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.
Wow… Just… Wow.
I think the concept of Hancock is fantastic… I just can’t imagine it is THAT bad…
Comment by Clayton — June 24, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
92 minutes??? Wow, that says something.
Comment by Steven — June 24, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
My kids are waiting and their parents too…
Comment by scriptoman — June 24, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
“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.
Comment by Alveraz — June 24, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
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
Comment by killertv — June 24, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
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.
Comment by Blockbuster fan — June 24, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Who cares about the review? The film is review-proof and will make $250 million.
Comment by Wolf Muther — June 24, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
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.
Comment by zak — June 24, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
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.
Comment by Chromey — June 24, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
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.
Comment by Chris — June 24, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
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.
Comment by Vinnie Vegas — June 24, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
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.
Comment by Chromey — June 24, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
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.
Comment by sharonfranz — June 24, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
agree with “chris” regarding will smith’s smirk
Comment by yup — June 24, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
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.
Comment by Fseton — June 24, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
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.
Comment by Michael Dobrofsky — June 24, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
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.
Comment by Sabado Gigante — June 24, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
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.
Comment by reviewit — June 24, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
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.
Comment by noname — June 24, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
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.
Comment by annoymouse — June 24, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
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.
Comment by Anonymous — June 24, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
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).
Comment by Thierry Attard — June 24, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
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?
Comment by anotherWGAmember — June 24, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
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.
Comment by Marlowe — June 25, 2008 @ 1:19 am
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.
Comment by Joshua Goldstein — June 25, 2008 @ 6:52 am
We’re not seeing Hancock
All male cast/crew, with woman as girlfriend. This is why movies have become so tiresome
Boycotting movies like these, saving our dollars for the occasional movie with some genuine female imprint
Comment by Bored ones — June 25, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Well…
Keep in mind that this film has been fighting with the MPAA to get a PG-13 rating….
The film was originally submitted 3 times at around 120 minutes (give or take)….
Hell, they were reshooting as recently as 6 weeks ago. Anything to replace footage that was going to have to be cut to get the PG-13.
As screenings go, most exhibitors saw the film yesterday and report that they seemed to like it and expect it to open very big….
But, big openings and Will (Mr. 4th of July) Smith doesn’t always equal big success!
Anyone remember The Wild, Wild West (opening at 49M and only took 113M)?
Coop
Comment by Cooper — June 25, 2008 @ 7:26 am
anotherWGAmember: Exactly.
I didn’t even like “Tonight, He Comes” when I first read it (10 years ago). But it was very different than the Hancock trailers.
Different, in this case = better
But different also = smaller box office
Comment by S — June 25, 2008 @ 7:26 am
I remember seeing Last Action Hero about four weeks after everyone proclaimed it as a bomb (this was when movies played longer than three weeks in theaters), and found it quite enjoyable. Not Arnold’s best film, not his worst film, but in the middle of the pack. A typical John McTiernan action picture.
The “bomb” part of it was mostly in the minds of the journalists writing about it. The picture cost $85 million (a lot of money for its time), but it took in $50 million domestic and $87 million international, for a respectable $137 million gross.
This was a picture that had a great initial script, but legal troubles changed it substantially. Originally, Arnold was suppose to fight Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, and the Mummy, but Universal had trademarked their versions of the characters and threatened to sue if any of the characters were green, wore a cape, had a lot of facial hair, or was wrapped in bandages. So the movie was rewritten from villains you knew and knew their back-stories to new villains you didn’t recognize and knew nothing about.
Hancock has a similar problem. The original script was written in 1996 and over the years has had a long line of directors attached to it: Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Jonathan Mostow, and Gabriele Muccino.
Obviously, it’s been substantially rewritten and a running length of 92 minutes seems problematic. Material has been cut to make it PG-13 after receiving R ratings twice before the MPAA (leaving a director’s cut open for its DVD release). Some advance reviews seem to indicate problems with the plot and the ending.
Still, a short running time will allow theaters to give it more showings during the day, and with Will Smith and some great trailers, I agree with folks who say that this film will do boffo business for the Fourth of July weekend. Commercially, the film will do very well, which is all Hollywood wants these days.
Comment by Dan Zee — June 25, 2008 @ 8:00 am
“We’ve seen this cliche’ over and over, the bitter jerk finds his emotional caring side, bleagh!!!”
Have you seen the movie? Is this what ends up happening?
The trailers give the impression that he stays a jerk, which is a large part of the appeal of the trailers. Are they hiding the fact that this gets sappy at the end?
It sounds like the opening is decent, but the rest falls apart, meaning the trailer is mainly just showing stuff from the first part of the movie. Is it just me, or is it a bit worrisome that the trailer doesn’t give any hint what the plot of the movie is, or who (if anyone?) he faces off against at the end? I suppose it could be that they’re just keeping those things a surprise (like Iron Man generally did), but in this case it makes me wonder what is in this movie beyond the initial setup of showing the guy screwing up and then trying to fix his image.
