After all, what we are looking at here is a story, written for the screen, to entertain audiences, while also conveying some message the writer and director considered worth sharing.

What’s interesting to me is that Hancock is in many ways metaphoric for America as a nation. Not perfect. But necessary. The repeated imagery of the Eagle around Hancock, his ski cap, the bench where he wakes up, the walls of his prison cell the back of his leather super hero duds, illustrate how we are to identify Hancock with America.

Even the ending of the film, where he eschews his own happiness and personal fulfillment for the betterment of others speaks to his selfless and heroic nature. There is a lot to like in Hancock. Michael Mann obsessives (like yours truly) will agree it is worth sitting in theater, just to see Mann as a pharmaceutical executive comparing giving a product away with life threatening side effects. Charlize Theron is wonderfully cast. Jason Bateman is understated and wonderful to watch. And as you say, Smith is eminently likeable, even when playing a jerk.

If your gripe is with language, then I can understand that. If it’s the shaky cam, then so be it. But to miss the story in this story is not the hallmark of credible film commentary.

To you guys upset about kids using langauge in movies, how many of you have The Goonies in your DVD collection?

I will guarantee, however, that “The Dark Knight” will rock your world. Have I seen it? No. Does that matter? No.

austinnelly at 12:22AM

Bad analogy. I explained why in the link I provided.

And let’s talk about the mindset of numerous commenters on here self-righteously proclaiming that you must experience (i.e. pay to see) a movie in full before commenting on any movie’s strengths or weaknesses: The same criticism must be applied to those obviously close-minded individuals who have commented negatively about other entertainment activities they have never experienced such as smoking hash, drinking urine, and man/boy prison-style sex.

Discuss…

I object when filmmakers have pre-pubescent children

I took the last word of that quote, cussing, out, because I object to the use of children in movies period. Most of them are horrible to watch (see annoying mop head brat that stole 20 minutes of my life in the Star Wars Episode One: George Lucas sucks a** stupid pod racing scene. The children who are good at acting usually end up devoloping all kinds of emotional and brain damage and most grow up into annoying drunken sh*ts like Lindsey Lowlife.
Use special effects. Use small adults. But please, no more children in movies, cussing or not.

if it’s wrong for kids, why is OK for us?

jgapinoy on July 5, 2008 at 9:53 AM

It’s wrong for kids to have sex, why is it ok for adults? Figure that one out and you answer your own question.

The spirited defense of a terrible film is rather amusing, though. Next time you should review a bottle of Boone’s Farm, or perhaps discuss the culinary merits of Lunchables, or the best canned cheese product on the market.

I’m sure the responses would be at least as entertaining as this thread has been.

Exit question: who’d win; Hancock or Rampage Jackson???!??

Thanks, James. In that last bit, my parroting flippancy wasn’t meant to be directed at you or Logis, but I can see how it could be read that way now. Thanks for not only realizing but clarifying it.

I thought it was entertaining, I mean c’mon, how serious can a bullet proof, super strong, flying hero be, or be taken?

Pretty seriously, apparently.

NahnCee on July 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM

You are a sicker than the entire Cancer ward of your local VA Hospital.

***
This thread bespeaks Republican derangement. Of course the Dems are breathing pretty thin air. But some of the exchanges in this thread are just scary.

American commerce is a good thing. Go to the movies already.

logis on July 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Dusty on July 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Just a personal opinion, but I think you all should see the movie and make up your own minds.

Gregor on July 5, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Just in case the blockquoting error in my post didn’t register, Gregor is the one advocating this.

LMAO.

Why can’t Hollywood spare the world this constant arguing and divisiveness by having us pay on the way out of the movie theater? Even movie theaters honor returns on partially consumed refreshments.

I haven’t heard of “Wanted”. I guess I’ll have to see it before I decide to see it!

Ironman was better, the Hulk was not as good. Hancock is a lot better than both Fantastic 4 movies. Talk about missed opportunities.

No, but I can judge whether or not to see it without seeing it. You know, the entire counterpoint to your first post where you told us to see it before we decide if we want to see it or not.

I don’t need to experience trepanation to know I want it like I want a new hole in my head.
James on July 5, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Liberal: Just because you have every reason on earth to believe that something is stupid and worthless, you refuse to even spend your valuable time and hard-earned money to SEE it?

Conservative: Um, which part of the phrase “stupid and worthless” do you not understand?

I normally don’t have any problem with kicking trolls, but it seems to me that question pretty much answers itself.

You’re welcome to that opinion. So, instead of watching the trailer, deciding on whether or not the movie looks entertaining, and making up your OWN mind … you go ahead and only see the movies Ed tells you are worth seeing. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, (blah, blah, blah, ignorant blather, righteous anger, blah blah…)

Gregor on July 5, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Good grief, how colossally stupid are you? You can’t just ignore the rest of the post where I talk about film publicity and how they market the film.

Brilliant. We’ve got someone who can judge a movie without seeing it.

No, but I can judge whether or not to see it without seeing it. You know, the entire counterpoint to your first post where you told us to see it before we decide if we want to see it or not.

I don’t need to experience trepanation to know I want it like I want a new hole in my head.

Nothing bothers me more, however, than what Derbyshire explains as violating more than one law of physics in a movie, but that’s me.
Dusty on July 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Did you see the trailers for “Wanted?” It’s like somebody made a movie designed to freak out people who actually live in the Matrix.

I’m picky about scifi too. I’m happy to have a willing suspension of disbelief about exactly ONE thing – no matter how crazy it is. But when the whole movie is just one non sequitur after another, that’s not a demonstration of the writer’s creativity; it’s a product of his blood chemistry.

How come Hot Air is reviewing a movie starring Will Smith when just a week or two ago everyone here took a pledge to never watch WIll Smith movies ever again? Is the boycott on or not?

Dave Rywall on July 5, 2008 at 10:09 AM

LOL this is the same crowd that swore they’d give to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali defense fund because she’s so brave (codeword for ’she’s pretty and maybe she’ll date me’).