HANCOCK [spoilers]

[Revlid]

Dammit.

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. It had great acting, an interesting plot hook, and well-defined characters. The first half had such potential, and if I'd left the cinema right about when he leans down to kiss the wife, I'd have thought it was a great film.

And then the second half lost control of its bodily functions - ****ting all over itself with unclear yet obvious exposition, plot holes you could fly a plane through, a lack of any emotional feedback greater than that of a lobotomized shrew, and fridge logic that could fill the meat locker from Rocky.

The basic premise:
Hancock is an amnesiac superhuman. He's a good guy, but also basically an *******. The exact opposite of a Villain with Good Publicity. Not even like Spider-Man, as he actually deserves the bad press he gets. Foul-mouthed, alcoholic, sexist, inconsiderate and violent, yet he saves lives and beats up bad guys on a daily basis.

So Far: Good.

One day he saves a PR guy, who decides, instead of continuing his flop of a charity, to try to turn Hancock into an actual Superhero. He needs an actual costume, anger management/alcoholism courses, and lessons in respecting public property. Hancock reluctantly agrees, but how long can he go on without being an *******?

So Far: Good.

Now for the second half:
The PR guy's wife turns out to be an immortal superwoman created by God, just like Hancock, who abandoned him after he lost his memory. They had been husband and wife, saving people throughout the centuries, but being together makes them mortal. It is never explained how they saved lives without powers, or how they lived so long if they were mortals, or why Hancock or her were never affected before.

Okay. This is all a bit out of left field, but whatever, if handled well, and I mean really well, like Guillermo Del Toro well, then it could work.

This bites Hancock in the ass when they both get shot by former comic relief characters while talking and die. The comic relief villains are killed, one by the PR guy with an axe (which is done for laughs). Hancock somehow revives, and runs away so his former wife can regain her powers (despite apparently keeping his own powers). We never really see PR guy's reaction to this, or the revelation that his wife is an angel. The movie ends with Hancock somehow drawing the PR guy's charity symbol on the moon (dust from Mars, maybe? This bit is rather good, actually, I was expecting a quip about "great exposure", it's just unexplained).

What the ****?


Okay, Hancock writers, here's two suggestions for alternate second halves:

a) Cut out the whole plot about the PR guy's wife being a superhuman/angel/whatever. Just leave it out.

b) Dedicate that time to making Hancock's former beatings a more credible threat. The line: "We gotta take our power back." is tailor made for this - have one of them work out Hancock's amnesiac origins (newspaper from 80 years ago+government documents+ancient texts?) as an immortal and discover a way to steal his power. Each of them only gets a certain fraction of that power, but they try to overwhelm him with numbers. Add more guys he's 'wronged' (whale excluded) if you feel like it, from down his whole career.

c) This also serves to illustrate the fact that, whatever else he is, Hancock is still an *******, and makes his final, permanent transformation into a superhero more powerful. His attempt to have an affair with the PR guy's wife is genuine, not "just physics".

OR

a) Cut out the whole plot about the superhumans being "built in pairs". Have the wife belong to a whole society of superhumans - they were the ones responsible for Hancock's amnesia (what can harm a superman but another superman?), largely because he refused to stay secret, and was a total *******.

b) Hancock threatens them with his very existence - they don't want to go public or be suspected, which is why Hancock making their existence seem possible is a bad thing for them. They're not bad or good people, or *******s. Hancock is a good person, but is also an *******.

c) They try to take away his powers, a natural disaster hits the city, and Hancock is unable to stop it. Finally he gets his powers back, and agrees to leave them alone. Or something. That last bit is a bit nebulous, but still more comprehensible than the last 20 minutes of Hancock.


Your thoughts on Hancock?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I think you hit the nail on the head and I have to agree with about all of it, up to and including really wanting to like it.

It was fantastic until you find out wifey is a superhero, then... not so fantastic. It has so much potential and they went the easy way. I don't know what it was, but even Will Smith didn't shine out like normal, and even in movies of his I didn't like I still liked 'him'.

[Griffinwarrior]

I just saw it today, and I thought it was pretty good, funny, and full of action. The thing with the immortal love thing was okay, but it kind of put a damper on the whole plotline.

But over all, i give it a thumbs up.

[Shraik]

I didn't get it. He could deal with bullet wounds, and get hit by trains but somehow could get drunk on Liquor store booze... how does that work?

