The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
With the insane popularity of superhero films at present, it was only a matter of time before someone took a postmodern slant on the ubiquitous genre. There have been 'alternative' superhero films before, of course, ranging from M. Night Shyamalan's brooding and serious Unbreakable to "comedy" fare like Superhero Movie, but Hancock is perhaps the first time that a superhero film not based on an established comic character has been given the mega-budget treatment. The draw for the audience here is a combination of two factors: an appealing premise - a drunk, useless superhero - and Will Smith, arguably the only real megastar left in Hollywood and the only name who can guarantee a hit: prior to Hancock his last seven consecutive films have made more than $100 million each in the US. This latest vehicle for the popular actor will surely extend that streak to eight.
It's the concept and advertising that really make the money in the film business these days rather than quality, and that's a good thing for Hancock; although it's not terrible, the filmmakers never seem to decide what it wants to be. It veers from comedy and parody to serious pseudo-mythic mumbo-jumbo and fails to find the right balance. It is much better when it sticks to the former; the early stages, introducing us to Will Smith's clumsy, whisky-swilling superman, make the most use of the concept and provide some excellent laughs, some provided by computer-assisted visual gags (despite the fact that none of the CGI looks particularly real - thirty years after Superman: The Movie's tagline promised "You'll believe a man can fly", such an achievement remains elusive), but most of them down to the star's comic timing. It seems likely that Smith had considerable input into his character's dialogue and it's some of the best in the film. Predictably, despite the varying standard of the film, Smith remains extremely watchable and entertaining throughout.
Some of the film's failings can be attributed to director (formerly actor) Peter Berg, who made Middle-East thriller The Kingdom and acclaimed American football drama Friday Night Lights, but who seems uncomfortable in the blockbuster arena. His penchant for handheld cameras occasionally grates as the documentary-esque style doesn't really seem to suit the subject matter, but most irritating is his overuse of extremely tight close-ups on actors' faces (often with half the frame obscured by a blurry object in the foreground), which begins to feel rather suffocating after a while. He never quite gets a handle on the story, either, which mainly concentrates on a PR man (likeably played by Jason Bateman) trying to transform Hancock's image in the media. This premise works for a while, but then at about the half-way point the filmmakers seem to realise that it won't stretch to a whole movie, so then the plot takes an abrupt 90-degree turn and absolutely derails itself. Then, after the rather intense, 12A-pushing violence that follows, there's an ending that completely rings false and seems like a cynically calculated attempt to set up a franchise.
The summary
There are great individual moments scattered throughout Hancock, but it mostly lacks coherence and pacing, and then loses the plot in the third act.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!