[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]Is Hancock 2008 about the tragedy of rejection?

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 4 ❤ 2 💬 1



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.


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


[icon reviews]The Retreat from Kiska (1965) moralizes imperial Japan

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Troler

👁 4 ❤ 2 🔄 1 💬 8



How daring must be a film studio to make a film applauding the acts of the Japanese Empire not only for the local, but the global market as well. One of the ways to do it, is to make a documentary, use objectivity as a shield for political play. Alternatively it can be about the individuals, who were concerned about the life of brethren than some pity war goals.


#TheRetreatFromKiska #1965 #Japan #Toho #SeijiMaruyama #wwii #movies #film #cinemastodon #review


[icon reviews]Dream Scenario 2023 is about Richard Stallman?

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 15 💬 1



Kristoffer Borgli's 2023 film Dream Scenario starring Nicolas Cage is a movie about a man, who is being dreamed about by a lot of people. At first his family have weird dreams about him. Then people related to them. Then the whole world. At first the dreams make him famous. But then they take a turn for the worst. At first he is just doing nothing in those dreams. Then he is being a creep. And then he literally murders people in those dreams. Which makes the public, in the real life, react to him with greater and greater rivalry. Apart from, for some reason, people in France.


#DreamScenario #NicolasCage #film #review #movies #cinemastodon #RichardStallman #RMS


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