Review: Hancock
Director: Peter Berg (The Rundown, Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom)
Writers: Vincent Ngo, Vince Gilligan
Producers: Akiva Goldsman, James Lassiter, Michael Mann, Will Smith
Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head, Eddie Marsan
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 92 min
There are movies, flicks, film and cinema. Each of us has their own measure of what precisely each of those values quantify. For me, Hancock definitely falls under the category of movie. Big action, big stars, big effects and a little bit of drama thrown in to keep the movie from getting too stale or too close to the “flick” side of things. For a new take on the superhero genre with a bit deeper of a story, Hancock largely succeeds at what it sets out to do. Although not without some clunkiness along the way.
John Hancock (Smith) is a rogue super-hero in Los Angeles. Superman strength, skin like steel and of course the ability to take to the skies on a whim. The only one of his kind, he feels ostracized from society and thus resides as sort of a recluse and becomes a binge drinker. But when trouble comes calling, Hancock is always willing to help out; but not before usually causing quite a bit of trouble himself (destroying buildings, tearing up roadways, blowing up vehicles, etc). When one day he saves the life of a go-getter, entrepreneur P.R. rep named Ray (Bateman) from being killed, it sparks an idea in the young idealist’s head: make Hancock a better person by representing him as sort of his agent. Ray’s first step is to convince this foul mouthed, binge drinking asshole of a superhero to reprimand himself to state prison and go to AA meetings and anger management classes; all the while teaching Hancock about what a real superhero does and how he behaves. It’s a struggle, but they both work through it together as best they can - much to the chagrin of Ray’s wife Mary played by a Charlize Theron.
There are several factors that make this movie work when at first glance it seems that it really shouldn’t. First and foremost, just the idea alone of a drunken super-hero is the basis for a pretty interesting story that really has endless possibilities for scenarios and plot development because of its originality. Unfortunately Hancock isn’t always sure where it wants to go. Is it a comedic romp with some semi-serious moments or is it dramatic, impactful movie that wants the audience to really sympathize with the characters and take everything really seriously? Hancock is both; and to be honest, sudden changes in mood (more than once or twice) can negatively affect this particular writer’s feelings about a movie. Just be prepared for a little bit of back and forth in terms of tone and you’ll be alright.
What really works and probably what keeps the movie from failing are the performances from the three leads that carry everything on their proverbial shoulders. Will Smith tends to choose roles that are of little depth other than to look cool and be amusing. Occasionally he’ll really show his chops just to remind everyone that he can act (Six Degrees of Separation, Pursuit of Happyness), but for the most part, he’s the guy to call on for the fourth of July weekend when you need someone to save the planet from aliens or aliens or bad guys disguised as aliens. With Hancock, Smith has decided he wants to have his cake and eat it too. The character’s darker mood swings and inner struggle are very apparent behind Smith, but at the same time, let’s be honest, it’s still Will Smith and he’s still in a super-hero role and he’s still quite funny.
Bateman is a guy who’s quickly becoming type-cast. And you know what? I don’t mind a bit. He’s funny every single time and fills roles like croc shoes. The world needs more Bateman in everything. He just doesn’t disappoint and Peter Berg (The Kingdom) seems to already realize this. Then we have Charlize Theron (playing the lovely house-wife); who was the one actor I was angry with the studio for signing, for fear that her tremendous talent would be totally wasted in a supporting role. I needn’t have feared. Theron pulls off the role wonderfully, as always, and she’s on-screen more than I would’ve thought. So huge bonus points to the casting director for putting this group together. Each fills their role perfectly and each brings their best to the table. No pay-check performances to be found here.
The storyline does take some surprisingly sharp corners a couple of times (though these are foreshadowed very nicely - watch for it) and while the mood and tone changes didn’t really work for me, the overall story arc itself seems to gel nicely. Hancock’s attempts to interact with regular people and where that takes his character as he, and we the audience, begin to discover who he is, who he was and who he is to become. The Frankenstein aspect of the story is handled in a pretty hamfisted manner, but the basis for the idea works alright and again, Smith is able to sell it to us hook, line and sinker.
I had some problems with a few of the action sequences (and even some of the non-action sequences) with an over abundance of quick edits and lot of shaky cams. Quite a lot of the action was unseeable. In hindsight it wasn’t all that terrible, but it is a problem that has to be mentioned.
A great little departure from the usual, summertime, super-hero movies plaguing us right now and the perfect getaway movie to take in during the long weekend. Nothing that will remembered in years to come and nothing that will likely end up on many people’s year-end top ten, but still an enjoyable romp at the theater that pretty much everyone can enjoy for what it is.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Hancock
35% at rottentomatoes. Ouch.