[Innis Cabal]

Because booze has nothing to do with how well you deal with being shot on crushed.

Though this is really disapointing to see, i was sort of looking forward to this. Oh well, not ultimatly surprised

[Hawriel]

I didn't get it. He could deal with bullet wounds, and get hit by trains but somehow could get drunk on Liquor store booze... how does that work?

Blunt force trauma is not a cemical raction.

[Querzis]

I was really disapointed by the end of the movie too. It was still enjoyable but the second part of the movie was really an asspull (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Asspull) that pretty much killed Hancock character and the concept of the movie. And thats really annoying because, until we discover the wife super power, I was really enjoying the movie. It wasnt the best movie ever but it was great. And then they screwed up their main plot and their main character to do a crappy aesop about love and destiny. Come on.

[Dhavaer]

I actually really liked it, weird backstory and all. It could have done with some explanation of why Mary (I think that was her name?) had storm and fire powers and Hancock didn't, though.

[Kobold-Bard]

Get rid of the stupid hook handed man and the continuity errors regarding their power loss (he takes two bullets to the chest when he's in a liquor store miles away from her but he can jump out of windows without injury in the next corridor) and you've got a good film.

I actually liked the wierd made in twos by the gods thing, if nothing else it was original. At least you didn't see it coming.

[skywalker]

The only reason I can think of for why his powers worked in those later scenes is because he knew the source of the problem and was actively fighting against it.

I think the idea behind their powers working in the past is that they actually weren't necessarily saving people together. She mentions him saving her several times, but also implies that he sustained severe injuries each time.

Overall, I thought the second half was a little farfetched in a effort to get us emotional, I don't think the transition was made very well, and I wouldn't show it in film school classes, but a pretty good movie.

[Raistlin1040]

Echoing the words of others here, 1st half was brilliant. Original, interesting, funny, ect.

Then came the superpower reveal by Mary. Um, ok I guess. But then the whole hackneyed built in twos thing, and the Superchick summons, like, freaking tornados, and everyone died (But not really). 7/10.

Personally, I think this movie would have been better if it hadn't have been played so straight. Like, make it a bit more of a satire on superhero movies. The crazy backstory could have worked, if it was established that the movie was making a joke at like Marvel and DC's expense.

[The_Werebear]

I did a few mental stretches to explain how the end of the movie and those bits above worked.

First- His powers didn't shut off completely and all at once, but flickered. They worked unreliably, or at varying strengths. He had an off flicker when he got shot, a few on and offs during the fight at the hospital, and the one on flicker that allowed him to drag himself out of the hospital and get far enough away to let Mary heal. This is supported by his powers working intermittently.

Second- As to how they made it this far, every time that Mary was nearly killed, he runs away again. Eventually, the accidentally pull back together, fall in love, and go through this cycle again. The evidence for this is in his actions- Running like hell to let her powers reactivate.

What I want to know is who he was in the past (Hercules, Pecos Bill, whatever), why Hancock had to save Mary each time if she was arguably more powerful (she claims so, and has far more auxiliary powers), and how much Hook-Hand knew (With some of his statements while Hancock lay dying, and by the fact that she mentions that people always come to kill them when they are together, going through her). That stuff never got cleared up to my satisfaction.

[skywalker]

why Hancock had to save Mary each time if she was arguably more powerful (she claims so, and has far more auxiliary powers), I think it's because he has the "saving people complex," to quote Harry Potter. She mentions that a couple times, that he was always the one saving people.

[Deadmeat.GW]

There is a very nice little hint in the second part...

Which country do they refer to first and what is the animal he identifies with?

To be honest the second part of the movie is hinted at throughout a sizeable part of the first half.

[Demons_eye]

I think this is just the first movie, to many things left undone for it not to be. I mean there has got to be a 2nd movie some time in the future. Also marry maybe be more powerful but I think Hancock was said to be able to "save people" better, that’s why they had survived that long.

[Renegade Paladin]

I didn't get it. He could deal with bullet wounds, and get hit by trains but somehow could get drunk on Liquor store booze... how does that work?
He drank, but did he ever exhibit symptoms of actually being drunk? If he did, I missed it; even if he was mildly intoxicated, he should have been out cold after all the bottles upon bottles of whiskey he slugged down pretty much end to end.

[Kobold-Bard]

I just realised this film is exactly like Final Fantasy 8: starts off with a good storyline then reveals loads of wierd information without giving proper explanations as to why.

