Wild West level turd, and that the original script was much smarter/more adult than a generic summer PG-13 actioner. The critics have their knives out for it, so my guess is that Dave will be in the minority, even if he’s right. Then again, Transformers didn’t capture many critics hearts so I guess the real question is whether audiences are going to be recommending it 2 weeks after release. I Am Legend had that. Is $250 mill. a solid success for Hancock? It looks like a $150 mill at least budget.

  3. Rothchild says:

    They kept all the smart stuff, but the movie has no room to breathe. If it was 2 hours long it would be as great as Berg’s other movies. Either way, it’s solid as fuck.
    Don’t spoil it for yourself.

  4. martin says:

    So basically handcock plays more like a Bay movie? I have less of a problem with the overcut movies than ones that leave too much on-screen.

  5. Rothchild says:

    Scenes are missing. But the scenes that remain aren’t overcut into craziness.

  6. Why do people continue to read AICN for “reviews”. Those things are either incredibly positive or incredibly negative.

  7. scooterzz says:

    saw it tonight and it’s so much better than expected…..
    will smith is just one of the most charming ‘movie stars’ working and peter berg knows what works…..
    i’d certainly rather sit through this a second time than wall-e a second time….jus’…well, you know….sayin’…..

  8. LexG says:

    I am expecting the OWN-O-METER to hit a full 11: TOTAL OWNAGE.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    “Own-o-meter” is actually mildly amusing.

  10. scarper86 says:

    The latest TV spot I saw last night gives away one of the movie’s twists. It wasn’t in any of the trailers or previous TV spots but someone says “You’re becoming…” Arrgh.

  11. leahnz says:

    david poland, scoot, anyone who’s seen it, can i take the 9 yr old? it’s hard to judge by the preview i saw and it’s rated ‘m’ here, a rather wide-ranging catch-all rating for anything not made just for kiddies through to downright adult fare. my wee lad is so psyched for it, he’s counting down till it opens next week (the weirdness of that is a whole nother kettle of fish) and i feel a bit apprehensive about taking him cold, would like to get some opinions first.
    btw, he recoils dramatically at anything ‘lovey-dovey’ (even kissing, etc…) and i’m not cool with graphic violence beyond ‘iron man’ level or a lot of cursing because he is, like all kids, a great bloody mimic

  12. Leah is NZ’s rating system the same as Australia’s? I know our M is the equivelent of America’s PG13 (for the most part, anyway).

  13. White Label says:

    that read like a review. And honestly, it wasn’t really on my radar as something I wanted to see (the whipping the whale into the sailboat in the preview just seemed really dumb to me, and turned me off the whole thing).
    I’d probably go if someone asked, now.

  14. harosa says:

    What i assume is a plot twist was given away when this movie was being made and photos of them filming in the streets were put online.And now the latest tv commercials seem to be putting it out there also.

  15. movieman says:

    Is it true that “Hancock” is only 93 minutes, Scooter?
    The original run time posted on filmjerk was 115 minutes.
    We don’t get to see it until Thursday here in Cleveland.

  16. Bartholomew Richards says:

    I think DP’s reading too much into Berg’s style. Letting the camera move bounce while it lingers on a character doing something mundane does not mean the movie goes “to a darker place in the characters”, it just means Berg thinks he’s better than he actually is. Much like James Grey and his retarded smoke-out finale in We Own The Night.
    Anyhow, I would be looking forward to this movie much more if I hadn’t read in a number of places that they had to fuck up a good R-Rated script to make it PG-13. I don’t really understand why, if Bad Boys II was a hit, why couldn’t Hancock be an R-Rated hit?

  17. mysteryperfecta says:

    All I know about Hancock is from trailers and commercials, which have been underwhelming.

  18. Bartholomew-
    That final scene in WE OWN THE NIGHT was God-awful, but I still think that car chase scene is one of the best EVER and will forever be relegated to a totally crappy movie. Until someone rips it off and puts it in a cooler movie….