Comment by Thirsty — July 3, 2008 @ 12:02 am
the last half of this movie was so atrociously bad I walked out of the theater angry.
Comment by Neil — July 3, 2008 @ 1:17 am
“Hancock definitely falls under the category of movie”
Comment by Rusty James — July 3, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Hancock looks like interesting spin on the latest superhero movie craze… if nothing else at least Will Smith tends to be pretty funny
Comment by patrick — July 3, 2008 @ 4:48 am
It was all over the place and the action sequences where a bit too hectic. I blame test screenings. I’m pretty sure it was more drama before it went through the fucking testing.
But god damn Charlize Theron is so beautiful in this movie.
Comment by swarez — July 3, 2008 @ 5:09 am
The movie had an interesting starting premise but unfortunately the novelty wears off within the first 20 minutes and by the time we get to the second half it tries to change it’s expression from a kind of “wink-wink-smirk” to almost deadly serious and it just didn’t work. The analogy I made was that it’s like a really great looking sports car (yes, the one you’ve had your eye since you were a kid) and it’s fantastic having it for the first short while but it quickly becomes an annoyance or an obstruction and is now only there to look good and not much else.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Interesting, I liked the fact that the film had several faces. I thought they all played nice enough (Drama, Comedy, etc.) in the context of a Spiderman pop-myth superhero movie. I liked the unpredictability of things and I’ll take a few sacrifices in coherence for the elements of the film that I found refreshing. There are lots of little nitpicks and I can see if the movie started to wear thin for you in the first half that there are hundreds of things to mock for not making sense.
But…
The acting was solid, the pace was brisk, the jokes often funny, and the action very competent. The acting (dramatic moments between the three principles) was really good.
And I’m a ridiculous fan of THE RUNDOWN, which this movie with its pop-entertainment grafted onto some small messages with goofy and serious combined in an odd cocktail, hit the spot for me.
Comment by kurt. — July 3, 2008 @ 6:02 am
@andrew: “enjoyable romp at the theater that pretty much everyone can enjoy for what it is.”
Bingo, and Hancock was the summer romp I didn’t quite get with Ironman or Wanted. So Kudos to Peter Berg & team on that count.
Comment by kurt. — July 3, 2008 @ 6:06 am
@ Ross: “and it’s fantastic having it for the first short while but it quickly becomes an annoyance or an obstruction and is now only there to look good and not much else.”
There is more superhero heart in this film than there was in Ironman, and definitely Wanted. And how about the Black guy being ‘tamed’ by the white PR exec, or brought to his knees by a white chick. There is actually quite a bit of ‘State of American Entertainment’ gristle to chew on with Hancock. A heck of a lot more than the warmed over porridge of Wanted. Also, the characters sell the material in Hancock, even when it veers into familiar territory, the acting eases the shakey parts and onto the next surprise. I liked that.
Comment by kurt. — July 3, 2008 @ 6:09 am
It’s like the movie wanted to be two in one (a problem I have found with a lot of movies as of late) - a comedy, wink-wink stlye on for the first half or so then it turns serious in the second half. Plus they tried to throw in this origin storyline that although interesting in concept they just didn’t flesh out as well and if you can’t do that then I say don’t have it in the movie really at all.
The unpredictability of it I don’t think was on purpose in a sort of playful way but rather they just seemed to randomly throw in things (plot points etc) in a way that didn’t really make a whole lot of sense. And don’t even get me started on the forced villain(s) in the movie. One I won’t mention for spoiler purposes but when they tried to wedge in Eddie Marsan as this random, vengeance seeking thug was just lame. “We’ll find Hancock and get the power back” Wtf was that?:P
The movie has some interesting ideas and a few of the laughs and action sequences were pretty good but overall it was kind of a mess for me. Plus what is up with Berg and his “zoom too close to the action and shake the camera” mentality? Now that I think about it he does that in a lot of his movies - The Kingdom, Smokin’ Aces to name a couple.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 6:23 am
For my full review of Hancock - http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/02/173441.php
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 6:31 am
You know, in the 1990s around the time of the Cider House Rules and Two Days in the Valley and The Devils Advocate, The Legend of Bagger Vance (one of my all time most hated flicks) and Men of Honor (yech!) I used to loathe the fact that someone as clunky as Theron was allowed to be in some relatively high-profile projects and bring little to the table beyond simple good looks.
But lately she has been really good. I loved AEON FLUX, I loved Monster, I loved her in Hancock.