Also, just a thought but what do you think of Mary and Hancock being Thor and Loki (Mary being stronger and apparently able to summon storms, and Hancock trying to do what he thinks is right but just ending up being a pain in everyones ass).

[Felizginato12]

Oh, I have really wanted to see this.

Will Smith is generally a decent actor. I Am Legend sucked but he does well elsewhere. He's funny without coming off like an ******* most of the time.

And Jason Bateman, I love this guy. Don't get me started on my Arrested Development Obssesion, hehe.

But it seems like an interesting movie, a spin on the super hero genre. And does anyone know if this was a comic book before a movie? It seems like it would make a good comic book series.

A little bit out there, but something fresh at least :D

[Renegade Paladin]

Mary didn't summon up a storm. You may notice that whenever the two of them were together, people would start complaining about temperature extremes; I'm guessing that somehow them fighting affected the atmosphere enough to bring up a storm. Besides, she had no reason to call up a storm to fight Hancock; it couldn't hurt him and would only accomplish massive property damage.

[Foeofthelance]

You know, I actually thought the second half of the movie was better than the first half, at least when it came down to the plotting. Watching Will Smith being a jerk to everything was fu, but the entire "staring at my publicists wife for no reason" just came off as awkward. Once they explained why, it made things a little less creepy.

Personally, the only thing I would have changed would have been the whole post-prison thing. Even after they had released him I would have had him keep going back, if for no other reason than for the group therapy sessions. It might have made him seem a little more human, even if it had just been a quick thirty second circle shot of the group talking.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Thing is this felt like two instalments of the same series, the first ending with the bank job and the second starting just after, this lead to a huge slump at the crossover.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Take a carefull look at the picture where he knocks the rpg away...

All the symbols in his cell...

His trailer...

And at the end of the movie what he has with him...

Then think about what 'Mary' said, they were from Greece...
They called them angels or gods...

The hints are very strong that there is an overarcing plot where slowly you get shown more and more about why he is like he is and why he is as hard as he is.

He is strongly hinted to be Zeus, god of Lightning and Thunder, powerfull and with an eagle as his symbol...
Always returning to his wife, yet always away when doing his greatest things.

[Serpentine]

Mary didn't summon up a storm. You may notice that whenever the two of them were together, people would start complaining about temperature extremes; I'm guessing that somehow them fighting affected the atmosphere enough to bring up a storm. Besides, she had no reason to call up a storm to fight Hancock; it couldn't hurt him and would only accomplish massive property damage.This explaination works for me.

I really liked it, I just would've prefered less lame villians.

Deadmeat: Damn, I missed all that stuff. I tried to see the stuff on the prison wall, but... yeah, um, ionno. That was my theory, anyway, though my dad was discussing it with a friend of his, and came up with the possibility that Hancock (symbol eagle) was an allegory for the US (symbol eagle). Any further discussion of this line of thought, though, should probably go private <.<

[SAMAS]

They hinted at the wife having superpowers early on in the movie, within five minutes of her first appearance. She was nervous even under the UST, and when she was talking about him "I know this kind of person, he breaks things" was a dead giveaway. If it had been because of hearing about his reputation, she would have said something like "you've seen the news!" instead. She was speaking from personal experience.

While I admit the second half could have been paced much better than it was, I think it was an enjoyable movie overall. Probably would've liked it more if it weren't for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk raising the bar first.

[Felizginato12]

Well I just returned from watching Hancock with my mother, sister, and girlfriend and I can say that I enjoyed it.

I wont bore you with my own synopsis of the story but the pros and cons of the movie.

Pros:

1. Great actors; Will Smith (who can play funny, serious, an *******, and a respectable guy), Jason Bateman (Signature good guy role but it fits him well. And I love him in Arrested Development), and Charlize Theron (Drop dead gorgeous and can play a great character. I also found it kind of funny that she is married to Bateman's character in the movie and on Arrested Development she played as his mentally retarded girlfriend).

2. Interesting and unique plot. A superhero that is turned into a more traditional hero. Begins as a booze drinking ******* and turns out to be a true superhero. Despite the plot holes that may dot the field the back story is surprising and interesting. The progress of the movie is well done even if it drags at certain moments and some scenes seem to be throw aways.

3. Great filming. The shaky camera but polished quality make it radiate a comfortable feeling. The action and effects are nice and cleaned up while still maintaining some sort of chaotic flare.

