Directed by: Peter Berg
Written By: Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan
Cast: Will Smith, Jason Bateman, & Charlize Theron
Runtime: 92 min.
Rating: PG-13
Trailer

In a summer full of generic superhero movies (with the notable exception of The Dark Knight) comes a Will Smith vehicle that I hoped would stand out from the norm and offer something new to the genre. It achieves this feat in its first act, but unfortunately veers completely off course in the second. But first the plot.

Will Smith stars as John Hancock, a superhero with amnesia and a drinking problem. The citizens of Los Angeles are not too happy with him as of late. Despite noble attempts at fighting crime, Hancock’s methods are nothing to write home about. In an early scene, a handful of carjackers with semi-automatics are on the run from police. Hancock, drunk and hung-over on a park bench, is awoken by a young boy who asks “shouldn’t you be stopping them?” Reluctantly, he gets up and flies to the rescue, destroying freeway signs, knocking over several cars, and destroying various landmarks along the way. The city’s mayor makes it clear that the financial toll of Hancock’s antics severely outweigh any benefits he has to offer.

Enter Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a public relations executive whose life is saved by Hancock in one of the few well-staged scenes. Grateful and motivated by a recent failed PR campaign, Ray wants to take Hancock under his wing and clean up his image. Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), is adverse to the idea, and believes Hancock’s image is not worth saving.

So about thirty minutes into Hancock I was quite intrigued. Will Smith’s charm can usually carry an otherwise mediocre film, but not even he can save this movie from derailing. In a plot twist about half-way through, the film suddenly loses any momentum and just becomes a run-of-the-mill clash and bang CGI superhero film. The three lead performances are good, but the script reeks of studio re-writes. Once the second superhero is revealed, a potential moral dilemma should develop, but instead, we’re just given an explanation that doesn’t make any sense. In a day when some screenwriters and directors enjoy full autonomy, it baffles me that Peter Berg (The Kingdom) is forced to abandon an intelligent plot midway to basically make a 45 minute video game. I do, however, question Berg’s directing style of choice. Like The Kingdom, Berg elected to direct Hancock with the similar shaky-cam approach a la Michael Mann (who shares production credit on Hancock and appears in a cameo) and Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum). While it worked in The Kingdom, it felt out of place in Hancock. An early scene involving a handful of PR execs is shot so frenetically that it actually detracts from the dialog. I mean, is Ray’s “world health” ad campaign pitch that dramatic?

Furthermore, the film suffers from an overabundance of CGI. Poor CGI. Hancock flies without any real physicality and reminds me of Yoda from the recent Star Wars prequels. Why was this movie rushed out the door? Was it to ensure a release date sufficiently ahead of The Dark Knight so as to gross as much as possible? Whatever the case, Hancock has become the 8th Will Smith film in a row to gross over $100 million dollars. Surely, a sequel is in the works already. But like Smith’s last blockbuster, I Am Legend, there is half of a good film here. 2 stars.

SS
© Cinephile Magazine, 2008