This might be huge, but I agree with those who suspect it will open huge but drop huge - maybe open to around 100M but only end up with 200? Sure, that’s still big, but maybe not even top 5 for the summer. This doesn’t sound like Lowest Common Denominator bad where critics hate it but audiences eat it up, it sounds more like WTF bad where audiences will be put off by it and give it bad word of mouth.
Anyone know what the budget was on this?
Comment by milo — June 25, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Wait…I thought Variety was the evil tool designed to do nothing but PR for the studios? Now I should pay attention to their movie reviews?
Comment by editor — June 25, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Forgive my slip - I remember the film was aiming for a PG13 but had to keep going back to the ratings board because it kept leaving with an R. I heard one of the scenes that had to be cut was a minor being raped. Last Action Hero this is not.
Comment by killertv — June 25, 2008 @ 10:54 am
I can believe it. If you read the original script and then saw the giant turd that the studio over-developed it into — you’d vomit.
Comment by POW! — June 25, 2008 @ 11:09 am
“All male cast/crew, with woman as girlfriend.”
I can see why you’d assume that from the trailers, but that’s not the case with the film. Can’t really go into more detail without spoilers.
Really, “boycott” this over perceived feminist issues? I’m sure there are plenty of reasons to avoid this, but that seems like kind of a dumb one.
I wonder if the original cut that earned an R is any better? If they really wanted a PG-13, it was careless of them to not address potential issues at the script stage, instead of having to reshoot at the last minute.
Comment by milo — June 25, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Will this end Smith’s “streak”? I guess it depends on how that’s being defined. If it’s just a matter of a $100 million opening, then probably not.
Hancock will certainly enjoy a huge opening weekend, judging by the high tracking it’s receiving. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the film took a huge dive the following weekend, or resulted in some bad publicity for Smith. After all, look at how many “Smith is invincible” stories we’ve seen in recent weeks.
25 years ago on a July 4th weekend, Burt Reynolds saw his career burn out with Stroker Ace. 15 years ago, it was Arnold and Last Action Hero. It doesn’t always take an outright bomb for someone’s career to take a turn. As someone noted, the real damage of Last Action Hero wasn’t its box office (although it did cost Sony around $26 million), but it’s significance to both studio and star.
Comment by Kevin — June 25, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
I concur with a few others on here… the original script TONIGHT, HE COMES was brilliant and Michael Mann was attached to direct a few years ago. THAT version would have been cool.
You know the quickest way to destroy a project? Bring Akiva Goldsman onboard to rewrite it.
Comment by Drew — June 25, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I still think this one underperforms. Obviously it will get big numbers here and overseas and turn a hefty profit, but I’m not convinced it beats Iron Man or Indy.
Comment by College Student — June 25, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
I’m still trying to figure out why the various trailers I’ve seen so far have failed to show more than a glimpse (if that) of Academy Award winner Charlize Theron. WTF? They’ve got a hot actress (in more ways than one) in their movie and they don’t even bother to let the audience know she’s in the movie? I for one am sick to death of Will Smith’s alleged “acting” (if you want to call dinner theater production level mugging acting) as well as his annoying press persona (to Will, everything is fabulous which I suppose is par for the course when you don’t live in the real world where war, murder, rape, abortion, theft and backstabbing happens every day).
Comment by Crystal Diane Stevens — June 25, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Wow..so many here hoping for Smith to bomb with his latest offering
Should we wait not for the opening day to gauge the overall performance, both its B.O and user’s review?
c’mon now. This is not a site to blast a movie which has yet to open and save your comments about the actor later.
Tks
Armand
Comment by Armand — June 25, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
When you have a film that solely relies on Will to carry it…there’s a problem. The studios continue to give Will preferential treatment on release dates without any serious competition opening against him. I AM LEGEND is a good example. If THE DARK KNIGHT OR WALL-E was opening on July 2, Hancock, Sony, and Will would not win the day or opening weekend.
Comment by OntheSet — June 26, 2008 @ 1:34 am
Well…
With a Tuesday Night start, it has 6 day opening….
100 Mill should not be that hard to make…
But, if this takes a 70% drop like the original HULK or VILLAGE, then this could be one of Mr. Smith’s biggest Summer disappointments…. Along the lines of WILD, WILD, WEST.
Coop
Comment by Anonymous — June 26, 2008 @ 10:51 am
I agree with so many of the sentiments expressed that Tonight He Comes was such a remarkable script. It was dark, fun, edgy and original, which is a rare find these days. And, I think it could have been brilliant had Gabrielle Muccino directed. I have nothing against Peter Berg, but he created an action movie instead of a humane superhero movie that could have been. Big business once again wins out, but, hey, that is the world we live in.
Comment by Bewildered — June 26, 2008 @ 4:40 pm