Variety‘s Todd McCarthy has just reviewed Sony’s Hancock and hilariously said it has “a certain whiff of” 1993′s The Last Action Hero. Oy. Since that infamous pic brought down upper management of the studio way back then. If the Sony Pictures Entertainment toppers weren’t all heading into the Barack Obama $2,300-per-person fundraiser at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in the Los Angeles Music Center right now, I’d bet you could hear their screams all over Hollywood. As for the pic, it doesn’t have to be good to make $$$. It’s only 92 minutes long. And Will Smith owns July 4th weekend.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.



Wow… Just… Wow.
I think the concept of Hancock is fantastic… I just can’t imagine it is THAT bad…
92 minutes??? Wow, that says something.
My kids are waiting and their parents too…
“I just can’t imagine it is THAT bad…”
I can. We’ve seen this cliche’ over and over, the bitter jerk finds his emotional caring side, bleagh!!! Throwing a costume on this guy and adding regurgitated Will Smith jokes will not fool me, or anyone else for that matter.
I go to super-hero flicks because I can escape tired storylines like this. This is an attempt to revise a worked-over premise and dress it up for comic fans. Smith is the same Men In Black character with the same crappy jokes, but this time he can fly. Hurm.
I thought the concept on Last Action Hero was fantastic too…
Before we start lowering expectations, it’s important to note that Hancock is an R-rated gritty revision of a highly lucrative genre starring possibly the biggest box office star in the world and Last Action Hero was a PG-rated meta-revision of a highly saturated genre starring possibly the most stereotypical (iconic) star of the time. One of them has a kid sidekick and a hero who literally jumps off the screen, the other is a degenerate superhero.
Never bet against Will Smith on July 4th
Surely it can’t be worse than Spidey & Pirates 3
And am I the only one who thought ‘Last Action Hero’ was a good movie (in the summer blockbuster genre)?
On second thoughts, don’t answer that.
Who cares about the review? The film is review-proof and will make $250 million.
At this point, the greenlighters think Smith is a sure thing at the box office, so actual story arcs matter less and less. I Am Legend was a shitty film, but Smith was in it, so people went in droves. If Hancock is awful on paper, Smith’s brand might start taking a hit.
The concept IS fantastic – but after reading a script review it seems instead of keeping it simple and streamlined they tried to gussy it up with a really inane plot twist and various other lame contrivances in the last act. That script review made it swan dive right off my must see list into the flames of I guess I’ll rent it on video out of morbid curiosity.
It will still have a massive opening weekend no matter the reviews. Would be nice to wipe that ‘July 4th is MY weekend” smirk of Smith’s face.
When I saw the trailer for Hancock, it really reminded me of an Alan Arkin/Christopher Lee musical comedy from way back in the mid 1980s called ‘The Return of Captain Invincible.’ I enjoyed that film, but to say it was ‘under the radar’ would be an overstatement!
So the concept isn’t new or particularly original. It will rise or fall on star power and execution. Wait and see.
I don’t think anybody’s arguing or doubting that it will open huge. The point is that once said audiences are stung by it the word of mouth will be abysmal and it’ll plummet in week 2.
@ killertv
It’s not R it’s PG-13.
The ad campaign’s been great so far. The trailer works, and Will Smith has been on a roll lately with “I Am Legend” and “Pursuit of happiness,” so I think the film will be fine. Whenever an action movie can get women excited about seeing it, it’s gonna do well.
agree with “chris” regarding will smith’s smirk
Last Action Hero has been beaten around far too much and for far too long. I think that the concept behind LAH was and still is fantastic and worthy of more exploration. The problem the film ran into, I believe, is when it abandoned the hyper-fictional realm of Jack Slater’s world (replete with animated cats that were police officers and video store clerks that looked like something out of Penthouse) and decided to spend an inordinate amount of time in the “real” world where there are “real” problems and so on.
It’s understood that any high budget film of this ilk needs to have their star learn some goddamn lesson… but wouldn’t it have been a sight cooler if the kid from the real world made Jack learn something about himself in a universe where one well-placed bullet could explode an entire convoy of trucks?
I mean, that takes you back. Putting the action hero in the real world makes the lesson he learns so much easier and so much more easily dismissed. Hell, when you’ve fallen from paradise humility comes easily. But humility amongst angels, honey dew and supermodel video store clerks is sublime.
I also believe that LAH should have ditched the kid, been done as an over-the-top action/comedy and been hellaciously absurd throughout.
Of course, I also would have kept Hancock a reckless superhuman drunk at the end…but that’s just because I hate lessons and love drinking.
Wouldn’t that be funny…Smith having his Last Action Hero moment.
Last Action was a great concept – it was just screwed up in the making of.
Saw the movie Monday night. Definitely not as bad as “Last Action Hero”. This one had a unique concept, but was just poorly executed. Way too many holes in the plot. The brainiacs at Sony marketing are trying to sell this as an action-comedy but it’s really a pretty dark film. Will still open huge, but big drop the second week.
killertv:
‘Before we start lowering expectations, it’s important to note that Hancock is an R-rated gritty revision’
Hancock is pg-13. the review does sound like last action hero. or maybe the Last Boy Scout. or maybe they should call it hackcock.
I saw the film Hancock at a screening a few days ago and LOVED
LOVED LOVED it. The film is the surprise film of the
suumer. I’ll probably go see it again in the
theatre once it opens. Lots of fun.
saw it yesterday. was disappointed. not as bad as LAH but not worth seeing on the big screen. First act is fine (pretty much the trailer) and steals lots of gags from the Iron Man demon in a bottle story. The second act has a very badly chosen plot twist and the third is full of plot holes.
Vince Gilligan wrote an incredible script during his rewrites…they probably tweak, tweak, tweaked it to death if it’s as bad as you say.
The “pitch” of HANCOCK sounds great, the trailer looks great… 92 minutes, well, why on Earth every blockbuster should be close to three hours long?
As long as that Hancock guy doesn’t have to find a ring, or play Poker with a terrorist banker in Montenegro (sigh).
If you read the original script “Tonigh He Comes” you’d understand the problem. The final version takes the concept, blasts away the plot and pours in a new, cheaper, more “Hollywood” plot.
The original was pretty black. This one looks pretty blands.
And at 92 minutes, how much have we not already seen in the trailers?
It’s the same with Heath Leger’s performance in Batman. How much have they not yet shown in the SIX trailers which are almost all (and since his sui– death are pretty much TOTALLY) exploiting him?
Saw this film a month ago…it is excreble. Lazy, inane and just flat out boring. Worst Will Smith film ever and that’s saying a lot. This is the kind of film that makes me sad for the state of Hollywood filmaking. Avoid at all costs. Smith doesn’t deserve July 4th weekend anymore.
The original script by Vincent Ngo was brilliant. Judging by the reviews and the trailer, the creative “minds” in charge of this thing made some “enhancements” that were about as effective as Michael Jackson’s nose jobs.
This is a shining example of turning a great script into a complete turd. Nice job guys.