Well 3/10 ain’t great, but I like that she is around.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 7:14 am
You loved Aeon Flux?! To quote George Carlin when he talks about religion - “Hollleeeeeeeeee shit”
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 7:30 am
As a story of production design, the reversing of gender roles, the physical presence of Aeon, the genetic manipulation/desperation of the future society, torn apart by its need for elusive security/control (See also JAWS beach-crowd-control, WALL-E order A114, Wanted’s Morgan Freeman Loom-ignoring, etc. better for your own good). All of the crazy bio-sci fi ideas. yea I liked AEON FLUX.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 7:43 am
****SOME MAJOR SPOILERS HERE****
****SOME MAJOR SPOILERS HERE****
****SOME MAJOR SPOILERS HERE****
Also Hancock is a joy for throwing so many pieces (see also Southland Tales) out for the audience to chew on.
BlackMan/WhiteWoman relationships
The do good with a Logo, opening up of pharma patents to 3rd world countries dying of AIDS, etc. (and how this needs spin to sell it to the power-brokers)
The danger of ‘true love’ and how it can weaken both sides
Making a compromise decision for the good of everyone.
The concept of Free Will
The concept of honesty in a relationship
The idiocy of criminals doing bad even though it is often so futile (this happens when each criminal comes up against Hancock and dooms themself by thinking that they can take his invincible superhero with a gun. Don’t they watch CNN?)
The power of image and spin and ‘gestures of good faith’
Hancock is the Anti-Wanted. So I can see why we are on opposite sides of the fence Ross, I’m surprised (and glad) that Andrew liked it though. I’m about the same with is rating 3.5 of 5 is about right.
While Hancock doesn’t overly chew on these things out in the open, or even thorougly for that matter, it leaves it up to the audience to do the speculation, in the same way that the original (not directors) cut of Donnie Darko did. This is a good thing people.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 7:49 am
It’s truly shocking how much films we have disagreed on as of late:
Wanted
Doomsday
My Blueberry Nights (although I have the rental of it in front of me and plan to revisit to see if my mind can be changed on it)
Hancock
The Happening
to name but a few…
There are lots of movies we agree on but they seem to be older - it seems we have very different views/opinions on more modern cinema. Having said that you agree with me on Southland Tales so that goes some ways to remedying that:)
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 7:55 am
I’m still trying to decide just how much I hated Hancock. The ending is especially self-aggrandizing to the glory of Hollywood celebrity. Slap a pretty image/logo on something and magically everything is better. No actual work is required, just the celebrity brand to make it all better.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 3, 2008 @ 7:55 am
@Matt: “Slap a pretty image/logo on something and magically everything is better. No actual work is required, just the celebrity brand to make it all better.”
No, I see the branding (”Who wants to step up first” is a line Batemen uses to the CEOs (who hilariously are played by the films producers, Michael Mann, Johnathan Mostow,etc.) as the tiniest of first steps. Everyone is breaking the cycle. The corps could actually give a shit about the countries they exploit for their wealth, Hancock and *******SPOILER******** Mary are agreeing to break the cycle which has caused them both joy and pain, for uncharted territory.
Call it guarded optimism, not happily ever after.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 8:09 am
As I read the comments here, the more the pacing problems (and particularly the final “action” sequence) bother me.
Still, the characters and actors sell this movie really well and I think for the most part it’s pretty fun. I laughed a few times, I even had a lump in the throat once (not at the end). I genuinely felt bad for Hancock. It’s very rare for me to have any emotional response whatsoever to a film like this, so kudos to them for that.
There’ll be haters of the movie and it’s not really worth defending, but it’s better than most summer-blockbustery types for its originality, acting and risk taking.
Comment by Andrew James — July 3, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Also @Matt: “Slap a pretty image/logo on something and magically everything is better. No actual work is required, just the celebrity brand to make it all better.”
Wasn’t that Ironman?
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 8:17 am
For the record I didn’t HATE Hancock, and if I had to choose liked or disliked I would choose the former but sorry guys but I’d take Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and (definitely) Wanted over it any day of the week. Just because the first two (Hulk especially) play it safe (for the most part) doesn’t make it bad, at least not to me. They make no bones about being anything other than what they are - the new Hulk had the smash mentality that people were looking for (although I prefer Ang Lee’s) and Iron Man was just plain a great movie all round.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 8:17 am
@Andrew: “I even had a lump in the throat once (not at the end).”
It was the dinosaur, wasn’t it? Got me too. And I’m a cynical bastard when it comes to heart-string moments…
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Dinosaur? Am I missing something?
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Good review, Andrew. I thought it was a good film overall with some negatives.
