bigstuff2020

Some movies are simply poor ideas put into practice and thus become movies we come to regard as "bad". Others are good ideas that are presented to the viewer and are often well-received. Then there's Peter Berg's "Hancock", the story of a boozing, loutish, seemingly un-superhero that falls somewhere in between the aforementioned categories.

Will Smith plays John Hancock, a superhuman with enhanced abilities in strength, invulnerability, and flight, who, though he tries to save Los Angeles from all sorts of crime, usually ends up costing the city millions of dollars in damages and endangering many people through his alcohol-induced carelessness. When the city's officials decide they have had enough, they issue a warrant for Hancock's arrest. At the behest of Ray (Jason Bateman), a publicist who has been saved by the "hero", Hancock enters a county jail to serve his time and prove that the city actually needs him. With Ray regularly consulting him on his public appearance and the city's crime rate rising at an astonishing 30 percent over a two week time span, Hancock emerges from jail by request of the captain of the LAPD to once again the city safe.

With these pieces set into place with plenty of humor sprinkled throughout the movie, I was convinced that critics were simply being stuck up in their reviews - true to form, many critics poorly rate movies they deem to be below them. However, the plot actually takes a turn for the worse in trying to trace the path of Hancock's origin and also build his romance with Ray's wife Mary, played by Charlize Theron. While the first half of the film had been very much enjoyable, the last half hour or so drags, with the comedy running sparse and the storyline running thin. In the end, "Hancock" is less likable due to it's poor execution in the second half, and I found myself in the same situation as many critics - disappointed.

And thus, I return to my initial point; "Hancock" is not bad idea for a film - in fact, it has the potential to work as a great action comedy - but it falls short of the expectations many would hold for it by falling somewhere in between "good" and "bad".

I had just went to see a pre-screening of pulse last night, and I must say that it was not all that bad compared to recent horror films. The main problem with pulse is that in trying to be original it borrows from other films. I understand that this is an American version of a film from Japan. The film just reminded me of too many other films for me really to appreciate it. Once again this was a pre-screening and I am 100% sure that parts of the version I have seen will be changed. The other problem with pulse is that it is very hard to follow at times, and you are left to interpret the movie in your own way. The deaths are also very cheesy, and not really that creative. I am a huge horror fan and I was really interested to see this film because of the trailer that I very much enjoyed. The movie gets a boost in points for breaking away from the normal horror films we have been seeing as of late. Another thing that I had to pick at was the mediocre acting of the main star Kristen Bell. She just did not give a great performance...the rest of the cast with the exception of Ziagler give somewhat good performances. To continue on the scares were another part that bothered me..once again we see a pg13 movie relying on loud noises and crashes to make the audience jump...but on a brighter side there are a few scenes (the laundry room scene, and the car attack scene towards the end) that were actually pretty scary. One last thing the ending is not all that great, it is one of those things that you either love or hate...the audience at our screening mainly hated it, I will assume it will be changed come the release date. Overall "Pulse" is a decent horror film which is a step above the horror movies that I have seen as of late, just do not be surprised if you are left scratching your head after this film is over.