Comments on: Hancock http://meetinmontauk.com/2008/07/06/hancock/ Musings on movies, television, music and more Thu, 31 May 2012 12:38:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Clay http://meetinmontauk.com/2008/07/06/hancock/#comment-277 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:18:09 +0000 http://meetinmontauk.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-277 I agree with all of the above. Regarding the villain, I assumed he was driven by fate to attack when Hancock was vulnerable (even though he couldn’t have known that was coming). Like the random attack in Miami, it is a common villain — not some criminal mastermind — who poses the threat. But it was sloppily handled, that’s for sure.

]]> By: Amy http://meetinmontauk.com/2008/07/06/hancock/#comment-276 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:27:09 +0000 http://meetinmontauk.wordpress.com/?p=202#comment-276 Well-said. I agree that the “twist” was telegraphed from the start. What their relationship was may not have been obvious, but that they had one definitely was. I loved much about the film, but I hated the way they dealt with the reveal. That Mary would react to Hancock’s discovery and subsequent understandable need to talk with the ridiculous heavy eye-linered arrival, followed by a ludicrous chase and destroy scene, which conveniently concludes right under her husband’s nose, made me angry at Peter Berg for directing it and the whole cast for acting it. I wish Jason Bateman had burst into Berg’s trailer with an SNL “Really?” routine. Anything to stop those seven or so minutes of film. Also, the villain, if you can call him that, is a non-entity. To have him break out of jail (is there no security there at all?) to take on Hancock, upon whom he has no reason to believe he will be able to exact revenge, makes no sense. The film would have done much better to spend that last thirty minutes exploring the nature of the sacrifice Mary and Hancock have to make.

That said, I enjoyed the heck out of the first 2/3 of the film and was fascinated by the last third. I just wish it had been done justice.

]]>