You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Hancock *THREAD CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 2:55pm

Post 1 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

just saw it last night, it was alright. (didnt mean for that to rhyme by the way) that was an interesting twist, i wasnt really expecting anything like it. to anyone else who saw it i have a question.


POSSIBLE SOPILER ALERT: if u havent seen it, don't read the following...... unless you want to.






ok so what exactly were they? were they gods? cuz at his trailer the girl mentioned something about how they used to be called gods and angels, but now they're just called superheroes. or were they bad guys or something cuz they were always getting attacked back like 2000 years ago.
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 3:33pm

Post 2 of 40

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

If any Viz readers from the UK see this film, see if the opening sequence makes you think of 'The Brown Bottle' too?
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 3:43pm

Post 3 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

APPARENTLY THESE ARE SPOILERS

FE Filmmaker wrote:


ok so what exactly were they? were they gods? cuz at his trailer the girl mentioned something about how they used to be called gods and angels, but now they're just called superheroes. or were they bad guys or something cuz they were always getting attacked back like 2000 years ago.
Highlight for answer/spoilers.
I think that they always had these powers, and that the different civilizations that they lived through had different names for them--such as angels or superheroes. Also, i think the attacks were because they were 'different' and since they were together, they were mortal, which is why Hancock had all those scars.

Last edited Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 4:17pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 6:25pm

Post 4 of 40

NuttyBanana

Force: 730 | Joined: 23rd Nov 2004 | Posts: 711

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

thanks deletion for quoting and discussing spoilers without a warning, you did actually spoil it for me with the quote as I read the first bit without realizing it was the spoiler from the first post.
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 7:29pm

Post 5 of 40

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

well if there is already a spoiler alert then there is no need to repeat it. the spoiler part was actually asking for a question, and deletion replied
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 8:14pm

Post 6 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Why would you be reading a thread about a movie if you hadn't seen it? Seems like common sense to me...
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 8:31pm

Post 7 of 40

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Why would you be reading a thread about a movie if you hadn't seen it? Seems like common sense to me...
With that kind of logic Robert Ebert would be out of his job. Why else would I read a topic about a movie I haven't seen? I don't know to see what kind of feedback it got?

videofxuniverse wrote:

well if there is already a spoiler alert then there is no need to repeat it. the spoiler part was actually asking for a question, and deletion replied
Yes, but you don't seem to realize that if he didn't read the spoiler due to the alert, he wouldn't have noticed it was a spoiler in a quote that didn't include the alert.

Anyway, this didn't spoil it for me, because I've seen the movie already. It was... weird. It felt like at the point that(Highlight for SPOILERS) Angel revealed herself as a 'superhero' or 'god' or whatever they are, the movie started to go downhill. I thought the twist was too extreme and the explanation of who he was was kind of out there. It was fun to watch nevertheless. I thought Will Smith did a good job, and I'm glad to see that his "niche" if I may say, hasn't gone away. He's still the same, good old, Will Smith.
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 9:23pm

Post 8 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Im sorry, what exactly did I spoil for you? It seemed to me that you couldn't have known what I was talking about unless you had already seen the movie.
Posted: Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 9:32pm

Post 9 of 40

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

well i havent seen it yet and to be honest what has been mentioned so far hasn't given anything away really.

but as far as i can read it goes like this. the original poster said "I have a question" then he said "possible spoiler" so common sense states that any reply will be an answer also a spoiler

Last edited Sun, 6th Jul 2008, 10:30pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 1:56am

Post 10 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I caught Hancock yesterday and to be honest I loved every bit of it. I have a LOT to say about it, and while I give some big stuff away, it won't ruin your enjoyment of the film. I saw the film even after deducing the twist, and I didn't like it any less.

See below review, be wary of SPOILERS....

___________


'Hancock' is the story of one unassuming superhero whom the world seems to hate. Things go on around him that he tries to prevent, but in doing so he gains the vitrol and hate of his own community; anger that is turned once the hero meets a PR agent looking to change the world. From there, catastrophe ensues.

Hancock was, to be blunt, a great ride.

Director Peter Berg doesn't let the audience down, yet again (after commandeering production of last year's 'The Kingdom' and the Brazilian-based hit 'The Rundown') and it's clear that while the man isn't looking to make any Academy-Award winners, he is destined to entertain an audience. The action in the film is hard-hitting and intense, peppered appropriately with witty lines and quips from Will Smith and Jason Bateman. Supporting roles by Charlize Theron and the occasional extra are, as well, commendable.

