There were a few good physics moments. First off, they show that he uses thrust to fly, and there are effects from his thrust. Because he’s sloppy/careless, that means destruction when he takes off and lands. I thought that was rather cool for a superhero movie. I also noted that his clothes many times did take a beating. Like the film where he had been in a fire and his clothes were scorched to pieces, or the bullet that destroys his shades. Of course, that just makes the part where his clothes are not destroyed stand out more.

The problem is superhero writers think strength of the character is all that matters, and forget little insignificant details like the structural strength of the items being lifted/thrown. Now I am willing to forgive them thinking a battleship (i.e. large steel framework) will remain structurally rigid while being hefted in the air, but organic bodies do not work that way. The boy, the whale, the guys in the car - rapid accelerations and decelerations would turn tissue to pulp. So even if Hancock is strong enough to lift and throw a whale, the whale may not be strong enough to be lifted and thrown that way, or slam into the ocean a kilometer off shore (with or without a sailboat).

All you commenters whining about Phil rating the physics of a superhero movie, yeah, you’re so brilliant that you recognize “it’s just a movie” or “it’s a comic book”. Why didn’t we think of that? Come on, the point is to understand how reality works. Sure, you can enjoy the movie as escapist fun, but it is interesting, even fun, to consider how reality works and how the superhero aspects could be melded to how reality works.

For instance, The Hulk is apparently impervious to bullets. Now normally the same structural strength concerns would apply (like falling from heights and not getting hurt), but the premise is something happens to his tissue to make is superstrong, so I give that a pass for him. It’s part of the effect. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t knock him down to get hit by a bus that weighs 5 times his weight (at least).

So Hancock is indestructible, and a train slams into him. So it doesn’t hurt him, fine, but how do his feet stay nailed to the ground? Why doesn’t the train send him bouncing down the tracks, or knock him down and then derail going over him? Sure, it looks cool for the train to have a big slot in the front, but it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another. When Hancock confronts the guy with the detonator, that was fun to see the set up, see what was coming. They didn’t actually show how he got the detonator away, so we are left to speculate. Not how he got the detonator, but how the guy’s hand didn’t open when it was severed from the arm. How did the switch stay closed? Sever the arm muscles, and that severs the muscles that pull the fingers and hand closed, so there’s no tension to keep the button depressed.

Now maybe he moved lightning quick and caught the hand just after it was severed, but then why didn’t he just move lightning quick and grab the guy’s hand before he could release the switch, and then punch him out or something? Because it wouldn’t be as exciting. Well, at least they demonstrated Hancock wasn’t the brightest when it came to solving the problems, so maybe he didn’t think of that solution. Still, how did he keep the hand in place?

And more importantly, how did the bad guy get a prosthetic arm so quickly, and become proficient in its use?

The stuff with the girlfriend was uneven. We could see early on there was something up, but then the confrontation and fighting was awkward, she knows he has amnesia and doesn’t know about their past or anything, but instead of explaining, like, anything to him, she just gets in a fight.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, and I liked the ending, even if the stuff leading into it was awkward.

As for Hancock, I, too, enjoyed it. It was a big load of big, dumb fun. But it could have been something else.

I agree with Karl O that it built up a big mystery and produced a rather feeble payoff. Additionally, there is something else that I noticed about it that I felt let it down : At one stage, the movie looked like it was going to explore some real emotional depth from Hancock. I particularly liked the scene where Charlize Theron’s character brought him spaghetti madness in jail. It was one of those “Whoa, I didn’t know this guy could act!” moments.

However, after the denouement, it all got very cheesy and superficial.

But this time was different - it was an unpleasantly hot Saturday afternoon and I really just wanted to sit in a cool theater and not think about the 10 cubic yards of mulch I should be spreading around my yard, so we went.

When the movie was over, I was so pleasantly surprised that I had really enjoyed it that I said something like “I really enjoyed that and I’m glad we came - critics are stupid.” It was a throw away line that out of context makes me, and the BA for quoting me, sound like movie critic bashers. For the record - we’re not. In all things, we choose to listen to the opinions and advice of experts, including movie critics (those of you who enjoyed such movies as D-Wars would probably call them elitists). If we didn’t respect the critics’ opinions, I wouldn’t have had to talk the BA into going to the movie.

And to answer quasidog’s question - “BTW .. a critic does not always say negative things. By definition you are a critic, this review being a critique of the movie. Pointing out all of the physics problems is a critique. Does that mean Mrs. BA thinks that about you ?

No, I don’t think Phil is stupid - except when he disagrees with me.