[QUOTE=Omniscient]
I doubt that there was supposed to be a political agenda in making him French, if there was it’s a pretty fucking weak one.
[/QUOTE]
What??? You’ve never heard of Freedom Fries? The wine smashing/boycott ala book burning parties?
[QUOTE=Omniscient]
I doubt that this angle was intended by the writers/director, but it’s a hell of an interesting take.
[/QUOTE]
It seems that accurate a take to me, that it must have been intended by the writers/director!
Also, if you look at this movie peeled back at a base level it is a Romance story that got lost in an action movie. It should appeal to divorcees and anybody who has had, or been, the screwed up exboyfriend or exhusband. It’s a babymommy story with redemption for the ex.
I finally saw this tonight despite the rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was word of mouth that convinced me and how much the trailers had intrigued me before the reviews. That and I PM’d Elendil’s Heir so I could avoid the spoilers in this thread and he confirmed it was worth going to see. Thanks again Elendil’s Heir.
I enjoyed it. I did not think it was a great movie, but I enjoyed it very much. I guess I would give it a 7 or a 6 at worse on the IMDB.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The eagle is also a symbol for America, as is Hancock’s name, and I think an argument could be made for Hancock having some allegorical parallels with the USA. He’s the only “superpower” in the world (as far as he knows). He more or less tries to use his powers for good but he causes a lot of collateral damage in doing so, is often insolent or arrogant, is thin-skinned about criticism, is often reckless in how he pursues goals, is irresponsible and unaccountable, has “internal conflict” and identity issues, etc. Yet, at bottom he is basically good and wants to do good and has potential that no one else has.
Maybe I’m over reading it, though. It’s just speculation.
[/QUOTE]
That is a great take on it and I think you probably nailed it pretty close. However the Eagle also seemed to be a sidekick and it makes me wonder about the source material for this movie. From what little I could find it was an original screenplay that was written back in the 90s and not based on anything else.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
…That and I PM’d Elendil’s Heir so I could avoid the spoilers in this thread and he confirmed it was worth going to see. Thanks again Elendil’s Heir.
I enjoyed it. I did not think it was a great movie, but I enjoyed it very much. I guess I would give it a 7 or a 6 at worse on the IMDB…
[/QUOTE]
Glad to help, and even more glad that you liked it!
I saw this last night and enjoyed it, but am surprised that one very obvious, and similar, movie has not been mentioned here yet: Unbreakable (which I liked quite a bit more).
In both, you have characters who are fundamentally dissatisfied with their lives, and the only way for them to find real peace is to come to terms with themselves and their purpose, which is rooted in their special powers. And the one to guide them to this path of enlightenment is someone who ends up representing a partner but also an “opposite”.
Like Unbreakable, this movie doesn’t go in-depth with backstory and origin details, and I think it’s to this film’s benefit. It’s certainly the first big blockbuster action movie this year that didn’t feel like it was longer than it needed to be (even Iron Man felt long after a while, IMHO). Like the Shyamalan film, Hancock only has one major Hero moment (the opening is mostly a goof, and the climax barely counts as an action sequence), but the point isn’t the action but the character’s realization that he can fulfill a Destiny that seems laid out for him. We’re seeing the initial baby steps of a Transformed Man, and I think (like with the Bruce Willis film), a sequel would be unnecessary or redundant.
Some other things nobody’s mentioned: To me, it seems like Mary was actively running away from Hancock (she speaks of constantly being “followed”). She would see him injured and leave him, only to be pursued (perhaps obsessively) and found, only for the cycle of violence and vulnerability to happen again. The amnesia ends up being critical to his change because he’s someone who otherwise can’t let go of the past. I also like how Mary had a trigger word, too (“crazy”), and how Hancock is like Frankenstein–good-hearted at his core, but feared and reviled because even he doesn’t know his own strength sometimes (and has grown not to care). All the mob around the train accident was missing were pitchforks.
As far as Hollywood (non-animated) tent pole movies that have come out this summer go, it is probably my favorite because it both exceeded and undermined my expectations in a way that was unpredictable, provocative, and worth re-examining. Peter Berg (who also directed the underrated and slyly subversive The Kingdom last year*) is turning into someone really worth watching.
*I’m more inclined to go agree with Dio’s foreign policy allegory because this film had many of the same themes.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
… and how Hancock is like Frankenstein–good-hearted at his core, but feared and reviled because even he doesn’t know his own strength sometimes (and has grown not to care). All the mob around the train accident was missing were pitchforks…[emphasis added]
[/QUOTE]
And of course, the movie they went to see when he was beaten in Miami, the tickets to which he still had, was…?
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
And of course, the movie they went to see when he was beaten in Miami, the tickets to which he still had, was…?
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, that’s why I brought it up. 
