Hancock (2008)

The superhero genre gets flipped on its head with the release of Will Smith's new blockbuster Hancock. It is widely known that putting Will Smith in a lead role leads to box office gold, and with Hancock that trend continued as it grossed an estimated $63 million dollars in its opening weekend. But did this movie really deserve that business? After last years mediocre box office hit I Am Legend, I started to feel that maybe studios realized they don't need to make the movie good, just as long as Will Smith was headlining. I'm afraid the situation is the same with Hancock. The intriguing storyline follows Hancock (Will Smith), a booze-soaked superhero that has become a nuisance in the public eye. Every effort he makes to help fight crime ultimately leads to even more disaster. But Hancock's luck begins to change when he saves Public Relations representative Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) from being hit by a train. Although the community isn't happy about the destroyed train, the grateful Embrey invites Hancock to his house to discuss a proposition. Embrey wants to help Hancock become a beloved figure because that's what heroes deserve. Much to Ray's wife Mary's (Charlize Theron) chagrin, Hancock agrees to work to better his image. Using a mix of dark comedy and drama, Hancock sounds great on paper, but the transfer onto the screen is far from impressive.

There are a laundry list of problems that plagued this movie, but the number one reason Hancock suffers is the direction of Peter Berg. It is possible that Hancock could have succeeded as a straight up comedic superhero film that didn't take itself too seriously, but a heavy reliance on drama gave this movie the kiss of death. With such a clever and amusing plot, it is simply nonsensical to focus mainly on the serious aspects of the script. Berg seemed to realize this a little bit, as he did try to sprinkle as much comedy into the film as possible, but the execution was weak and altogether shoddy. It felt like when he was planning it he said, "OK we will have 5 minutes of comedy, then we'll do 15 minutes of serious, and then another 5 minutes of comedy, and then maybe 10 minutes of serious comedy, and then 5 minutes of just serious...." It did not feel authentic is the point I am trying to reach. Boring cinematography paired with cartoonish special effects turn Hancock into not only a visually unappealing film, but a dull film. A summer movie-goer will not be pleased with the scenes of destruction, as the film (despite Hancock's unruly nature) was very tame as far as action goes. Peter Berg messed up big time. (An even bigger mistake than agreeing to star in Corky Romano. God that movie sucked.)

As always Will Smith puts forth a major league effort to make the movie the best that he could. That is something that I have no problem crediting him with. Every film I have seen him in he gives it his all, which is more than I can say for many actors. The problem is, pretty much exactly what I said in my I Am Legend review, Will Smith is a GOOD actor but he is not a GREAT actor. He cannot carry a film on his shoulders without some support. Some may contest that The Pursuit of Happyness negates my opinion, but I have not seen that movie so my opinion stands. I am yet to see a film that Will Smith single-handedly overhauls, and that includes Hancock. Despite his huge effort, Smith's performance is really only enjoyable for the first half of the film. I was entertained as Hancock lackadaisically trudged around being an irritable, unfriendly character. It was when he became a reformed, traditional superhero that I began to lose interest. On top of this, Smith does not get the support he needs from the cast around him. Jason Bateman is always fun to watch, and I did like him in this picture. But there wasn't enough done by him to make the film itself better. The same goes for Charlize Theron, whose character of Mary was just boring. And much to my dismay, Mary becomes an important piece of the films plot. Performances: strike two for this movie.

It was probably difficult work coming up with a completely new superhero to base a movie off of. You can tell the writers had trouble making Hancock unique because his powers are flight, strength, and invincibility. Basically, he's a second rate superman. Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan are the men responsible for this screenplay, and they came very close to making it great. But with the inclusion of a twist that is downright silly and unsatisfying, Hancock's story takes an ugly turn as it tries to be intelligent and creative. Perhaps Peter Berg doesn't deserve the brunt of the blame, and the writers should be chastised for the missteps of Hancock. After a promising start, the story debilitates into incoherence and leaves us with below average fight sequences and an ending that is far too abrupt to be stimulating.

Running at a mere 92 minutes, Hancock does us some good by not dragging out its existence. Any longer, and this movie would be receiving an even lower rating from me. There is a line in one of the commercials for this film where Hancock says "Does it look like I care about what people think?" I think that was filmed accidentally, and it was just Will Smith talking to somebody on the set. Someone told him "You know Will, this movie isn't very good. People are probably going to think you lost your touch", and then he responded with "Does it look like I care what people think? They'll pay to see me and that's all that matters." Only the camera cut before he could include that second statement. I'm kidding of course. I have nothing but respect for Will Smith. I just found it ironic that his character says that line, while critics everywhere are bashing this film. OK it was a stupid joke, let's move on. Hancock is a good idea that is marred by bad direction, performances, and plot development. The only thing saving Hancock from a rating of 2 is an entertaining first act. My rating (4/10)

WALL-E (2008)

Pixar once again joins the summer line-up, this time with the release of its new film WALL-E. After seeing and despising Ratatouille last year, I held a strong hope in my heart that WALL-E would redeem my respect for Pixar. Although it wasn't exactly what I hoped it would be, WALL-E is, in my opinion, a huge step up from Ratatouille and has brought back the feeling of admiration I once held for this company. After an adorable and clever short entitled Presto, the feature film begins, introducing us to earth 800 years in the future. After years of neglect, humans have left the earth completely overridden with garbage. To try and remedy this situation, major corporation Buy N Large launches a plan to evacuate everybody on earth to outer space on a ship called Axiom while the mess behind them is cleaned. WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) is the small garbage collecting robot that has been charged with the task of cleaning up the disorder. Alone with the exception of a friendly cockroach, WALL-E spends his existence collecting trash, foraging for interesting toys, and watching Hello Dolly. One day while WALL-E is going through his usual motions, a space ship lands on earth and from it comes Eve, a sleek white robot that WALL-E falls for immediately. After a rocky first meeting, WALL-E starts showing Eve around his world, and even performs some dance moves that he picked up from Hello Dolly. When he shows her a small plant that he found, we discover that Eve was sent from the Axiom to find if life could once again be sustained on earth. This plant being proof, she returns to her ship and lifts off, unknowingly carrying WALL-E on the ships' back. Once on the Axiom, we see what humans have been reduced to, carrying out their lives on reclined seats having robots do anything and everything for them. Going deeper into the actual conflict of the film would be giving away the surprise, so I'm afraid I have to stop here.

Like I previously stated, WALL-E is a huge step up from Ratatouille. The main reasons I did not enjoy Ratatouille was due to lack of humor, heart, and enjoyable characters. WALL-E is chock full of all of those things, and more. The curious little robot WALL-E inspires laughter and warmth of the heart simply by being adorable. It seems almost ridiculous to think a box with eyes could be cute, but Pixar knows how to create characters that make an audience say "awwwwwwwww!" WALL-E's voice, provided by Ben Burtt, is comical in its own sense, as it relays an air of innocence mixed with whimsy. The timid and questioning nature of WALL-E is one that I think many children will relate too and enjoy watching. There is also a very endearing love story to appreciate in WALL-E that borders on almost irritatingly adorable. Although Eve is not a particularly interesting character, the way we see her playing off of WALL-E works to perfection. Later in the film when WALL-E boards the Axiom we meet the Captain of the ship, who was voiced by Jeff Garlin. The Captain is also a very amusing addition to the film as a representative of the rest of the people on the ship who have lost touch with the world and only know it from looking at their computer screens.

There is quite a bit of symbolism in WALL-E. Actually, they are not so much symbols as blatant messages that the filmmakers were trying to get us to acknowledge. Showing us an overweight population flowing through life on chairs, not even turning their heads to speak to other people is a bleak foreshadowing of what we have to look forward to if we carry on the way we are. It may sound preachy, but it doesn't make it any less true. To a more mature crowd, these symbols are obvious but for little children, I think this a really effective way to teach them to break the trend and not let laziness overtake their lives. The other messages that convey the fact that big businesses are evil and that neglect for the earth will lead to catastrophe are a bit played out, and I didn't feel as affected by them.

But so far I have only highlighted the positive aspects of WALL-E, and I have been dancing around a fact that is extremely important to mention. WALL-E is boring. Not the entire film, but a good majority of it is. Cute characters and beautiful animations can still not distract me from the fact that for almost all of the film, the only words spoken were "WALL-E" and "Eve". I'm sure it was the filmmakers intention to have us view this film as a work of art and appreciate the animations, and I did that. But just like I said in my Ratatouille review, animations DO NOT make a movie good. They HELP a movie be good, but they don't MAKE a movie good. You still need (or at least I still need) involving interactions and events to keep my eye. Otherwise your attention drifts and you have to make an effort to get back into it. I don't like to expend energy when I watch movies.

WALL-E runs at about 98 minutes, and is entertaining for the first 35 of those minutes. Watching WALL-E explore the trash covered world, picking up random objects and having fun with them made me laugh and kept me into it, and when Eve arrived I was happy to see an interaction between characters. But once WALL-E enters space, the movie becomes an artsy film and relies heavily on its animations. While I was watching it, I felt like I was watching a short film that had been extended to be a full length feature. As a matter of fact, the short film that played before WALL-E, entitled Presto, was just as entertaining as the film itself. It was funny, cute, and clever: 3 things I want from Pixar. In the 3 minutes that the short ran, I laughed out loud more times consecutively than I did for WALL-E, which only gave me intermittent laughs. WALL-E isn't a total loss, as it does provide amusement for some time, its' effects are magnificent, and it sends an excellent message to children about laziness. On a scale of Ratatouille to Toy Story, WALL-E is about A Bug's Life. In other words, my rating (6/10)