Didn’t see it. None of the trailers got me interested enough. The problem with this film, at a glance, is it seems to be a movie about superheroes made by people who know nothing about superheroes. Hancock looks almost like a parody of super-hero movies. The special effects are so over-the-top that, rather than impress us with their cutting-edge technique, I found myself bored. I’ve seen this stuff done so much better in Iron Man. There’s a certain clumsiness and inelegance to the FX that may have been contrived to go along with the storyline of a down-and-out superhero who regains his self-esteem. I don’t know, maybe it’s *supposed* to look silly.
|
2 Comments
FWIW, the trailers don't really do a good job of representing the movie. It's worth renting, though (odds are it's out of theaters already near you), but be prepared for three distinct chapters rather than a single story.
scrawled by David Van Domelen | August 10, 2008 3:36 PM
I haven't seen it (yet) but I heard the samething as David. The trailers tried to sell something that really isn't representitive of the final product. I was like you Priest and was hesistant when I saw the previews. I always am when I see something that seems to act as a paraody of superheroes as it often comes from people who haven't read a comic in their lives and just make jokes about underwear on the outside of their costume or Batman and Robin are gay. But from what I heard this isn't like that. The only reason I haven't seen it yet is that none of my friends seemed interested and ticket prices are insanely expensive. I will probably Netflix it though.
scrawled by JasonD | August 11, 2008 3:01 PM