Hancock Review

Posted by James McGee on 07.05.2008

A rare July misfire from Will Smith

Will Smith—John Hancock
Charlize Theron—Mary Embrey
Jason Bateman—Ray Embrey
Jae Head—Aaron Embrey
Eddie Marsan—Red

Directed by Peter Berg
Written by Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan
Runtime: 92 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language

What if Superman was a jerk? That’s the basic dramatic question driving the action in Hancock, and it makes for an interesting twist on the standard superhero formula. The film begins as a character study and an exploration of what, exactly, defines heroism—is it actions, attitude, intentions, or outcome? Unfortunately, the filmmakers seem to lose interest in this concept somewhere along the way, and things degenerate into just another messy, border-line nonsensical summer blockbuster. Great performances and a unique vision keep things entertaining, but Hancock just never lives up to its potential.

John Hancock is a drunken, slovenly, misanthropic, all around unlikable guy. Just so happens, he can also fly, stop trains with a shrug of his shoulder, and play “Harlem Globetrotters” with SUVs. After repeatedly raising the public’s ire with his “heroics,” Hancock befriends down-on-his-luck PR guru Ray Embry. As the unlikely duo set about repairing the hero’s image, Hancock meets up with an old friend with the key to unlocking the mysteries of his past.

Let’s start by accentuating the positive. The performances are top-notch across the board. Will Smith plays his usual embodiment of cool, but with a darker edge. He’s funny and charismatic as ever, but manages to be extremely unlikable at the same time. His true acting chops shine through, too, as the audience gets glimpses of the lonely, bitter motivation behind Hancock’s attitude. There are a few moments where you can see his thick, bravado façade straining to contain raw emotion. For all of his trademark flamboyance, Smith is a remarkably subtle actor when the occasion calls for it.

Smith is beautifully complimented by Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron, so he doesn’t have to pull the weight of the movie by himself (even though he could…see, ‘cause he’s so strong…get it?...this thing on?). Ray Embry is the same dry, understated role that we’ve seen from Bateman before, but that doesn’t stop his performance from being brilliant. Theron is starting to remind me of a female John Cusack, because she brings a sincerity and believability to every role, no matter how cheesy (and believe me, there’s some pretty hackeneyed plot points and ham-fisted dialogue late in this flick). Even young Jae Head plays the awe-struck, heart-melting Aaron to a T. Hancock may have its shortcomings, but the acting isn’t one of them.

The overall vision of the film holds up too, though it can be a little odd at times. In keeping with the “not your average superhero flick” vibe, Hancock doesn’t carry himself like a typical spandex-clad adventurer. His flight is sloppy and gangly, his landings are awkward and destructive, and his displays of strength are oafish and impulsive. Though he is clearly modeled on Superman, he lacks the Man of Steel’s grace and presence. While the movie is pretty heavy on the CGI, it still manages to have a refreshingly unpolished look that fits with the subject matter.

There’s also a quirky charm to the movie that’s hard to explain. Its part action, part drama, part pure character study, and part comedy. There’s even some truly off the wall moments that defy explanation (the theme from “Sanford and Son” makes a hilarious, totally bizarre appearance during the prison sequence). In a way, all of these elements make the movie wildly inconsistent (and perhaps it all ties into the film’s identity crisis near the end), but these constant 90-degree turns keep things perpetually entertaining.

Now, getting to that identity crisis. The exploration of heroism is a great idea and is handled pretty deftly, except for one problem: that particular story ends about an hour into the movie. I don’t know if the writers just ran out of steam or realized too late that they had a half-baked idea, but regardless of the explanation, Hancock completely falls apart during the third act. There’s a pretty big twist late in the movie that sends the story off into another direction. Without giving too much away, this new plot thread has potential (actually, it would have made for a great sequel), but as it is, it feels tacked on and underdeveloped. There are simply two different stories going on in this movie. Neither gets the attention it deserves, and the second is full of plot holes you could park a bus in. The movie would be better served if the third act was chopped off completely and the remaining story fleshed out into the cerebral action flick it was trying to be. As it is, Hancock is just a big, dumb popcorn movie dressed up in more sophisticated clothing. That’s a shame, because the pieces are there for something much more.

The 411: All of the good things about this movie—the acting, the concept, the vision—come to a screeching halt with the late-game curve ball. It’s as if Hancock himself stepped in front of the film’s forward momentum and smashed it into a flaming, twisted heap of good intentions. The movie is an entertaining diversion, and there are glimmers of deeper, thematic explorations, but in the end, Hancock is just an above-average summer popcorn flick.

Final Score:  7.0   [ Good ]