Movie Review
‘Hancock’ is Like Humpty Dumpty
Posted by Kevin Carr (kevin@filmschoolrejects.com) on July 1, 2008

For the past couple years, with Will Smith being the most bankable, relateable and profitable celebrity at the box office, people have been wondering if he’s bulletproof. This question will be answered in several ways with his latest film, Hancock.
While Will Smith isn’t literally bulletproof, his title character in Hancock is. He plays an alcoholic jerk of a superhero who does more damage in L.A. than good for the people. And even though he’s a foul-mouthed, anti-role model, he is still compelled to do good deeds. The problem is that the people in Los Angeles (and in particular, the mayor and the chief of police) aren’t that thrilled with the expensive damage he does to the city while fighting crime.
Soon, Hancock stumbles across a good-hearted P.R. flunky (Jason Bateman) who makes it his mission to get the people of L.A. to accept their slovenly superhero. After convincing Hancock to let himself be incarcerated, he gives him a make-over to make him more likable and family friendly.
If you know anything about the production of this movie, the script went through a very similar revision. There was an essence of something the studio liked, but they demanded changes from the core structure. What used to be an R-rated flick about an asshole who is a reluctant superhero, we get a makeover of the character.
Does this work? In some ways it does. I’ll admit that Will Smith is very likeable on screen and also very relateable. He’s the best everyman out there we have now that Tom Hanks is getting a little old for the younger crowd.
However, all the script meddling really shows in this movie. It’s clear that there was no clear vision. At times, Hancock tries to be a major blockbuster superhero movie. At other times, it tries to be a comedy. It also tries to be an edgy, gritty film, which never works in the family-friendly format. If the film had picked a focus, it might have actually been palatable.
Unfortunately, we are left with a patchwork film. Will Smith will bring his audience to this film, which is considerable. But the true sense of whether this movie will have staying power is when they decide to make a sequel and the Fresh Prince doesn’t step into the lead role. Take Will Smith out of the equation, and you’ll end up with an alcoholic Chris Tucker in a supersuit. (Trust me… that’s probably just a couple years away.)
This is not to say that Hancock does not have it’s moments. There are some action sequences that are quite good. However, just as the movie starts to ramp up into a decent flick, the audience is blindsided by lazy writing, out-of-place humor moments, ridiculous characters and no real villain to hang the shaky plot on.
While I’ve never been a fan of director Peter Berg, I don’t fault him completely. The script is horribly flawed, which is the primary reason Hancock becomes a train wreck. But Berg does no favors to this film. If Brian DePalma will forever be known as the Alfred Hitchcock wannabe, then Berg will be known as the Michael Bay wannabe. his shaky mix of action, comedy and a pounding soundtrack never quite gels.
I imagine that Hancock will prevail almost entirely on the back of Smith. And a couple years from now, we’ll look back on this film and realize that it was never any good to begin with. It’s happened before, you know. After all, have you watched Men in Black lately? In retrospect a decade later, it really was a pile of crap.
Seeing how Hancock plays out should answer the larger question of whether the top box office draw is bulletproof. There are those who think he’s incapable of making a bomb (which, incidentally hasn’t happened since Wild Wild West). But then again, these people said the same thing about Tom Cruise five years ago… and look at him today.
What’s more important for Smith is what he does post-Hancock. A few more films like these, and this will be remembered as the beginning of the end of his blockbuster career.
THE UPSIDE: There are some decent action moments.
THE DOWNSIDE: After all the studio meddling with the script, it’s like Humpty Dumpty… all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put it back together.
ON THE SIDE: I was left with a question… if Hancock is invincible, impervious to pain and poison, then why does alcohol affect him?

|
| Read more articles by Kevin Carr






8 Comments
July 1st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I haven’t seen Hancock yet… but in defense of Peter Berg as a “Michael Bay wannabe”… Berg’s “The Kingdom” is a better movie than any of Bay’s films (with the possible exception of “The Rock”.)
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Yeah, the Kingdom was good. Probably Berg’s best. I’ll give you that.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Men in Black bad? I think not. The second one, yes, but I liked the first.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Let’s hope this is the only one needed to end Will Smith’s career.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Just saw Hancock tonight. The beginning was awful, but I did find the middle to be quite well done. But then there’s that stupid twist that drives the movie into a letdown final act. I think you’re being a little too harsh on it, Kevin, but overall it’s not a good movie. I’d give it a C
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 am
I’ve been watching the first Men in Black for years and, no sir, it *isn’t* a pile of crap. (The second is, though.)
That said, I’m disappointed that Hancock is getting so many negative reviews. I was looking forward to it, but it turns out it’s not even decent. Oh, well, at least I’ll watch it with low expectations… that might help…
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
Anybody else see the Robot/Transformer/Thing that walked during the Tornado scene? WTF was that? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
dude i saw that same thing. i have no idea what it was. i’m hoping that they expain it if
they make a Hancock sequel.