[…] Prime example here would be Hancock. The movie starts with a great premise: a deconstruction of the superman mythos. It explores what would happen if Clark Kent was a disgruntled, amnesiac short tempered black man who grew up on the streets of the inner city, instead of a white country boy raised to be a hero by idealistic and loving parents. It tries to answer questions such as: How would an average person, who was not trained and groomed to be a super-hero deal with having super-strength, invulnerability to all known weapons and ability to fly? How would it affect him if such incredible powers were bestowed upon him suddenly, out of the blue and without any explanation. Would he use them to fight crime? Would he indulge himself, knowing full well he would be virtually above the law? Or would he try to find a compromise between these two extremes? […]

Finally saw Hancock, and could comment on your review…

You are usually bang on, and I end up agreeing with you, but I liked the “twist”. It wasn’t expected, and was different…that is, wasn’t your typical “mutated-from-toxic-waste/insect-bite” or “came-from-another-planet” origin.

And Charlize was freaking hot in that tight black outfit. :)

I don’t know…I guess I was just wanting to be entertained and could suspend logic.

lol @Zack for being the first to start the name calliing.

I started to watch the movie but then had to go… (I was watching on my computer, like all movies) it seemed really good so far.

yup, had the same reaction to Hancock.
really good potential in the first half, totally fucked up in the second half.

I mean, it was a fresh look on superheroes, a more “superheroes are like the rest of us, but, like, they have superpowers…”

but instead of making it a “person movie”, showing us how will smith struggles with his problems while trying to make a difference, they hack up a unrelated ending, glue it up with tape wrap and CG and try to serve it…

@Jake – yup, there are several computer related posts queued up to show up in the next two weeks. :)

@Zack – LOL! Well said. The third act of Hancock is like a sequel to the first 2. :)

also, not to get too political, but anyone who thinks that the media is actually LIBERAL in today’s day and again…is flat out stupid.

On the other side. I agree with this post Luke. I was really excited for this movie as well, then the whole “crap” with Charlize happened and I was like, UGH, really?! It almost felt like this could have been the plot if there was a sequel to this movie.

Not too be off topic, but are you going to be going back to computer related articles soon?

I don’t mean to make this a political disputed but it’s funny how conservatives always talk about “liberal media” while liberals lament that the media is controlled by conservatives. Go figure. :P

Not to mention that some prominent republican politicians came out of the movie business (Ronald Regan and “The Governator” just to name two). So I believe that neither political philosophy holds sway over the movie industry. It is ruled by the laws of supply and demand which means catering to the lowest common denominator most of the time.

I’m beginning to think that Hollywood always sucked, and that the occasional good movies are simply flukes – low budget productions that fell through the cracks because one decided to “improve” on them.

… and to think… lately (since vietnam) the only thing liberals were good at was being rich, and making good movies… now they are slacking on the second… so they can add more to the first.

>.