In Defense of Hancock

This one's for you, Ian.

I thought Hancock wasn't bad. Wasn't great, but wasn't bad.
Ian says it sucked.

First of all, let me say that the action and superpower effects were good. come on, seeing that train crumple like paper against Hancock was cool (that's not a spoiler, it's in the commercial.) with that out of the way, on to the opposition:

Part of the Hancock Sucks argument was that a lot was left unexplained. And i agree with that, i can see where he's coming from.

But I think Hancock is disappointing if you're expecting a conventional superhero movie. Conventional superhero movies usually boast an origin story (an essential and iconic element of superhero mythos.... i'm patting myself on the back for using the word "mythos" right now). also, superhero movies usually balance the internal conflict with an external conflict against some tangible villain or evil.

in THAT sense, Hancock fails to deliver. the origin is skipped, almost as an afterthought, and the internal conflict (power vs. loneliness, living for self vs. living for others) takes the spotlight. In other words, there's no prominant villain or evil to fight.

BUT i think that the goal of Hancock was specifically NOT to tell a conventional superhero story. They wanted to sell the HUMAN angle, and tell a story about loneliness and heroism and inner demons and etc. etc. and i guess i can appreciate that, and also see how it's not what some people want.

in the end, Hancock is aimed at a mainstream audience, not at the comic book fandom (of which i consider myself a part). but at the very least, it was an entertaining flick. not flawless by any means, but enjoyable.