ScottHodgins's Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews


The worst part of this movie was the 3D glasses I had to wear. And the part where a 12 year old boy, who sat behind me in the theater, kept on saying "cool" every 10 minutes.

This movie is excellent. I would have given it 100% but it lost 10% for spoon-feeding me too much fore-shadowing.

My recommendation is see it 3 times. Once in 3D, once in 2D, and get it on DVD in a year and a half when it's out of theaters.

Avatar is really worth watching.


Daybreakers seems like a creative take on a vampire movie and that is not without merit.

Vampirism has become the new normalcy for 'human' civilization, replacing regular humans and forcing them into hiding. This allows vampire society to work as an analogy for modern human society and this is where some good social commentary comes in.

One of these commentaries involves how over-consumption of resources leads to famine and social instability. There's an added layer to this when we see that the head of the blood products company that feeds the vampire world with its blood needs is not interested in fixing the problem so much as maintaining a business model that profits from the need for blood and the demand for real human blood.

Unfortunately, much of the creativeness and intelligence of this movie is diluted by bad story telling and equally bad editing. The movie does not flow well and we're left with climactic sequences which feel forced and ill-timed.

This is when you get problems like when characters that you're pretty sure are supposed to be important are killed off but you still don't feel much for it because you have no vested emotions banked in these characters. Or when an amazing solution is presented to a problem that didn't seem to exist.

It can all be summed up by a lack of character development and a lack of anticipation-and-resolution. Quite simply, I didn't feel much of anything for the characters and so the story was not nearly as engaging as it should have been.

And the only thing I will remember from this movie is a line where Willem Dafoe's character mentions "bare-backing" a $5 prostitute.


Perhaps the majority of movie critics went into Hancock expecting a superhero movie, and who could blame them? It's a movie about a superhero. But after a single viewing it should become apparent that the film has nothing to do with superheros saving the helpless masses from supervillains.

In fact, the villains in the movie exist only to affirm Hancock as a crime-fighting vigilante. They're not only secondary to the main story line, they're practically background props. The true challenge to Hancock isn't any bad man - Hancock's obstacle is himself (which shouldn't suprise anyone considering that the movie was pitched as being about a drunken, ill-tempered superhero).

I'll agree that the movie's action sequences could've been more glorious and better planned out, but once again, this movie's not about that. Perhaps to really 'get' what Hancock is about, imagine that he wasn't a superhuman nor a hero. Pretend that Hancock was just a troubled guy with loads of potential to do good in the world. Because the superhero aspect is just this story's way of reinventing the troubled individual. A juxtaposition, if you will.

I really enjoyed this movie, so I'm giving it 8/10. It's highlights are an interesting story and enjoyable actors playing their roles. It's low-points are that it tries to be funny, action-packed, and story-telling all at the same time so its efforts aren't focused enough. Perhaps if they dropped the special-effects action sequences and focused on the characters it would be a great movie (though not a summer blockbuster). Or they could've just ditched the story and cast another big name as the role of a supervillain and the critics would eat it up. (I'm referring to you, Ironman.)

Final note: I'm craving spaghetti and meatballs.