  19. Yep, according to Arclight, it’s a mere 92 minutes. Ya know, on one hand Dave’s review makes me want to see the film. I share his affection for The Rundown and I love Friday Night Lights (didn’t like The Kingdom much, but that was for reasons seemingly unrelated to Berg).
    But, just like The Incredible Hulk, we’re asked to fork over a ticket price for a movie where it’s all but advertised that we’re getting an appetizer for the super-duper uncut, unrated, director’s cut in November on DVD or BluRay.
    This is different from a comedy that slaps a few minutes back into the DVD release and calls it’ unrated’. That’s cheap, but it’s fair. It’s still the same movie. But this, where it’s obvious that the film we’re seeing is not the film as it was intended, well that’s the kind of thing that makes me pay $6 on a Friday morning before work instead of an evening ticket price. Basically, we’re paying for Hancock: The Compromise Cut.

  20. movieman says:

    I wasn’t even aware that the original “Hancock” script was apparently “R”-rated in nature. Interesting.
    When I first heard about the 90-ish minute run time, I flashed back to the “MIB” movies which were 98 and 88 minutes respectively.
    It sounded like Big Willy was aiming for another fast-paced, breezy romp. I hope it delivers.
    Speaking of Berg, has anyone else heard the rumor (unsubstantiated at this point) that “Friday Night Lights” is being musicalized for the Great White Way?

  21. Chucky in Jersey says:

    I saw the “Hancock” trailer in front of “Kung Fu Panda”. That trailer makes “Hancock” a good concept mortally wounded by a Legion of Doom soundtrack.

  22. Tofu says:

    Poland made me appreciate Berg with his fawning over The Rundown, which in turn made me enjoy the flick far more than anyone else I know.
    However, for this one… Not feeling it. Holding off until I hear some other personal word of mouth. Seems like it is missing an entire Act of plot.
    Men in Black 1 & 2 were simultaneously too short to justify a ticket purchase, and too long to justify the blatant stupidity.

  23. David Poland says:

    Leah… borderline call on the 9-year-old.
    They do the “one example of each dirty word” schtick to skirt the R and get the PG-13. So there are epithets, including sexist ones.
    But the violence is minimal and very cartoon-y (even the one extreme case). Any sentimentalism doesn’t last very long.
    It’s more real than something like X3, but no worse, really. He is a realistic drunk in some ways, hanging out at a bar, drinking at 8am. It’s those kind of issues that might make for uncomfortable questions, not so much the violence or language, I think.

  24. LexG says:

    Nine years old?
    Man, I had seen Alien, The Shining, Dirty Harry, Halloween II, American Werewolf and The Godfather all before my 10th birthday, and looked how I turned out.
    (Of course those were on HBO where I wasn’t annoying other cinema patrons, so there is that.)

  25. LexG says:

    I’d say the answer is “being awesome.”
    Peter Berg doesn’t just OWN YOUR ASS, he also leases with an option to buy as well just in case you think you’ve found a loophole. But you haven’t. Because he fucking OWNS YOU.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    Bow wow.

  27. leahnz says:

    thanks for that rundown, mr. poland, exactly the sort of details i wanted before hand so i know what i’m in for.
    it sounds somewhat inappropriate for my little man, but hell, i’m on a roll with the parental margin calls so i’ll probably chance it, he’s so keen to see it i’d feel like ‘a big meano’ if i put my foot down on this one.
    after reading lex’s post, i’m starting to wonder if i’m an unduly strict mum! the boy is a tough little nut but has a few issue with being afraid of the dark at the mo after seeing some freaky ghost show on the discovery channel, so i never know if i’m doing the right thing now.
    kam, i had a look at the film classifications for nz, surprisingly ‘m’ was deemed ‘suitable for children 16yrs and over, though younger children can view it’, which is even more stringent than i thought! there’s also an ‘m13’ rating which i have never seen before on any movie in all my life (maybe that is the equivalent to your pg13-style ‘m’), the ratings usually go from ‘pg’ to ‘m’. wow, that’s really boring, sorry to be tedious

  28. RudyV says:

    R-rated? You mean the movie originally titled “Tonight, He Comes?” As in riffing on Larry Niven’s “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex” essay, explaining that since ejaculation results from the actions of involuntary muscles, a SuperOrgasm would eject SuperSperm at muzzle velocity. And then freed from their host, said SuperSperm would fly through the neighborhood looking for fertile wombs to penetrate.
    I am not kidding:

  29. Scott, I imagine most people who are going to see Hancock this weekend will be completely oblivious to the fact that it’s a “compromised cut”.

  30. Scott, I imagine most people who are going to see Hancock this weekend will be completely oblivious to the fact that it’s a “compromised cut”.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon