On "Hancock"

I'm a little late in posting this, but I finally got my new power cord in and I'm back and posting.

From The Dispatch:
At only 80 minutes long, "Hancock" feels more like an undeveloped concept than a fully fleshed-out film. The first half of the film or so is great fun, with Smith hugely likable as always as the ornery Hancock. But somewhere around the halfway point, the film begins to take itself too seriously and introduces a third-act twist that nearly derails the entire movie.

Director Peter Berg's previous films have been both good ("Friday Night Lights") and mediocre ("The Kingdom"), and "Hancock" ultimately falls in the latter category. The final act is just too random, too undeveloped and ultimately too ridiculous to complement everything that led up to it. Add that to some truly lame villains, and the end result is much less than its potential.
Click here to read my full review.


Anonymous said…
Fantastic review Matt, and you and I definitely see eye to eye on this one.
Anonymous said…
I have to agree - it felt like the director had a serious case of ADD and got distracted about 2/3 of the way through... I thought the beginning was great, and even though I wasn't sure about the 'twist', I thought maybe somehow they'd make it work by the end of the movie... Then the end came and everything was still just hanging out there unfinished. Very disappointing.

Popular Posts