[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon star] Reviews

Is Hancock 2008 about the tragedy of rejection?

January 29, 2026

👁 4

https://blenderdumbass.org/do_login : 👁 1

#hancock #peterberg #willsmith #charlizetheron #film #review #movies #cinemastodon

License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

[avatar]by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".


5 Minute Read



Mary Embrey, the blonde woman played by Charlize Theron in the 2008 Peter Berg film Hancock, is surprisingly good looking. For the few people who read through the psycho-sexual analysis of me, you may know that for me in general, the name Mary, or the Latin version of it Maria, or the Russian version of it Masha, especially connected to a blonde, good looking woman, is very important. And yet, back when I saw Hancock for the first time. I didn't quite realize how important it is.

Peter Berg's direction feels like he stole it from Michael Bay and Tony Scott in the same time. The film's box office success ( being number 4 in 2008 ) could be attributed to it. Berg goes for some rather good imitation of Bayhem!. And he uses a nice, soothing, kind of, serious looking, hend-held camera work on the dramatic moments, kind of like what we see in the latest films of Tony Scott. He even later directed a movie called Battleship which is based on toys from Hasbro ( like Transformers ) and is trying to be more of a Michael Bay film. And in both of those films, he does not quite pull off the signature Michael Bay rotating camera shot. In Hancock he comes very close a few times, but all of them lack something rather essential to make it truly Baylike.

People tend to separate the film into two separate parts. And yes, watching it, not knowing where the story leads, may feel that way. I certainly felt that way when I saw it for the first time. We have the first half, which is about this asshole superman character John Hancock played by Will Smith and that public relations person Ray Embrey ( Jason Bateman ) who is trying to help Hancock improve his public image. And then we have the second half of the film, about Mary and how, spoiler alert, she is actually a superwoman that was Hancock's wife 80 years ago ( they don't age ).

Yet re-watching it, you may notice that Berg's direction already includes a hell of a lot of clues for people about the Mary character. The film rewards you for seeing it again. Some of the scenes and some of the interactions take on a different meaning when you know the twist of the film. If you can call it a twist, of course. The so called "Twist" happens half way through the film.

In a way, watching it, knowing how it turns out, makes the movie feel like a whole. It makes the movie no longer feel like the two pieces that people often think of when thinking of this movie. It makes the movie better, in a way.

So Hancock is being a misunderstood hero of sorts. He is an asshole. And he is fucking up a lot of property when trying to do his superhero-shit. But then we have the Ray guy, who is also a misunderstood hero. He wants to try to convince an American pharmaceutical company to release their highly needed, highly advanced drugs to people for free, in exchange with a heart logo.

[embedded image]


They obviously laugh him off, because 1 ) nobody ever heard about this logo, so why bother investing in it and 2 ) because releasing stuff for free goes against their mentality.

And then he meets Hancock, helps him with his public image, and everybody wants to work with Ray, for at the very least, some soft of connection with the superhero. Yet there is a complication: his wife is Hancock's ex-wife. And both his wife and Hancock's powers are tied to them not being together. The magical magic stops magicing when they are close by.

The fact that the logo is a heart, could be just lazy design on the part of the film-makers, or could be tied to some thematic bullshit, when it comes to the plot of the film. The film ends with Hancock drawing the logo on the moon, so everybody would see it. But right before that, Hancock, who is apparently still in-love with Mary ( even though he has amnesia about what happened before 80 years ago ) needs to decide to leave her alone, in order to save both of them. He wants the love, she wants the love. But to make them both strong ( and survive through an encounter with bad guys ) they have to separate. They have to reject one another. This is some highly emotional, profound bullshit.

I believe the logo being a heart ties into this profound bullshit. I still don't know how exactly. Or why the writers wrote what the writers wrote. But it seems like it is important. And it seems like more people should look at it and examine the meaning of it. c:0

Happy Hacking!!!


[icon unlike] 2
[icon right]
[icon terminal]
[icon markdown]

Find this post on Mastodon

[avatar]  Troler c:0 January 29, 2026


I believe the logo being a heart ties into this profound bullshit. I still don't know how exactly. Or why the writers wrote what the writers wrote. But it seems like it is important.


Or... there is nothing deeper. Not saying there is not, I haven't seen the film, it just may be a heart.

[icon reply]
[icon question]











[icon reviews]American Graffiti 1973 is some strong shit

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 8



You will probably laugh at me right now, but so far I've seen 1973 George Lucas film American Graffiti just twice. First time I stopped at about 25 minute mark, not getting the hype around the movie. This time I decided to get through to the end, no matter what it takes. And believe me, if you are not laughing at me right now, you don't understand. This is fucked up! Holy fucking shit!!! I see it now!!! I see it!



#americanGrafitti #GeorgeLucas #HarrisonFord #movies #film #review #cinemastodon


[icon reviews]Predator: Killer of Killers knows how to do a lot with very little

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 46 💬 4



It seems like the movie Trachtenberg was going for here was way too risky and way too ambitious for a studio to green-light it normally. But if he can do that on a fraction of budget. As animation. And not a budget, something like Pixar uses for their ultra-realistic stuff and fluent motion. But on a fraction of that. He can use the trend of animating on-twos and making everything painterly, to cut all of the corners necessary to make this insane movie with the small amount of money that he is given.


#predator #killerOfKillers #PredatorKillerOfKillers #animation #film #movies #cinemastodon #review #DanTrachtenberg


[icon reviews]Is "2001: A Space Odyssey" a comedy?

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 13 💬 1



Stanley Kubrick is known for making... well... he is known primarily for making 2001: A Space Odyssey... but most of his other films are black-comedies that poke fun at some rather dark aspects of the society. Full Metal Jacket is undeniably a comedy that pokes fun at the Vietnam war. Dr. Strangelove is a comedy that pokes fun at the absurdity of nuclear weapons. Hell even Lolita is a comedy. And a very funny one at that. So in the middle of all this, Kubrick decides to make a movie about space and stuff. And makes 2001: A Space Odyssey. So is it a comedy as well?


#ASpaceOdyssey #StanleyKubrick #film #review #movies #cinemastodon


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon theme] Themes [icon analytics] Analytics [icon email] Contact [icon mastodon] Mastodon
[icon unlock]