All this talk about how good the movie is, and no one bothered to warn unsuspecting Doper’s about the Nancy Grace cameo? Ug, ug, ug! The Dope has failed me.
Other then that one horrible appearance, I really enjoyed the movie. I liked that they didn’t try and explain everything, Mary was just as ignorant of the nature of their origins as the audience. The movie did feel a little rushed towards the end. I liked Hancock’s trailer out in the desert, it fit my image of where a bum superhero who could fly anywhere would live.
I left the theater thinking I’d go see a sequel if they made one.
I really enjoyed it. I didn’t care too much about their origin. They were made in pairs so that they could decide to become mortal, grow old, die - if they so chose.
It was fun, Charlize is still smokin’ hot, Will did fine and Jason Bateman played well too.
All in all, a fun movie and I’m glad I went.
[QUOTE=Khadaji]
I really enjoyed it. I didn’t care too much about their origin. They were made in pairs so that they could decide to become mortal, grow old, die - if they so chose.
It was fun, Charlize is still smokin’ hot, Will did fine and Jason Bateman played well too.
All in all, a fun movie and I’m glad I went.
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
I gotta admit that Nancy Grace was jarring, but yeah, I liked this movie and was glad I saw it in the theater. I agree the second half could have been more explanatory but I still enjoyed it.
What’s with the bad press? It almost seems like some sort of bandwagon to jump on. Hancock seems head an shoulders above some of the schlock out there, but then maybe I just have a soft spot for films that try something a little bit different.
I get the feeling that if Hancock had really tried to be very, very different, it might have been a more fully realized project…if maybe the second half had fewer explosions and more intimacy…but I dunno. Anyway, I found it an enjoyable matinee.
The wife and I saw it yesterday (Saturday) and enjoyed it. We’re credit junkies and always stay until the end of the credits, usually the last ones left in the cinema. We liked, at the very end of this one, the admonishment that this was a work of fiction. Well, duh!
As to the eagle symbolism, our local paper has a new ad for Hancock which shows him wearing a T-shirt with a bald eagle all the way across his chest (something he never wore in the movie). The Hancock=America metaphor seems to have occurred to the studio marketing people, at least.
As to Nancy Grace, I will at least give her props for saying that, as strong Hancock is, he’s not stronger than the Constitution and the rule of law. Hancock’s rehabilitation begins when he surrenders himself to the sheriff.
I don’t think there was a mysterious “them” out to get them - my impression from her story was that inevitably living the life of an immortal, you would run into trouble makers and either A) be vulnerable to attack or B) if their identities are known, this weakness will be specifically used against them.
I found the film to be pretty enjoyable, if ultimately forgettable. It helps that reviews were not great and I had lowered expectations. I wish they has kept the “super sperm” scene in, hopefully it will appear on the DVD. And I found Charlize Theron’s anger issues to be way overdone. While Will Smith was somewhat careless just due to apathy early in the movie, Charlize should have known better than to start a superpowered fight in the middle of a city. The collateral damage in that scene had me cringing.
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
I don’t think there was a mysterious “them” out to get them - my impression from her story was that inevitably living the life of an immortal, you would run into trouble makers and either A) be vulnerable to attack or B) if their identities are known, this weakness will be specifically used against them.
[/QUOTE]
Such as their attack by locals in the Deep South of 1928 after being seen tenderly holding hands. Not many people over here would have unerstood the significance of that date and location for an interracial couple.
[QUOTE=mazinger_z]
Why doesn’t Ray turn on Hancock or his wife when he finds out that they used to be lovers? Is he really that well-adjusted? Sure, it’s possible, but not very entertaining.
[/QUOTE]
Ray did seem a little upset at times, and he did rather noticeably continue past Hancock’s hospital room when he saw that Mary was in there, but I think there’s a very good reason why Ray didn’t completely explode on them: His own first marriage ended with the death of his wife during child-birth, so he knows very well what it’s like to have a relationship end without the feelings for the other person going away.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
As to Nancy Grace, I will at least give her props for saying that, as strong Hancock is, he’s not stronger than the Constitution and the rule of law. Hancock’s rehabilitation begins when he surrenders himself to the sheriff.
[/QUOTE]
Is that true? He’s only subject to the laws when he choses to be. It’s ultimately his own sense of morality, especially one it’s reinforced by his interactions with Ray and his family, that provides any meaningful check on his behavior. He’s only a good person because of who he is, and the presence or absence of the Constitution wouldn’t have a significant effect on his moral compass.
Furthermore, we’re talking about an entity who’s fifteen times older than the U.S. So America can’t even claim seniority, much less provide the physical means to back up their edicts.
Have you noticed that Nancy Grace sounds just like a parody of Nancy Grace? I mean all the time, not just in this movie. Is she even a real person? Maybe she’s animatronic.