The story itself is generally well-paced and tactful, erring on the side of caution by not daring to include anything too cheesy or lamentable (a la 'Batman and Robin' or the like). Still, the inside jokes in the movie ("Get you and your little tight-ass Wolverine suit over here!") that reference superheroism in comics and popular culture are well done and properly-included. The characters are a bit caricatured, but not to the point of being over-the-top. Hancock is a good, self-loathing drunk excuse for a hero. Bateman is a good, assuring father and husband, whose chemistry with Theron is effective (transplanted from the same on-screen relationship in Arrested Development). Hancock is ambiguous and out-there, but Berg isn't afraid to let us know that he, too, realizes how confusing the character is. (At one point, after Bateman overturns Theron's denies to Hancock to accompany them for dinner, he follows humorously with "I was nice, honey, because I didn't want him to kill us all")

The twist in the film- which many note as a negative thing- I did not see as a bad thing at all, just a change of pace and tone for what type of story the film would be. The duality of Charlize Theron and Will Smith together (black male and thin white female) is a clever match-up and the backstory, while a little lacking, is predictable and therefore passable. Some say they didn't see the twist coming......how could you not? Charlize obviously knows Hancock and who he is from the very beginning: the camera even sweeps around her twice in a Michael Bay fashion to show her stressed reaction when Hancock first arrives at her house. Berg wants the audience to see the twist coming, even if not completely.

Failing that I didn't see the twist from a mile away (it's obvious even from the trailers, you can see Charlize Theron fighting Hancock in midair amidst tornadoes and bad weather) the film was still solid and generally well-done. The camerawork and editing were fittingly 'intense' and laden with heavy rap music, as this type of film should be. Even if you don't like the genre, it completely works in Hancock: the grungy, brutish lyrics that just barely hit the rights notes in Ludacris' "Move B.itch" are the absolute best thing to describe the sort of blunderous grace the hero has in the film.

The camera angles are well-shot, taking note from overexposed, bleeding edge techniques seen recently in Transformers and, by extension, a lot of Janus Kaminski's work. Granted, Hancock is a different film than these altogether, but the camerawork and general visual style of the film are stylized just enough to make you appreciate them without finding them overbearing. The effects, too, (reminiscent of the awesome 'teleport destructive' visuals in this year's 'Jumper') are well-composited and creatively done. Hancock flies laterally to change directions, but he does so in a squandering, drunken stupor, making his disjointed motion seem more real- like how you'd actual think it would be to fly- in an only loosely controllable manner.

Digressing, the humor, drama, and action in the film are more than what you would expect out of pedestrian hot-weathered fun. The jokes, while seen primarily throughout the trailer, are funny and well-timed. Little puns, like Hancock cutting a hole in prison glass with his fingernail, are clever and plentiful. The running joke of Hancock being constantly called an 'asshole' was also properly-executed to where you at least chuckled every time the word even came up. In a scene where an adolescent bully utters this word, Hancock's ensuing actions are hilarious. Moreover, many, if not most, of Jason Bateman's lines are laugh out loud funny, even if you don't particularly like his brand of humor. Altogether it's a good film, comedically-speaking.

The action in the film is awesome- it's chock-full of blockbuster stunts, both practical and computer-generated. I can't deny my excitement when viewing a lot of the fight scenes: I felt like Hancock was the hero movie we always wanted to see, without any of the cringe-worthy-but-necessary rationalizations (a la Jessica Alba's explanation of her powers in Fantastic Four). It was pure, unadulterated Will Smith-witty-"AAAAaHHHHH!"-hero-flying-heart-pounding action. Basically, if you liked the type of film 'Men in Black' was action-wise, you'll like this. It's the same type of thing. Sort of.

Then we get to the final bit of the film, the drama. The first introduction of it is a but unnecessary: Hancock thumbing through an Altoids tin of things of his past (movie tickets, two dollars, some lint) in slow motion with an accompanying opus of heavily moody music. While I should've like this, I only sighed through it- it was introduced too early, before we could even acknowledge that these antiquated items have come from the hero's past. Continuing on, however, are the final bits, set in the hospital. These scenes are stunt spectaculars, especially due to the fact that they occur when Hancock and Theron are becoming mortal, and therefore still super-strong but susceptible to gunshots. When Theron stands up to defend a bed-ridden Hancock from an attack and is shot, you feel for the character. What's more, when the ailing Hancock gets up from the bed to help Theron and fight the bad guys- even as a mortal man, who, despite his strength, is shot over and over again and still manages to press on- the music cues, the mise-en-scene, the production design, the no-audio-but-badass-screaming shots, and the parallel cuts between Smith dying and Theron being revived you just know what you've just watched was superb. While many may criticize this film for offhand things, it still manages to end with a bang. The after-the-credits bits, too, are clever and appropriate.

