Hancock and Unbreakable

Superhero & universe: Hancock, Bruce Willis

Is it based on a comic? Neither movie is based on any one comic but are explorations of the genre itself. Unbreakable is unique in that the entire movie centers on the origin, instead of featuring it merely as the first of three acts. Neither character seems based on any hero in particular, though several references, allusions, and homages are paid in both movies to several different comic heroes.

Haven't they already made that? Unbreakable is Shyamalan's second major feature film and is consistent with his style of film making and writing (even though his movies have degraded over the years). As such, any of his movies are likely to take place in Philadelphia, deal with supernatural happenings in an everyday world, have a slower pace, and end with a twist.

Hancock is more of a cash grab (hey, Will Smith and superhero movies are popular! I have an idea...) disguised as a satirical homage to the genre. Thus both movies should have some small air of familiarity.

What the heck does this have to do with Avengers? What's so amazing about Avengers is that it's a big budget major summer release, and is expected to draw a wide audience from a large pool of interests. Simply, this film, despite its origins, has mass appeal.

Unbreakable and Hancock were both superhero films aimed at the broad public rather than just comic fans. As a result, many of the Avengers' viewers this summer will be going into the theater with little more than these two films under their belts. Both films also helped bring superheroes more to the surface of current pop culture and could have contributed to the likelihood that Avengers was made at all!

Kate says before I get to the theme that these movies hold in common, I should first say that I was extremely reluctant to see Hancock. I had heard very negative things about the ending, including that it was a depressing film.

Depressing?! Wow--I must have a totally different definition of depressing!

I was thoroughly impressed by the ending of the movie. I did think the plot was a tad . . . unformed. In some ways, the main character arc belongs to Hancock but in many ways, it truly belongs to Ray. Both arcs could work congruently, but the writers actually switch arcs in the middle of the movie--which gives the movie an unbalanced feel. Also, the whole pairing idea, though very cool, is kind of tacked on.

I guess, to sum up, the main problem is that the movie has no consistent point of view.

Setting aside the uneven plotting, the movie is very enjoyable. Will Smith was perfectly cast since he can do comedy, effortlessly, and drama, effortlessly, and Hancock calls for both. He also delivers that gritty sense of everydayness that sets Hancock apart from most superheroes.

Which brings me to the theme. Again, admittedly, the movie is rather confused here. It starts off as an exploration on the need for superheroes (so much so that I was convinced the movie was a kind of existential humanist soapbox), then morphs into an exploration of self-restraint as part of individual growth, and then turns into pure action/discovery, no theme.

One thread that does remain through all of these is what makes a hero? A superhero? Is he a superhero if he saves the victims but destroys the city? Is he a superhero if he becomes mortal?

Watching Hancock completely demolish buildings in the first twenty minutes is, admittedly, down-right hilarious, especially since it raises the issues of "how much damage can a superhero do?" and "why wouldn't people be just as frightened of the superhero's power as of the villain's?" and "why would any government trust a superhero?" and "man, who is going to pay for all this?"

In the end, the power isn't what makes Hancock a superhero (though it does make him cool), but his choices. In the same sense, Ray is always a hero, being kind and tolerant and seeing the best in others while Mary supplies the intelligence/comprehension necessary to the situation. Together, they form a fairly cool triumvirate of superhero qualities!

Unbreakable also grapples with the nature of the superhero. The better-written movie (really, scriptwriters: one-problem-one-point-of-view works wonders as a writing approach), it demonstrates a knowledge of the genre that surpasses Hancock. It also gives rise to some subtle questions: is a superhero only a superhero in opposition? Does light need darkness in order to define itself and, vice versa, does darkness need the light to acknowledge its own existence?

The similarity between the two is the gentle peeling back of character. Both movies are blessed with powerhouse actors: Bruce Willis, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson (who is perfect! proving that he can excel at restrained scene-chewing with the right director), Robin Wright (Penn), and Spencer Treat Clark, who I thought vastly outclassed Haley Joel Osmont as one of Shyamalan's child actors. (Shyamalan does have a talent directing them in general.)

Both movies are character-based although Hancock is less sure of itself. Both movies explore the nature of the superhero through a specific superhero persona. Both manage to create inner conflict in a genre where it is much easier to fall-back on external problems but far more satisfying to combine external with internal pay-offs. And the conclusions to both are not only satisfying but add to the genre's ideas about itself.

Mike says while I may have a strong dislike for Shyamalan now, I really owe a lot to Unbreakable. The film, in its premise and dialog, made me comfortable and even proud of my interest in comics. The film also gave me a direction to take my appreciation: into learning about the role comics play in culture (which would be a post of its own!)

When I first saw the film I was blown away by the pacing, the acting, and the strength of the writing. The story knew where it was going, and it took the time it needed. It also made a bold statement about the need for heroes and champions in our modern world.

Rewatching it, I discovered that it didn't age at all for me. The film feels fairly timeless, and all the aspects I mentioned above are still tight and well done. Bruce Willis, already the American embodiment of the "tough as nails, everyman hero", is inspired in the role.

While the end of the movie has been generally panned, I find myself pretty fond of it, despite wishing we had seen the events instead of reading about them. For the film to be an origin story for both characters is brilliant; to make the hero's discovery the goal of the villain was downright diabolical genius. The film stands as a solid statement about superheroes and the need for hope in our culture.

Hancock, is, as Kate says, entertaining but unfocused. The film is fun and certainly fulfills the needs of the audience who went to see it: People looking to see Will Smith be funny and blow things up.

Which leads me to mostly overlook many of the flaws in the film, which are pretty glaring if only because the film never steps up and takes a solid stance on any one issue. Seeing the redemption of a hero is a cool thing, and the nice dose of reality to the concept provides a lot of laughs.

Despite this, entire characters and subplots could have been dropped, and a few flashbacks would have made the film fairly epic. The idea itself (which is vaguely similar to Hawkman) is always rich enough to pull off a trilogy.

I think the two films work fairly well together because they both begin with a man discovering that he is not what he believes he is. Willis is not a man but a superhero, and Hancock isn't a drunk, a screw up, or a hero, he's a god. Very cool stuff.

Together the films make me think about heroes in the real world, how they might work, how others would respond, and where they might be. In fact, both films are pretty accessible to average viewers, and I would take advantage of that to suck a friend into superhero addiction.