4. Dialogue is great. Funny, dramatic, and without the cheese. They hit the nail on the head with this one.

5. The movie flows into the first, second, and third acts well. first act: Hancock is shown as a renegade super hero. It's funny an action packed mixing the two best qualities of the movie. Second act: Jumps around in quality a bit. Hancock is being converted into a proper superhero. As before, the comedy shines through while the action is replaced by a bit of drama. Third act: Funny spots trickle through the plot but is mostly flooded with action and drama. The story kind of jumbles up a bit as the pacing is thrown off track but overall returns to have a decent ending.


Cons:

1. Lacking a good soundtrack. There are those epic orchestrations and dramatic scores but the rest is filled in with bad rap or house/techno music. At least there's not much of it.

2. The back story (while great) is not fully explained. Some things make no sense and seems too complicated to seem practical for placement in a movie (let alone a 5 minute scene of explanations).

3. The reoccurring themes early on with no explanations until later. The eagles are spammed across many scenes (it could have been a bit more subtle) and the tension between Smith and Theron is just awkward.

4. Too much of the "call me an ******* one more time". It's funny but it soon becomes an annoying catchphrase.

5. Special effects are great but at times are far too flashy to really concentrate on detail. Otherwise, this is just a small complaint.

6. Fight scenes are lacking in action. Actually, scenes of Hancock flying around and being reckless are more interesting then the fights. When he fights Theron's character it all just seems like a random on the spot brawl with no "wow" moments. The main "villain" is horrible and there are no powerful bad guys to fight Hancock. Sure, this is a cliche' but superhero movies need to reflect those cliche's a bit.


Overall it was a good movie. At times it went down to an iffy status but returned to leave me satisfied. A unique twist on the modern superhero with great acting, filming, action, drama, characters, and story. You should take a peek no matter what. Even though it may leave a few of you complaining about the back story it is at least a decent movie.

A rating?....hmm..let's try....4/5. Great movie, not perfect but worth a watch.

[Felizginato12]

Well I just returned from watching Hancock with my mother, sister, and girlfriend and I can say that I enjoyed it.

I wont bore you with my own synopsis of the story but the pros and cons of the movie.

Pros:

1. Great actors; Will Smith (who can play funny, serious, an *******, and a respectable guy), Jason Bateman (Signature good guy role but it fits him well. And I love him in Arrested Development), and Charlize Theron (Drop dead gorgeous and can play a great character. I also found it kind of funny that she is married to Bateman's character in the movie and on Arrested Development she played as his mentally retarded girlfriend).

2. Interesting and unique plot. A superhero that is turned into a more traditional hero. Begins as a booze drinking ******* and turns out to be a true superhero. Despite the plot holes that may dot the field the back story is surprising and interesting. The progress of the movie is well done even if it drags at certain moments and some scenes seem to be throw aways.

3. Great filming. The shaky camera but polished quality make it radiate a comfortable feeling. The action and effects are nice and cleaned up while still maintaining some sort of chaotic flare.

4. Dialogue is great. Funny, dramatic, and without the cheese. They hit the nail on the head with this one.

5. The movie flows into the first, second, and third acts well. first act: Hancock is shown as a renegade super hero. It's funny an action packed mixing the two best qualities of the movie. Second act: Jumps around in quality a bit. Hancock is being converted into a proper superhero. As before, the comedy shines through while the action is replaced by a bit of drama. Third act: Funny spots trickle through the plot but is mostly flooded with action and drama. The story kind of jumbles up a bit as the pacing is thrown off track but overall returns to have a decent ending.


Cons:

1. Lacking a good soundtrack. There are those epic orchestrations and dramatic scores but the rest is filled in with bad rap or house/techno music. At least there's not much of it.

2. The back story (while great) is not fully explained. Some things make no sense and seems too complicated to seem practical for placement in a movie (let alone a 5 minute scene of explanations).

3. The reoccurring themes early on with no explanations until later. The eagles are spammed across many scenes (it could have been a bit more subtle) and the tension between Smith and Theron is just awkward.

4. Too much of the "call me an ******* one more time". It's funny but it soon becomes an annoying catchphrase.

5. Special effects are great but at times are far too flashy to really concentrate on detail. Otherwise, this is just a small complaint.