In short, while Hancock may be rough on some edges, its extravagant action sequences and sharp-tongued wit earn it definite points in the 'good film' arena.

8/10
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 2:52am

Post 11 of 40

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I suprisingly enjoyed the theme from John Powell. Which is a suprise that he has any material left after doing SO MANY superhero movies. And Jason Bateman is in it....nuff said. The man could be doing anything and I would love it. Arrested Development FTW!
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 3:10am

Post 12 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

yeah ben3308 pretty much summed it up - amazing movie. i can safely say that its the best movie ive seen this year, (though i havent been to the movies as much as i would like) it even beats cloverfield.


ps please dont anybody turn this into a battle over whether or not they thought cloverfield was good smile
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 3:52am

Post 13 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

FE Filmmaker, while this is probably the best 'popcorn' movie of the year, there were a LOT of films that- while not the best, per se- were executed on a higher level than this film.

Please consult my Movies of 2008 review for more information. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 5:15am

Post 14 of 40

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

God, Ben, how may hours per day do you spend just typing out these reviews..

I enjoyed Hancock immensely. Honestly, I sort have saw the twist coming, just as Ben put it. While certainly not the best movie of the year, I can say that it made my top five (just below 'Get Smart', and above... something else..).
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 5:31am

Post 15 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I feel that if I'm going to lend my thoughts on a movie to someone, they might as well be a thorough and fair deduction of what I thought of the film.

Why? Because I dislike it when someone writes a review of a film and includes all the good things about it and acts like that's all there was to it- a deceptive review to make you see the movie. With Kill Bill, I walked into it expecting a masterpiece, like my local paper had said, and I hated it. They were clever, though, because everything they had mentioned was in the movie, and it was done well. They had just forgotten to say that what they were talking about only composed maybe 5% of the film overall. biggrin

Basically: I like to be thorough. And each one takes about 30 minutes. 45 at the most. The end of 2007 review took hours. wink
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 6:39am

Post 16 of 40

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I saw it yesterday and thought it was an entirely missed opportunity.

The humour seemed to be aimed at the average teenager ("I stick his head up your ass" BAM): kiddish cartoon realities were applied to the world (punches a kid into the atmosphere and catches him without any harm done), the psychologies were totally dumbed down and made no sense (I'd yell at an invincible and superman like drunkard "You're an asshole" too of course, and surely, if he beat the shit out of me with his superpowers and arrested me I'd totally stand in front of him and go "I won't let you through" because I somehow forgot he can just move through me if he wants to) and the plot twists are hilariously stupid (They lose their strength when they're close to each other? Uhuh... Might it be a stupid idea to go visit your other parts dying bed then instead of flying to the moon - which obviously is no problem - and wait until he's recovered again and THEN tell em your heartwrenching sad life story? Just a thought...).
And last but not least, there's mister shakey cam and blurry images again to make the matter even better.

The only thing that saves Hancock from being the garbage bag it is is an excellently likeable and fitting Will Smith performance. He does what he does extremely well and it's his delivery that makes for the small amount of smiles the film has to offer - unless you're into "His head is the other guys ass"-Jokes.

Powells score is also worth mentioning - I keep being more and more interested in his work because he really does some great stuff. Shame his great musical score was overshadowed by some run-of-the-mill music all the time.


All in all, a concept that could have made for so much more then cheap laughs at french kids and heads in asses and lots of silly-faces.

5 / 10
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 9:10am

Post 17 of 40

NuttyBanana

Force: 730 | Joined: 23rd Nov 2004 | Posts: 711

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Spoilers.....


FE Filmmaker wrote:

ok so what exactly were they? were they gods? cuz at his trailer the girl mentioned something about how they used to be called gods and angels, but now they're just called superheroes. or were they bad guys or something cuz they were always getting attacked back like 2000 years ago.
If I have to explain my moan then just read the first line of the quote above. The key word in there is "they". Now I've seen all of the trailers and it may just be me, but I was under the impression that he was the only 'superhero' in the film. The trailers also show him in trouble at some points and so I was very very curious as to what he was having trouble with although I didn't know it was another person with the same abilities. For me, this is a spoiler.

The quote in Deletions post didn't include the spoiler alert originally said and so I read the first sentence without any thought.