Comment by Cinexcellence — July 3, 2008 @ 8:22 am
I see the branding (”Who wants to step up first” is a line Batemen uses to the CEOs (who hilariously are played by the films producers, Michael Mann, Johnathan Mostow,etc.) as the tiniest of first steps. Everyone is breaking the cycle.
You can see it as that, but you’d be wrong.
A logo with nothing behind it, which is exactly what that is (like the ridiculous eagle that pops up everywhere) has no meaning, and thus can usher in no changes. Slapping the same logo on a giant billboard doesn’t change that the logo carries no actual weight. All it is is a celebrity endorsement. So yes, if you think that is about taking the small steps, Hancock most certainly is glorifying the power of celebrity and the “good” it can do.
It then wouldn’t even be so far to take it to the logical extreme, in which no “good” can be done until you have celebrity endorsement. Go back to bed America, George Clooney is here to fix everything. Isn’t he dreamy?
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 3, 2008 @ 8:30 am
There’ll be haters of the movie and it’s not really worth defending, but it’s better than most summer-blockbustery types for its originality
Heroes dealing with a drug problem or inner demons is an original idea? I can understand calling it a “twist” on typical hero fare, but to say original is simply incorrect.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 3, 2008 @ 8:35 am
@Matt. I think andrew is aiming his originality comment at the tonal shifts in the film, and the riffing nature in general of the thing. As opposed to the paint-by-numbers Stan Lee / Marvel film productions been thrown our way as of late. I think Andrew is talking the DIRECTION not the BASIC STORY ELEMENTS.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Clearly he hasn’t seen Mystery Men.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 3, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Hancock and Mystery men do both have a lot in common. I think in the end I like both films about the same. Each film has a different tone though and different strengths (Mystery Men is a great ‘hanging out slacker film’, Hancock aims for something a bit more intimate and earnest).
Both films really like to take the piss out of ‘Male Empowerment’ and both films like their PR.
If I had to choose between PR Flacks Ricky Jay and Jason Batemen, I’d pick Jay, because he is way too cool for school.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Probably too much collateral damage in Hancock and way too much fish-eye lens in Mystery Men.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 9:24 am
It will be interesting to see when all the dust has settled what is considered that best summer blockbuster film of 2008 by the fine people of this site. A lot of disagreement on this point.
I dare say Wanted, flaws and all, is mine for now, but I have not seen Hancock yet.
Comment by rot — July 3, 2008 @ 9:56 am
… or TDK. I have a feeling I’m going to like that one.
Comment by Andrew James — July 3, 2008 @ 10:04 am
TDK is pretty much guaranteed to be at least good. And I predict it will rock the shit.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 10:54 am
I’m hoping for HellBoy II to be my favourite. The first one had some mighty flaws to fix, but del Toro having pretty much a carte blanche this time around should be interesting.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Oh yeah I am fully expecting Hellboy II to be the surprise film of the summer. Not the BEST film but the one that will fly under people’s radar and then hit them hard with how awesome it is.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 3, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Mark my words it will be Tropic Thunder.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 3, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
wow I cannot remember the last time I saw a film that started off so strong and ended so bad. The third act of this film is atrocious.
Love that they made Will Smith black… or at least addressed it. Spike Lee needs to make a superhero movie.
Comment by rot — July 7, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Speaking of Spike Lee:
http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=9256&count=0
Comment by Andrew James — July 7, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Berg has been more hit than miss for me, I didn’t really like The Kingdom but Friday Night Lights is easily one of my favourite “sports” movies, and I had a few minor issues. The middle action sequence seemed to be dropped in there after the fact, as someone already mentioned, probably the studio after test screenings but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it, more than nearly every other action flick so far this summer (Wanted beats it out by a margin). I thought Berg did a fine job of trying to bring some semblance of “art” into shooting the film and the acting is better than I could have expected but the true seller is Will Smith. The guy has loads of charm and it comes through.
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 7, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Hancock felt like a decent script that got muddled in the third act, but I thought Berg’s direction added very little to it, and it was only the performances and the dialogue that made this halfway enjoyable. Much of the CGI was lousy.
Comment by rot — July 7, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I liked The Kingdom quite a bit. The final 30 minutes of action was pretty intense. But it was obvious Michael Mann was all over that one (despite a “nasty” email I got from an exec producer countering otherwise).
So it’s still up in the air for me on whether Berg is a good director or not. At this point I’d say he’s just average.
Comment by Andrew James — July 7, 2008 @ 10:17 am
@Andrew Just average? Have you seen Friday Night Lights? I wouldn’t say that was “just average”. He obviously takes a fair bit from Mann but I wouldn’t say he’s an average director.
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 7, 2008 @ 11:45 am