Good movie, entertaining, I would recommend it to almost anybody. Until I saw this movie I didnt even know who Charlize Theron was …DAMMM… she is fine
it had nothing to do with angels. shorty said they were created, and people have called them different names in different cultures over time, like gods, angels, demons, and now superheroes.
My problem with Hancock was that I felt like it couldn’t decide what kind of movie it wanted to be. Was it a movie about a zany alcoholic superhero? No wait, it’s a movie about a zany reformed superhero. Oh wait, it’s a tragic tale of eternally starcrossed lovers that ends with Will Smith drawing a big ass gay heart on the moon. :arazz:
Ridiculously exceptional.
The first two (alcoholic, reformed) tie into each other well. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly.
maybe you didn’t like the origin, but if they didn’t include one then that’s what’d be talking about right now. also without that origin and weakness there’s no real conflict. the invincible hancock chilling in jail getting over his emotional issues and then coming out reformed isn’t much of a movie.
Children of men is one of those films that are so gdlke if you don’t like it you should just stop watching films alltogether because it doesn’t get much better then that and a film of that calibur has NO PLACE being anywhere near this unbalanced generic summer action flick.
First 40 mins was pretty good and I give director props for doing something very different but the rest of the movie was such complete shit, if ever a movie jumped the shark it’s hancock.
<3 RT comments.
A depressing and thoughtful theme park ride.
Actually, it’s perfect movie material. No conflict? Man vs. self. That’s conflict. How many movies are about people’s problems and their attempts to overcome them? He didn’t need an origin explained. Not every element of a movie needs to be spelled out, and if the result is compelling storytelling, all the better. Ambiguity is tough to use correctly (see Square Enix for many examples of using it for the sake of using it and nothing more), but applied with care it adds depth to a story.
That it is.
that one long single camera scene is epic in children of men
I feel like I’m disgracing the film byt mentioning it again in this thread of all places but…
Pull my finger:sad:
I just watched Hancock. It was pretty good. Like most of you, I really enjoyed the first half, the second half was only okay. It wasn’t even that the second half was bad, it just didn’t gel in any way with what was set up in the first half. It was almost like two separate movies that happened to contain the same characters.
P.S. Children of Men is wonderfully depressing.
it seems like some of the people watching this movie is as if you believe every story is written/thought of the way your watching it, which is a little funny. also disconnecting the knowledge that angels are known as beings from space (superman?) it’s not as random as you think, just as random as you allow it to be
Which one? There were a lot of them.
My personal faves were the ambush scene and the final battle between the military and the rebels.
After seeing the behind the scenes features of how they filmed all that, it made me love/respect the movie that much more.
As for Hancock, as stated before, the last parts of the movie had me scratching me head and left a lot of questions unanswered like:
So now that Hancock is on the other side of the country does that mean Theron retains all her powers or did she become mortal somehow??
What was up with Theron burning everything and causing freaky weather? Was she on her period?
Why didn’t that frenchie kid explode after Hancock caught him after launching him him about 10,000 feet in the air? Come to think of it, how did he even survive the punch?
Oh well. I still liked the movie regardless of the gaping plot holes.
guess its time for me to track down children of men.
LMAO @ you using RPG storylines as an example considering they’re epicly terrible in just about everyway.
but anyways, i agree man vs. self can be interesting…but for a superhero movie? pretending the public would accept that, hancock still needs a weakness to make for good action and that weakness would need explanation…which would by definition be ridiculous.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about
you really need to stop bumping dead threads.
Isn’t there a rule against bumping dead ass threads for no fucking reason?