Now, I'm reading up on the film to see what people thought of it, not explain the plot. I wanted to know if it was good that's all. I notice my negative rating which also stands as a "advise people to skip this post" mark has been removed. I don't see why as I still recommend people that haven't seen the film to skip it as Deletion still has the quoted spoilers in his post. But, whatever I guess.
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 2:53pm

Post 18 of 40

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Sollthar wrote:

last but not least, there's mister shakey cam and blurry images again to make the matter even better.
You do realize your constant use of this term is, well, offensive and incorrect, don't you? biggrin
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 2:57pm

Post 19 of 40

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

Atom wrote:

Sollthar wrote:

last but not least, there's mister shakey cam and blurry images again to make the matter even better.
You do realize your constant use of this term is, well, offensive and incorrect, don't you? biggrin
Which term? I'm not seeing anything in your quoted section that could be deemed offensive? Offensive to whom exactly? People that are, coincidentally, actually called Mister Shakey Cam?
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 4:17pm

Post 20 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

NuttyBanana wrote:

I don't see why as I still recommend people that haven't seen the film to skip it as Deletion still has the quoted spoilers in his post. But, whatever I guess.
You actually have to highlight my post now for the spoilers--which are now all clearly marked.
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 6:45pm

Post 21 of 40

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Atom wrote:

You do realize your constant use of this term is, well, offensive and incorrect, don't you?
Erm... Actually. No...

What's "offensive"? What's "incorrect"? And what "term" are we talking about exactly?
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 9:02pm

Post 22 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

yo ben3308, i didnt say it was the BEST movie this year, i just said it was my favorite. and yes i have read your reviews of this years movies wink
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 9:04pm

Post 23 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

FE Filmmaker, heh, I gotcha. I have several 'favorite' films that many would not consider of any merit. wink

Sollthar, I have a lot to say in response to your review, but I don't have enough time to get my thoughts together on it. Expect a loooooong response later. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 9:07pm

Post 24 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

just stating my opinion. remember i said i havent been to the movies nearly as much as i would like wink
Posted: Mon, 7th Jul 2008, 11:26pm

Post 25 of 40

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Me and my brother both are in general agreement with this movie, we both loved it.

I think mostly what's best to like about it is that this is an original movie not a remake or a book to film (I believe), which nowadays seems to be rare. While some of the comedy a plot twists were a little cheesy, the movie came together very, very well.

This is a 8/10 for me...

We are both Will Smith fans also, so that made the movie so much better.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 7:39pm

Post 26 of 40

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I forgot to say that one thing I didn't like about the movie was the lack of a Villian. The only 'Bad Guys' were people that came in earlier for 30 seconds. Two of them being those who had his head's shoved up someone's ass/had someone's head shoved up his ass. They weren't just common crooks, but 'undeveloped' common crooks.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 8:53pm

Post 27 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

what about the guy with the hook?
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 8:59pm

Post 28 of 40

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What about him? He came in for thirty seconds, also having no character development, and by the end he was supposed to be a villain.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 9:00pm

Post 29 of 40

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

im not disagreeing with you, but hes the closest thing to a villain the movies got
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 9:36pm

Post 30 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

SPOILERS

Thrawn wrote:

I forgot to say that one thing I didn't like about the movie was the lack of a Villian.
I think the main 'villain' was his drunkenness and the fact that he was attracted to the wife of his only friend coupled with him having to be away from them all the time in order to keep his powers.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 10:32pm

Post 31 of 40

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FE, yeah, it's the "closest" thing, which is why I'm unhappy with that aspect of the movie. The couldn't fit an actual villian in. Now if the wife had turned out to be a villian... that would work.

D3L3T10N, You're getting a villian confused with internal conflict. All superheroes have both villains and internal conflicts.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 10:49pm

Post 32 of 40

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:


D3L3T10N, You're getting a villian confused with internal conflict. All superheroes have both villains and internal conflicts.
Can't the villain be the internal conflict?
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 11:06pm

Post 33 of 40

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think D3L3T10N has a very good point, he is his own villian; which he (as all superheros do) defeats.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 11:07pm

Post 34 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The whole man v. self scenario often makes for a much deeper-rooted villainy because it's not tangible and therefore not easily eradicated.

I liked how the bad guys were just these schmoes off the street who were criminals just like you'd see in real life. They were important, too, because they didn't just brush off what Hancock did to them, they reacted as people normally would. The whole time after the guy got his hand cut off or the head got shoved up the ass, I kept thinking "how would that be acceptable? that's cruel and unusual and it wouldn't be looked past by people"- and it wasn't.

