Today we have yet another movie review. Last night, I went to see the new Will Smith movie, Hancock, with a bunch of friends, and we all enjoyed the film.Hancock is not great, as the harsh reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (36%) point out, but I found it very funny and very enjoyable. Just like Click, the first half of the movie is packed with laugh-out-loud moments, while the second half of the movie turns into something completely different. This has apparently bothered lots of critics, who claim this is one of Smith's worst movies ever (the worst since Wild Wild West, somebody said), and they blame it on the fact that parts of the movie were changed and reshot in May. I agree with the reviews that say that the movie has a hard time finding its own identity, though. Is it a comedy? An action movie? A drama? A bitter criticism of society? Well, all these elements are certainly present in the film, and sometimes a movie can be more than one thing at the same time, right? And still, Hancock changes so much that it sometimes leaves you wondering.
Still, the story is very interesting, and the first part is great, with Hancock dealing with his miserable life and being an ass to pretty much everyone (this includes, hilariously enough, little kids). The acting is also terrific, and Will Smith in particular knocks it out of the ballpark playing the troubled superhero. Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron also do a very good job, and their interaction is always fun to watch.
The one thing I didn't like at all was the camerawork. For some reason, the whole movie seems to be shot with a handheld camera, and every single take is wobbly and shaky and all over the place. Since this visual style doesn't add anything to the movie at all, I wonder why on Earth they decided to do it, since it looks terribly amateurish and it only annoys the audience (I wasn't the only one who pointed this out). Even scenes with people sitting at the table are shot this way. Why?
All in all, Hancock is a fun film, but it is far from Smith's best movies, even if his performance is indeed above average. It is enjoyable, surprising, and very foul-mouthed (always a good thing in my book), and I recommend it to everyone who wants to have a good time at the movies.
8 comments:
Bueno, pues otra peli del Smith que es un exitazo de taquilla en potencia. Al menos durante las primeras dos semanas.
Desde luego Will Smith nos tenía muy mal acostumbrados al cumplir una y otra vez un mínimo de calidad exigible. Bueno, y digo tenía sin haber visto la película aún. Que no me extrañaría nada que no me pareciese tan mala como a los críticos de Tomates Podridos.
Creo que los de Tomates Podridos (hehe) se han pasado en su negatividad. Y Smith lleva ya siete u ocho películas seguidas que superan los cien millones de dólares en recaudación doméstica. Y ya sé que recaudación y calidad no tienen por qué ir cogidos de la mano, pero Hancock es cachonda, y espero que al bueno de Will le siga la racha.
¿Pero Hancock es cachonda en plan Hitch o en plan más Borat? Sin llegar al extremo de que el Smith enseñe la pilila por los pasillos de su hotel, claro.
El humor es más brusco que en Hitch, pero sin irse por derroteros boratescos. Es... diferente.
Sí, bueno, supongo que he exagerado un poco al mencionar Borat. Es que no se me ocurría así a bote pronto una película más adecuada.
Pero vamos, que me hago una idea.
A ver si pillo unas entradas gratis de esas que traen de cuando en cuando por el hotel y me voy a verla. O Los Cronocrímenes, que también promete.
Los cronoqué?
Jeje, Los Cronocrímenes, la primera peli de Nacho Vigalondo. De extraños viajes en el tiempo, o algo así. Realmente no sé nada más de ella.
Bueno sí, que antes incluso de que se la comprara alguien aquí al Vigalondo, ya le compró los derechos para el remake la Universal, creo.
Curioso, pardiez!
Post a Comment