Hancock discussion

Don't we already have a thread for this, or are you guys not using it because Mole started it?
Re: hancock.. anyone see it?

He flies through a sign, for no reason other than that he's drunk. That's a reason to hate a superhero for causing collateral damage.

(I've only seen the trailer)

Yes, the other heroes do the destruction sober :p
Re: hancock.. anyone see it?

Yes, the other heroes do the destruction sober :p
Last edited:
Whatsup people. I've been gone for years now. But I never forgot where I came from. I was trying to find a place on the internet that was talking about hancock. I saw it this past weekend and it was great. I know people may disagree, but i thought the plot twist was intense, it definitely caught me off guard. Mike Epps making fun of Will Smith was hilarious, too. I really like the movie. I give it 8.5/10. Coincidentally, I also give Wall-E the same score, that movie was good too, believe it or not. I watched it while waiting for Get Smart to start, which was not as good as I'd hoped.
My parents both thought it was quite lame and insist that I wouldn't like it. My brother thought it was good.

So...yeah. Am I going to see it?
HANCOCK was lots of fun. And surprisingly mature - the whole film's premise is about this superhero who's alone, desperate for love, feels compelled to help everyone, but unfortunately - hates people.

That's got so much drama in it, I love it. In fact, the film is pure gold... UNTIL they reveal who/what Hancock is and what his powers are. After that, the film falls underneath the weight of its own mythology. Some things are better left unexplained.

The reason for the mythology is so that Hancock would lose his powers. They needed him to lose his powers so that the criminals could threaten him at the end. See, they had a problem: either they give them powers (which is a problem because you haven't explained Hancock's powers and to give them powers is to explain Hancock); or, they take away Hancock's powers (which presents the problem of ending a superhero film without a superhero - and again, you have to explain Hancock's powers in order for him to lose them). So they did both - created a new superhero so they could have a fight (which was REALLY good) and then said, by them being together, they lose their powers so the end fight plays.

I think, it would've been better, if Hancock just began losing his powers. You don't know why. And he's HAPPY. He can be normal, no pressure, no nothing. But on the other hand - he's supposed to be in jail. People he's pissed off come after him. And so on - lots of drama there. But it doesn't solve the problem. A superhero film ends with a superhero fight. And HANCOCK is all about Hancock's inner problems, not big fights.

So this is the ending instead: Hancock, thanks to the PR, becomes a hero. And he likes being a hero. His PR guy wants to change the world. THEY DO. He takes down terrorists. No one can stop Hancock. It goes to his head. He starts doing stuff like overthrowing corrupt governments, arresting white collar criminals. Before you know it, in true THE AUTHORITY fashion, everyone is **** scared of him. And the UN set the biggest military trap and set Hancock up to be arrested/killed. That's your finale. Hancock versus the world. Can he see he's doing more damage than harm before he kills everyone? It mirrors everything - the film is about a hero who thinks he's helping but is in fact, hurting everyone. This climax takes that point to its emotional extreme. Naturally, Hancock pulls away, we have a happy ending (because we want to because we LIKE Hancock), but... still...

And the Superman-style theme for Hancock was absolutely ****ing stellar.
I thought the film as an overall project was pretty entertaining. But as a Will Smith project I am sorely disappointed.

At certain stages of actors' careers I expect certain things outta them. Sadly, as a new Will Smith property, I was let down.

I give it a 6.5 outta 10. It was like he made this right after Men In Black II and just sat on it until now.

Latest posts