From a mere glance at Hancock’s premise on paper,
one might be inclined to deem it a solid, if risky proposition
for a summer blockbuster. In fact, I firmly believe that the
central idea behind the film—a superhero being genetically
endowed with his powers and turning into a recluse over them
because of ensuing social-estrangement—is the type of thing that
we should all be welcoming in Hollywood. The concept behind the
film, credited to co-writer Vincent Ngo (Vince Gilligan did a
re-write), is truly original and even a little daring; it
represents just the kind of artistic gambling that we see all
too little of in today’s mainstream cinema. By all means,
Hancock should be an exhilarating picture because it’s one
that we’ve never quite seen before.
But the movie takes none of the
risks that its lofty background-story assumes. In truth, I think
I myself could’ve written a better screenplay out of Ngo’s idea
than he did.
The fact that the first two acts of
the movie, which introduce Hancock and his internal-dilemma, are
rather captivating (while not great) makes the movie’s ultimate
result all the more disappointing. Will Smith leads things off
strong with a pitch-perfect—at least by PG-13 standards for a
character that deserves an R-rated film—characterization of the
titular-hero. Hancock is a badassed, arrogant drunk, but not one
without a heart, which makes his pairing with image-consultant
Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman, in a bitingly good performance)
ideal. Hancock saves Ray from being run over by a train in a
standard car-on-tracks debacle, only to have Ray (who is
struggling in his career) then return the favor by offering his
services as an image-cleaner and PR-assistant. He has Hancock
serve some time that he owes in prison, say “Good job” to the
failing police-officers at the crime-scenes he must help to fix,
and act politely with the press.
I cannot reveal what ultimately
ruins the movie so as to not spoil it for readers who have yet
to see it. (Although, for the record, WALL-E and
Kung-Fu Panda and even Wanted are better selections
to catch this Fourth of July weekend.) I will say, however, that
it involves plot-developments concerning Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize
Theron), who secures a solid amount of screen-time during the
film’s final thirty minutes. To be completely blunt without
giving anything away: Hancock’s third-act is a complete
and utter mess. The movie sets up a plot-twist concerning Mary
for no apparent reason other than that Ngo and Gilligan saw
nowhere to go with the Hancock character himself. This leads to
a finale that defies all established logic; there is no
explanation for what happens and, as a result, any
emotional-connection that viewers forge with the characters over
the course of the movie is jeopardized. Had the picture
concluded in an apt manner, I might’ve been able to excuse its
sappy and out-of-place final scene. As it is, the whole tail end
of Hancock is an outright disaster.
Yes, the picture offers lots of
visual spectacle—money buys anything nowadays in Hollywood—and
runs a very quick ninety-two minutes. But just about every other
summer-picture can boast the same; this should be
unconditionally expected from one with such a rich premise and a
director of Peter Berg’s (The Kingdom, Friday Night Lights)
caliber. That Hancock is such a disappointment is a
shame; had the movie been done right, it could’ve been a
contemporary summer classic, well in line with Ang Lee’s Hulk,
Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report, and M. Night
Shyamalan’s Signs. Instead, what we have here, my
friends, is a dud.
-Danny Baldwin, Bucket Reviews
Review Published on: 7.2.2008
Screened on: 7.1.2008 at MovieMax Theatres in Carlsbad,
CA.