What made it better is that the plot worked out appropriate, 'Murphy's Law'-type conveniences for the villains, making them that much worse. It was ironic but fitting that when Hancock is most vulnerable- both physically and emotionally- his enemies become the most vindictive; and this was haunting because it mirrored similar scenarios that actually happen. Unlike the Green Goblin or Lex Luthor, there are mentally-deranged people out there who are repeat offenders, even after being paroled from prison (I know they broke out in the movie, but this is a technicality).

So what am I getting at? Well, the physical bad guys (the three convicts) are just tertiary support for Hancock's emotional fragility and his alcoholism, both of which seem to have completely overtaken his life. His misanthropic attitude was realistic, typical of those with drinking problems- and this made his character all-the-more interesting and believable.

I liked the 'villain' as a personal force and not an actual person. I felt it was better-executed and more creative.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 11:12pm

Post 35 of 40

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While it's possible that a villian can be the internal conflict, that's not how it goes in superhero films. All superheroes have internal conflict (spiderman, superman, batman, etc) and yet there is also a villian (Green Goblin, Lex Luthor, The Joker, etc) to go along with that conflict, possibly to take advantage of it. I think the makers of Hancock understood this, and threw in Mr. Hook and his two head-up-ass cronies. But, like I said, they lacked character development, thus failing to be good villains, if villains at all.
Posted: Tue, 8th Jul 2008, 11:59pm

Post 36 of 40

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I think Thrawn is right. The internal conflict and villain aspect go hand in hand. All in all, the movie wasn't very satisfying. Nothing really stuck with me throughout the movie. It felt as though there was a lack of resolution.
Posted: Wed, 9th Jul 2008, 1:29am

Post 37 of 40

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think the clearest point throughout the movie was that Hancock wasn't a superhero, nor was he destined to be. He had abilities, yes, but these are very very clearly delineated as mere byproducts of bypassing his destiny. In the end, we discover, he is meant to be a hero, of sorts, but this does not qualify him as a nemesis-worthy being.

More akin to Daredevil than Spiderman or Superman, he had heroic qualities, but did not live in a world punctuated by extreme villains. I always thought it sort of a misnomer when 'realistic' hero films have a huge villain. That one-on-one nemesis thing, while making for good comic book reading, just isn't practical. How often do, say, extremely tactful snipers in the army or high imprisonment-count police officers develop sole nemeses? Almost never.

I'm not saying these archetypes don't make for good cinema, it's just that, in Hancock's world, he was a hero amongst ordinary people; practically the exact opposite of the newly-developed 'Marvel world' that Iron Man and The Inredible Hulk engender.

If we consider for a moment that Charlize Theron could've been a villain, then we must also consider the backlash. That type of thing comes completely out of left field. So we're supposed to buy that two superhuman people exist and we're not going to explain either of them? Why only two? Why Theron? These can't be answered because the explanation for things like this hinge on Theron's positive relation to Hancock. If you take away that relationship, things crumble pretty easily. If you maintain that they were 'fated' to be together, but then digress to say that Theron turned against him- well, that's sort of an unrealistic turn that requires even more break-of-pacing substantiation to explain, resulting in a worse movie (likely). Ergo, Hancock took the best possible route in its follow-through.

People are seriously confusing comic book characters with Hancock: he wasn't from a comic. He was a hero, but not any sort of masked avenger. He felt no social compulsion to save people, really (he sleeps on a bench drinking and only dbgrudgingly awakes to fight the bad guys). This was a newly-created story that didn't choose to fit much of any previous genre, and that's okay. But don't force it to fit in what format you choose simply because that's more comfortable. Sole 'villains' just don't exist in real life, and that's exactly what plane 'Hancock' was functioning on.

I dunno, I just see Hancock for what it is, and that's precisely why I like it.
Posted: Wed, 9th Jul 2008, 2:32am

Post 38 of 40

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

I dunno, I just see Hancock for what it is, and that's precisely why I like it.
I see Hancock as I see it, and leave it up for interpretation. That's why I as an individual thought the story and pacing was flawed.
Posted: Wed, 9th Jul 2008, 8:22am

Post 39 of 40

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Thrawn wrote:

While it's possible that a villian can be the internal conflict, that's not how it goes in superhero films.
I think you need to have a less formulaic view of the genre. Just because that's what most superhero stories do, doesn't mean they all HAVE to go that route.
Posted: Wed, 9th Jul 2008, 9:00am

Post 40 of 40

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

While it's possible that a villian can be the internal conflict, that's not how it goes in superhero films.
I think you need to have a less formulaic view of the genre. Just because that's what most superhero stories do, doesn't mean they all HAVE to go that route.
Very true