That's right, my other hat - the science critic.
Watched the movie Hancock last night with the wife. (although watching it for free by borrowing it from the local library was nice, I've been on the hold list for this title since mid-November!) I give the movie about 5.5/10. It was 'OK.' And not for the inaccuracies in physics (more on that later). It was just so-so. Maybe it's that Will Smith, an actor that I like very much (good movies such as I,Robot, MiB, I am Legend were good only because of Will), just isn't cut out to play an unhappy, drunk superhero. And the plot holes (who ARE these people?) just didn't get filled to my satisfaction. And it was difficult to get a sense of whether this movie took itself seriously or not (I'd say not, but that wasn't apparent until well into the movie).
Any likability of this movie is directly a result of the likability of Will Smith. Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman were OK but the focus was all on Smith. I think the execution of the idea behind this film (a flawed superhero) wasn't as good as the idea itself. All-in-all, it was an alright movie.
Since I'm an upper-echelon science geek, I would be remiss if not mentioning the inaccuracies in physics. I could go into great detail on all of Hancock's feets of strength (it would be great to have during Festivus), such as hurling a whale by it's tail (I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!), which would have ripped the entire tail fin off before the whale even budged, but I'll focus on just one - energy. Why energy? Because everything takes energy to do. It was apparent in the movie that Hancock ate food like a normal human (less food and more booz but anyway). To lift an SUV (weighing approximately 5000lb including 4 adult occupants) 1000 ft in the air, as Hancock did, would require 154,416 kcal of energy. That would have to be one heck of a meal! And that ignores traveling with it (kinetic energy), etc. Hancock would have to eat an absolutely ginormous amount of food to have such energy capacity. But who am I to question Hollywood's ignorance of the laws of nature? Now I know what you all are thinking - you're taking it too seriously. And you would be correct. But it was just a passing thought during the movie and didn't interfere with whatever enjoyment I received from its viewership. Now any Roland Emerich movie... oh never mind - that's for another post
