Image: Henry Farrar-Hockley
The summer blockbuster season rolls on with the release of Will Smith’s anti-superhero movie, Hancock, on July 2. Here’s our review.
Will Smith is a fascinating character. He pretty much heads the list of Hollywood’s A-list megastars; bagging 20 million a movie, ranging across genres from comedy to action to rom-com (and winning big every time), while steering clear of bloated franchises (he’s done sequels, but ‘threequels’? Not yet, at least).
He’s a hugely charismatic onscreen presence in the mould of Tom Cruise, and yet, unlike Cruise, he’s no blank canvas. He exudes personality, oozes life: who else could have carried I Am Legend on their own shoulders?. When was the last time you saw him share credit with a co-star? Bad Boys 2? And that was a knowing joke.
But if Will Smith isn’t exactly resting on his laurels, it’s hard to know what kind of actor he wants to be. He dipped his toe in a couple of Serious Films at the turn of the century, but after they didn’t work out, it’s been fat pay cheques and big trailers all the way. But there’s always been a glimmer of hope with Smith. Even when sticking to the tent pole summer events, he’s toyed with the idea of good taste – channelling Asimov, Mark Protosevich and a true-life tear-jerker, where other stars simply stretched themselves in spandex. So even if the results weren’t always happy (and to be honest, they rarely were) Smith usually managed to come out of it all unscathed.
All of which brings us to Hancock, in which Smith finally tackles the superhero genre, but with his own idiosyncratic twist. Based on a script that’s been kicking around Hollywood for ages, Hancock’s time has finally come. Sandwiched between summers ruled by Superman, Batman, X-Men and more, John Hancock is the anti-superhero; a hard-drinking misfit, a loner, a loser, who tackles crime in LA with maximum prejudice and minimum regard for life, limb and property. When the disgruntled citizens finally snap, it’s up to Jason Bateman’s PR maven to guide Hancock’s rehabilitation and, inadvertently, lead him to his destiny.
Hancock is, without a doubt, the strangest movie of the summer. At its core is a story of a superhero without a nemesis – a superhero whose worst enemy turns out to be his own nature. You can be immortal, you can have the strength to crush trains with your shoulder, but how do you fight that? What kind of choices would you make, Hancock asks, if you emerged from a painful sense of solitary confinement only to find, after all those years, that the one thing that can help you understand yourself is the one thing that can also destroy you?
While there are other ideas artfully lifted from other comic book films (the question of how people would really react to superheroes in their lives comes from The Incredibles via Watchmen), this central, psychological conundrum is Hancock’s own. He most certainly isn’t the first superhero to show a psychological imbalance (the genre is pretty much founded on that) but he is the first to deal with this peculiar self-reflexivity.
But if Hancock makes some sort of sense on an inner level, externally, Peter Berg’s direction is all over the place. It’s hard to believe that this is the same man who brought such compelling urgency to The Kingdom (a film whose problems are a mirror image of Hancock: rotten on the inside, brilliant on the outside). There’s no authorial voice in Hancock at all, just showy, swirling camerawork and pointless slow-mo – the conceits of a man totally unsure of what kind of film he’s trying to bring to the screen. Likewise, the script flits between foul-mouthed one liners and setting up Hancock as a surrogate father figure to the obligatory cute kid, apparently caught between R-rated action and a family-friendly mentality.
The shots of Smith taking off and landing are excellent, but all the flying effects are hopeless, as is the film’s entire big-money sequence: an extended fight across LA.
By this point we’re into the film’s second half, where things have started to go seriously awry. It begins with a proper jaw-dropper of a twist that you won’t see coming. But after you’ve got over the shock factor, you realise that Hancock has just headed off down a blind alley. The Twist necessitates all manner of exposition that cheapens the character of Hancock himself, and diverts attention away from what was original, to what is formulaic and confused. Worst of all, the film had established its rules of reality, rules which it now goes on to bend and ultimately break in the name of dramatic expediency.
At 92-minutes, Hancock betrays the evidence of being a longer, more complex film cut by committee to leave something more easily marketable but less easily digestible. Is it genre-bending fantasy? Is it adult fiction? Is it foul-mouthed comedy? Is it simple summer fare? It’s none of these things to any satisfying degree, settling, in the end, for being a Will Smith movie, as before, as ever, but not with the conviction and clarity that we’d usually expect from that. The real victim (audience aside) is Eddie Marsan, whose role as a nominal ‘villain’ has clearly been butchered, leaving him flopping around like a stranded fish.
So Hancock, when all is said and done, isn’t a complete failure, but it’s a long, long way from being any kind of success. It has ideas, at least, although not all of them good, and not many of them well executed. One thing’s for sure, though: Will Smith will abide.
