July 01, 2008

Like a Live-Action "Incredibles," Only Not Exciting, Visually Arresting or Funny

Oh, what a huge, huge mess "Hancock" is. It's so bad its Tomatometer score has dropped (from 30 to 29 percent) just while I've been typing this.

Is it exciting? Does it have interesting, satirical things to see about the superhero genre? Does it at least look cool? No, no, and no. The plot is weak, the characters are cyphers, the humor is practically non-existent and- worst of all- the visual style is just ugly. Director Peter Berg, for some reason, shoots the entire movie- not just the actions scenes, but EVERY scene, with a jittery, constantly shaking hand-held camera. And even worse, every scene is in EXTREME CLOSE-UP, for no apparent reason.

When they show a football game on TV, do the cameras shake violently, while lights flash and no shot lasts more than 2 or 3 seconds? Of course not (except for in "Any Given Sunday"). Why not? Because that way we wouldn't be able to tell what the hell is going on, who's winning, and why. So why should action movies be any different? Why must we be bludgeoned, with "stylistic" editing, even though it leads to incomprehensibility?

Is "Hancock" worse than "Speed Racer"? I think it is. For all its other faults, "Speed Racer" at least looked cool.

Posted by Stephen Silver at July 1, 2008 02:13 PM
Comments

I heard Hancock is like as bad as the Last American Hero or whatever that movie with Ahnold was...

Posted by: A at July 2, 2008 01:26 PM

Give please. What's the earth With all its art, verse, music, worth - Compared with love, found, gained, and kept?
I am from Zambia and now study English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Cast organizes the end for the serge conduct and tries deadwood when he is delivered from profile."

Regards 8-) Hanna.

Posted by: Hanna at September 6, 2009 08:41 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?