Subscribe
The superhero movie Hancock staring Will Smith, Jason Bateman, and Charlize Theron made over $107 million this holiday weekend. The movie had been panned by critics.
The movie website Rotten Tomatoes have it a 37% on their “tomatometer”. That’s where they take published movie reviews and separate the positive reviews from the negative reviews. Out of the 167 reviews for Hancock, 106 of them were negative.
So why did so many people go see Hancock?
The movie studios wont stop making sucky movies if so many of the viewing public continue to go to the theater to watch them. Going to the theater to see Hancock is rewarding bad behavior. It tells the movie studios that they can make bad movies and people will go and watch. Even if the critics let them know before hand, they will still go and watch.
Knock it off. Do not go watch bad movies.
Tony Scarfone
/ July 7, 2008Hey I loved Hancock. Give it a try man.
Cayusa
/ July 7, 2008The main problem with using critics as a guide is that a lot of times they are wrong. I’ve seen a lot of movies that the critics trashed only to walk away having loved the movie.
Speed Racer is a good example. I grew up on Speed Racer and seeing the movie was a really fun experience. I’m not worried about the fact that it probably won’t get an Oscar nomination and I’m not worried that the critics hated it. I went to the theater, spent MY money on something I wanted to see and just over two hours later I walked out of the theater with no regrets. It was a fun time and in the end that is all that really matters to me. I didn’t feel ripped off.
There have been other movies that some artsy fartsy critic loved that I’ve gone and seen and then left feeling like the critic owed me $10 for the ticket and about $100 for pain and suffering.
I’ve had several friends see Hancock already and each of them gave it a thumbs up, although one did suggest I see it at the early bird discounted price.
In most cases I think the box office is a much better guide as to how good a movie is vs. what the critics say, although not always. Spiderman 3 did well at the box office, but I hated most of it. That whole disco Peter Parker thing should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Such potential for the whole darker Peter Parker and they went disco! WTF, but I’m getting off topic. As much as critics love or hate a movie, I think word of mouth and the reviews given by those you know and trust, who have similar likes and dislikes, do more for a movie’s success or failure than what any critic says.
There are certain names, Will Smith being one of them, Lucas or Speilburg being another, and certain characters like Indiana Jones, that will bring in a big opening weekend pot. It is the following weeks and how well a movie that has been out for a week or two does that shows if it was good or not. Anything Will Smith does is going to have a big opening weekend, unless the movie really sucks.
In this case, I’ve heard decent reviews from friends which makes me think that the critics were again not judging the movie on its entertainment value per dollar spent, but rather on some artsy fartsy better than the common man standard. I know I don’t go to the movies to see great art, but rather to be entertained and not feel like I was ripped off. If a movie can entertain me and I walk about feeling like I didn’t waste my money, then it gets the thumbs up from me.
DJ Sloofus
/ July 9, 2008Make sure you see Hancock. How else will Will Smith be able to afford to build a school that teaches children the importance of cleansing their body Thetans and keeping that intergalactic overlord locked up in a mountain, before he gets up to no good again?