I saw this movie and I liked it a lot, it is definitely a unique piece and stands apart from your standard summer blockbusters, It was a really ambituous movie, I loved how it was genre bending, I loved the twist as well, willsmith was fantastic, a better developed villain ‘Edie Marson’ would have gone a long way or they should have just not included him at all, as the movie essentially does not need a villain, It was also a little too short, 10-15 more minutes would have been nice. all in all a solid 8/10, I also liked it a lot better than iron man and Indiana Jones. I am really curious to see how the critical and audience Response to this will be, cause it is a rather strange movie ‘In a surprisingly good way for me’.
Written by Howie on June 20th, 2008 at 2:32 am
That picture is the only thing seeing me through being in the office this late. That’s amazing.
Written by Marie F on June 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I haven’t watched the movie yet. But, from the reviews I’ve read so far, “Hancock” doesn’t seem to be a strange, weird movie to me.
I’m not American. I guess that’s why it’s easier for me to understand the movie message, even if it isn’t the message the producers really wanted to convey. I wouldn’t be surprised if the film ended up being a big hit abroad.
I don’t want to offend anybody. I only want to provoke you into thinking about your latest faults, and about how the world is seeing you nowadays. As a “foreigner” that I am, I can clearly see that Hancock portrays the current image most countries have of the USA today. I won’t go into details. Try to see it by yourselves, without being too reactive and emotional. Be humble, and you’ll recognize yourselves (your country, actually) in Hancock, with your clumsy, often extremely aggressive, often politically incorrect, so many times violent behaviors and attitudes concerning international policies.
PS: I won’t give either my real name or my e-mail, out of fear, and I’m serious. Having a clear thinking and being critical can be taken as something subversive and dangerous nowadays in your country. I’m not dangerous. I’m a regular, boring, everyday person, who happens to like to think and be critical. That’s all.
See? Hancock probably provokes similar reactions from people: the former admiration is being replaced by fear. I’ll check it out when I see the film.
Written by F.D. on July 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
save ur money and wait for the real thing “Dark Knight”, Hancock is crap.
If u eat all Smith´s shitt than u may like it the same way u liked Wild Wild West.
Written by sephysys on July 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 am
Will Smith is really great! I have loved his movies like I am legend and I, robot. He always has something new to do! Will smith rocks!!
Written by frandy on July 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Having just watched ‘Hancock’, I can’t really put my finger on what’s wrong - except to know that something is, indeed, wrong. The story doesn’t evolve along any accepted story-telling form and the initial storyline (that of a malcontented superhero) fails to reach any real conclusion. A contrived pivotal point lacks credibility with the far-fetched notion that Hancock might be inclined to accept his current state in an effort to change simply to be liked. ‘Hancock’ is, at best, confused story-telling; at worst, bad story-telling. Of course, in order to tell a story, you need to be clear about what, exactly, the story IS.
Written by Tom on July 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am
It was average, flat. I was never fully immersed in the story line, although there were a few little quirks in it. F.D, your reply was alot of truth as I myself live in N.Z and see alot of what they dont see.
Written by Ben on July 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
hey guys..Hancock was a really good movie n those that didn’t actually like it, it doesn’t mean u can go round criticising it and ruining it for people that would want to still watch it…(IF YOU GET WHAT I MEAN)…i really enjoyed watching it at the cinema’s so i’m not gona say the picture was crap…cuz obviously it wasn’t…as for will smith ….wow he is one heck of a actor…YOU ROCK WILL….lol…bye..
Written by yheiiwow on July 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I saw the movie and throughly enjoyed it. Subtext is what i look for and i found it in this movie. Something about the man without a memory of his greatness, awakening to his true potential. Or maybe it was about this man whose strength comes from his separateness and his pain, wallowing in despair and hopelessness, until someone better placed helps him to see his lost potential. Anti-hero or hero? The real battle starts first with self identity, and self worth. Great movie.
Written by Ajaxn on July 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I’m a big Will Smith fan, but this was one of the worst films for a long time. Nothing new at all - superhero - villain - reluctant love story etc etc.Boring. Not funny, not thrilling, not exciting. I wish I could’ve taken my money back.
Written by jamesmead on July 19th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
wickid movie
Written by wickid on July 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I just finished watching one of the worst films ever. It was called ‘Handjob’ or ‘Hancock’ or something or nothing,
Watching this films was like having hot wax dripped onto your balls, but not in a pleasant way either.
It’s clear to all that a long time ago the equation for making an American action film was formerly computed by the pencil necked gonad lovers of Hollywood, etc, and since then they have been endlessly churning out their same old patented sloppy garbage.
Recently, though, I’ve noticed that amazingly the standard of these films have plummeted still further into the depths of crapdom. Read no storyline, zero acting, same lame action sequences and a generous helping of gun crime, murder and genocide.
The truth is now clear to all and sundry that the film companies must be bankrolled by the arms manufacturers who fund these hour or so long adverts for their wares. In the same way that we witness one senseless murder after another, so the making of these films only serve their designed purpose. i.e, exporting violence, murder and gun crime to all corners of the planet.
Verdict: More cynical crud from the cock faces who make this kind of turdage.
Written by moriarte on August 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm