Sometimes you just have to give in and watch a blockbuster Hollywood fluff flick . . . or two. Hancock and The Dark Knight sat in our queue for weeks, each bearing Netflix’s dreaded “very long wait” warning. Our wait ended last week, and we watched them back to back.
 |
Hancock (2008). A movie about a man with superhuman powers. Will Smith plays that man, who incidentally is a dirtbag, but he’s such a likable actor you barely notice. I’m pleased to say I also barely noticed the CGI manipulations behind the visually spectacular special effects. The movie’s rated PG-13 because Will Smith swears, screws, and drinks, but these bits are so overwhelmed by the movie’s happy fantasy premise, they matter not at all. Think Billy Bob Thornton in Bad Santa. Entertaining, satisfying, instantly forgettable. |
 |
The Dark Knight (2008). Another movie about a man with superhuman powers. Who faces villains with superhuman powers. It too has likable actors (okay, not so much Christian Bale or Heath Ledger, but certainly Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and — for a while, at least — Aaron Eckhart); it too is visually spectacular; it too is rated PG-13. There the similarity ends. I always hated it that Batman movies are filmed in the dark, where everything’s so hard to see, but that’s Batman’s shtick and what are you gonna do about it? Much of this sequel is filmed in daylight, but its soul is dark . . . so dark, in fact, Donna and I both question its PG-13 rating. The violence is horrendous and graphic. Evil comes at you from all directions and never stops. Premise, plot line, ending . . . dark through and through. How residents of Gotham manage to get through the day without slitting their wrists is a mystery. If Hancock was created by normal but somewhat juvenile minds, The Dark Knight was created by dementors. I would not take a 13-year-old to see this movie. |