6. Fight scenes are lacking in action. Actually, scenes of Hancock flying around and being reckless are more interesting then the fights. When he fights Theron's character it all just seems like a random on the spot brawl with no "wow" moments. The main "villain" is horrible and there are no powerful bad guys to fight Hancock. Sure, this is a cliche' but superhero movies need to reflect those cliche's a bit.


Overall it was a good movie. At times it went down to an iffy status but returned to leave me satisfied. A unique twist on the modern superhero with great acting, filming, action, drama, characters, and story. You should take a peek no matter what. Even though it may leave a few of you complaining about the back story it is at least a decent movie.

A rating?....hmm..let's try....4/5. Great movie, not perfect but worth a watch.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I just want to know.. Damnit! The guy has a huge problem about collateral damage! Why doesn't he simply crush the baddies' neck rather than throwing them in the walls, destroying everything in it's path?!?!?!

[Shatteredtower]

To be honest the second part of the movie is hinted at throughout a sizeable part of the first half.Yeah. I'm afraid I saw too much of it coming, though some of that comes from having read too many comic books.

I'm willing to overlook a lot of the unexplained in the movie, though I'll admit it's odd to create something you intend to have pair up to become weaker. Guess we can chalk that one up to a sick sense of humour. What bothers me more, however, is the implication that Hancock, the male, has to be alone to be a hero, and that Mary, the more powerful and female, is content to play a supporting role in someone else's life, hiding just how powerful she really is. There's a disturbing message in there.

As supportive and powerful as Mary is, Hancock was the one that painted the moon. It's a wonderful image, but the implications spoil it for me.

[Deadmeat.GW]

That could be because the characters seem to be based on Greek Mythology...

I.e. Women are female to max but woe on you if you EVER piss them off as they will be showing you the whole 'Hell Had No Fury As a Woman Scorned'-thing that the Greek gods were soo infamous for.

Especially Zeus, which given all the hints with Eagles and over the top rages, is whom Hancock is supposed to be.
How often did he go off and do something rather inappropriate (either interfering, chasing skirts, play the hero,...) and then his wife would get really pissed of and end up making him grovel?

Hancock -> Zeus

Mary -> Hera

And Hera is supposedly more powerful then Zeus in all but the pure physical field which is why she is the wife of the big cheese in the first place.

[Shatteredtower]

That could be because the characters seem to be based on Greek Mythology...You're reading too much into that. It's not like Zeus owned a monopoly on the eagle as a symbol even when he was the big man on Olympus.


I.e. Women are female to max..."Female" is not another word for "subordinate".


Especially Zeus, which given all the hints with Eagles and over the top rages, is whom Hancock is supposed to be.Zeus and the Greeks pantheon didn't monopolize the field of divine rages either. The absence of Zeus' legendary womanizing tendencies is more telling than the connection an amnesiac feels to a particular bird.


How often did he go off and do something rather inappropriate (either interfering, chasing skirts, play the hero,...) and then his wife would get really pissed of and end up making him grovel?Hera never made Zeus grovel. She spent an awful lot of time breaking his playmates, but hardly ever got in his way beyond that, not that Zeus spent much time playing hero after the titans were overthrown. He, on the other hand, once chained her between heaven and earth along with an anvil at her feet.

Sounds nothing like the characters in Hancock. You could make as strong a case for them as Ouranos and Gaia, or Horus and Hathor, neither of which is very compelling either. The eagle is a symbol of power and freedom, and there's no need for it to "give us a name" beyond Hancock. That's all it needs to represent to him, and we've no indication that the symbol held any meaning to him back when he knew who he was. His history prior to waking up in a hospital is measured in a ticket to Frankenstein. (Who knows? He might even have felt more of a bond to the monster, another abandoned inhuman, than an eagle at that time.)

Or it might be nothing more than a display of whimsy on the story's creator, a reference to the Eagle township in Hancock County, Ohio. Some of us are funny that way. Others have speculated on Hancock's role as an American symbol (with an aptly chosen name) or generic American super-hero.


And Hera is supposedly more powerful then Zeus in all but the pure physical field which is why she is the wife of the big cheese in the first place.Yet Mary is shown to be easily capable of cleaning Hancock's clock at any time. Sounds more like Hathor (as Sekhmet) than Hera. Might even explain why Mary claims to still smell the alcohol on Hancock after he finally gets out of prison, even though he's been dry for at least a few weeks.

[Vaynor]

One of the worst movies I've seen this year. It was good at first, not so bad. But then it got absolutely horrible. Heart on the moon was... interesting.