Movie Review : "Hancock" (2008) starring Will Smith, Charlize Theron & Jason Bateman. Directed by Peter Berg.

Plot Shot : A drunken, foul-mouthed, depressed asshole wanders the streets of Los Angeles (no social commentary). Oh did I mention he just happens to have superpowers. Instead of being loved by the masses, he is hated even though he does provide a valuable community service at a very high cost to tax payers. Shit is this some kind of thinly veiled attack on police officers? Will Smith flies, picks shit up, tries to figure out what he is, Charlize Theron looks hot, blah blah blah...a really shitty movie ensues...

RE-View : I really wanted to like this one, trust me I really, really wanted to like "Hancock". I love superhero movies, I even thought "Daredevil" was a pretty good movie. "Fantastic Four" and it's sequel while sucking did entertain me. It doesn't take much to impress me when it comes to watching a superhero movie. All I want to see is someone much cooler than myself (not hard) kick ass and maybe blow some shit up. Hancock does kick a little ass, he does cause a lot of collateral damage but the most damage he caused was the 8 bucks he took from my wallet to watch this shit. It's not the monetary cost but the fact I actually paid these people to basically insult me for an hour and a half.

Anointing Hancock, the character, as something totally original is a dicey proposition. The idea of an imperfect hero is nothing out of the ordinary, one can argue aside from Superman, most of the comic book heroes have major flaws. "Batman" does the brooding, moody superhero bit and does it better. "Iron Man" did the alcoholic hero-thing, and did it better. Even "Spidey" ("Spider-Man" to laymen) does the wise-cracking heroing and does it better. The originality of the titular-character aside, what makes these heroes so much better than Hancock is they do what he does, but with style. They have the cool costumes, the cool villains and most importantly the cool origins. Just because you make your character fly doesn't mean it will fly on the big screen, get it? Even Hancock's superhero suit looks like something purchased from a fan of the X-Men films on eBay.

Hancock had promise, even though the idea isn't groundbreaking. All heroes have their issues but in this screwed up world there is always room for more heroes provided you meet some requirements. Chiefly, you must make sure your character has a fully fleshed out origin, not something seemingly thrown together from words in a hat. Secondly, you have to have some villain who poses a threat to your character. You can't just have some hapless idiots who benefit from some confluence of events that leaves the hero temporarily vulnerable. Shit, Superman becomes a wimp in the presence of Kryptonite but it takes Lex Luthor to put him in a position where it can affect him. Hancock's "villains" and I use that term as loosely as humanly possible just happen to come upon him when he is weak through no planning, just sheer, dumb-as-fuck luck.

The movie itself feels very uneven, like the work of too many chefs. There are the first two-thirds of the movie that are heavy on the comedy and slap-stick elements which suddenly veer towards a violent and dark end. What I expect from a good superhero movie are some super acts of heroism and Hancock offers too little of that in a scant 91 minutes of runtime. While some may complain that superhero movies are bloated by adding exposition I argue it serves to explain why a character fights. The who's and why's are the nuts and bolts of the movie, serving to hold it together rather than just plop characters down and say "FIGHT". Hancock will be more number one example next time I argue in favor of two hour-plus superhero movies.

My main quarrel with the flick is story related. If you are going for the "brand new, shiny character that has never been seen before" hook than you might want to make said character a bit more interesting. The writers might have wanted to think of another origin story that wasn't completely fucking retarded. This movie was sold as "Will Smith stars in Hancock" and that is just what it is, a movie with Will Smith doing shit. Will Smith flying around with superpowers, there isn't much for him to do with them however. There is really no big threat to deal with, just a bit of backstory and some comedic adventuring moments which are all basically shown in the trailer. It was like the writers said "We have this killer idea for this hero" and just stopped writing when they had a wet dream about Will Smith. Then they went to film this shit and said "Fuck, what do we have him do?". There is no way I can hammer this point home enough, there is no fucking point to this movie. It isn't even something that can be classified as a special effects reel. It lacks action, adventure, romance, basically everything that we go to the movies for because real life is fucking boring, and so is this flick.

I cannot think of another movie as blatantly marketed based on one actor before. The ad campaign should have been "If you really want to see Will Smith, if you need to see Will Smith, if you will die if you don't get a Will Smith-fix, then go see this movie...oh and he flies in it...WOOOOOOO". If you have any care to be entertained then stay home and rent one the ton of better comic book movies out there. This movie shouldn't have even been called "Hancock" it should have been "Will Smith stars as Will Smith in See Will Smith Fly....Will Smith...Will Smith......Will Smith...........Will Smith, Hey did ya know, WILL FUCKING SMITH is in this movie!!!". I am not saying I don't like Will Smith, I just want to go to the movies for more than just watching him walk around aimlessly. Will Smith should conjure up images of possibly the most charismatic actor in American cinema. While he does bring a certain likeability to the role he is limited by an awful script. Peter Berg is a very capable director, with "The Kingdom" he made a piece of wood that happened to come to life in Jamie Foxx seem likeable. In "Hancock" he manages to make the most "I'd like to hang out with him" actor working today into a shoddy caricature of himself. A problem that could arise with having a star the caliber of Will Smith as a lead in a superhero movie is that he could overpower the character he was playing (George Clooney as "Batman" for example). However that isn't the problem here, he inhabits the character of Hancock but isn't given enough to do with it.

It's not like Big Willy Style is the only one to blame in this roach motel of a movie. Charlize Theron is completely wasted in this movie; I can't for the life of my figure out why she was cast or why she took the role. The script gives her so little to do in the way of actually acting, her lines seem to be read through duress. It's like someone was pointing a gun at her and commanding her to read the gibberish on the page. I have seen more passionate acting from people doing voice-over work in behind-the-scenes features on direct-to-DVD Disney films. Jason Bateman is the real star of this show, bringing his trademark smart-ass acting skills to the table. He does that better than anyone however once again the script doesn't take advantage of his talents. "The Kingdom" Peter Berg's last film was a taut, high-action, high-tension drama but Bateman infused it with some nice comedic moments that helped break up the tension. In "Hancock" it is just lip gloss on a fat chick, you know she's trying but all the lip gloss ain't gonna change the fact she is about 1 cupcake from getting her own gravitational pull. Just because you cast likeable, good-looking actors doesn't mean the script is going to magically stop sucking ass.

Sequel Worthy : Fuck that, I would rather watch Ang Lee's "Hulk" again. Well maybe not. I think if Will Smith wanted to do another comic book movie he should stick with playing an established character. This is a film that is deeply flawed and basically irredeemable. The premise of the film that Hancock has these powers and needs to know where they come from is wasted when the writers don't respect the audience enough to come up with a creative origin story. So we are left with some trite nonsense that isn't even expounded on. Hancock is so interested in his origins but refuses to even ask questions when presented with it. If the filmmakers were even to try to make a sequel they still have to go by the established backstory and this first film did nothing to set up an arch nemesis or anything even remotely interesting. A sequel would just serve to further waste the talents of all actors involved but would get them PAID and that is sad.

To DVD or not to DVD : If you really love to waste your money or have a Will Smith fetish I would say go for it. If these don't apply to you then just stay away from this one. It is terrible, not even the special effects are Earth-shattering. The only way I would even rent this movie is if they gave you the winning lottery numbers when you opened the case. Even then I would hope I would have a free rental coupon or something.

Final Grade :

3 out of 10 Alien Heads