Login
A hard-living superhero who has fallen out of favor with the public enters into a questionable relationship with the wife of the public relations professional who's trying to repair his image.
Will Smith: John Hancock
The only reason I did not award this Hancock one star is that the underlying theme of redemption is a commendable goal. I can even honestly say the first third of Hancock was quite entertaining, but it begins to spiral downwards fast. For lack of a better word, the movie became just predictable and flat. And it's hard to imagine Will Smith in a sub standard flick.
John Hancock is far from your average superhero, but the trailer tells you this in itself. What the trailer doesn't tell you, is that after the rogue anti-hero drunkenly parades about as advertised, he has to develop a backbone plot and make the film go from a clever spin on a hot- ticket genre to an emotional action drama. There are entertaining and unique elements that make Hancock shine in ways I guess, but they end up secondary to a emotional occurrence and a two-faced plot concept.
It's easy to be deceived these days by the shear unruly star-power that is Will Smith, especially when he's attached to a project dealing with superheroes, a genre that has been a cash blockbuster vehicle. He's talented no matter what he does, and in that regard, Hancock is stupidly enjoyable. While I personally felt his character was too much of an a**hole as the script so frequently and unoriginally puts it, that doesn't mean Smith isn't good at it. He's just a great hero no matter the story or pile of rubbish he stars in.
To quickly summarize, Smith plays Hancock, a lonely, drunken jerk with Superman powers and a public approval rating of zero. When he saves Ray's (Jason Bateman) life, Ray offers his services as a P.R. consultant and the two work to change his image. Eventually, you get to Hancock's back story and some strange but obvious twists take the film down a different path that to explain would be a major spoiler.
So from the perspective of a producer that has a decent script with a highly marketable concept written by some nobodies and with a director (Peter Berg) attached whose best action credit is 2007's The Kingdom I would definitely want to sign someone to play Hancock who is going to guarantee me top spot at the box office. Well, result. Smith is such a proved commodity with an amazing streak of top first weekend box office spots that he could get any contract he wants and he should do that.
''People should love you. They really should, okay? And I want to deliver that for you. It's the least that I can do. You're a superhero. Kids should be running up to you, asking for your autograph, people should be cheering you on the streets...''
After Smith, the marks for Hancock are pretty much in the middle lane. The CGI and Berg's directing style is too sloppy for what should be a clean-cut summer blockbuster. His refusal to use any camera stabilizing device works for a few scenes, but most of the time it's just dizzying and the close-ups become dizzyingly obnoxious. The plot concept, which paints a picture of Hancock as a hero and then fills it in with the origin story later instead of the other way around, makes for an interesting affect, but instead of enlightening what we know about Hancock, it ends up taking the film in another direction entirely. While you might think this movie would leave you with themes about turning one's life around and becoming the best you can be, that gets glossed over and you're left stupefied.
Altogether it just feels that something is missing, the plot requires more action. It turns out that PR man's wife happens also to be a demigod, who used to be married to our hero, but had to distance herself from him because it was lethal for both of them. You see, they both lose their respective powers in each others presence, they are fatal catalysts to each other, an Achilles heel, a weakness.
So, the she-hero stays with the PR man, while Hancock will continue saving the world. In the mean time, we, in the comfort of our entertainment facilities, experience the sublime, squalid form of so called entertainment.
Let me answer the big questions in the following way. Suppose we view Hancock as a symbol, for example, as a symbol of America. The US saves the world by acting as world protector, unilaterally exercising its power, flying hither and dither (think Afghanistan, Iraq). US sticks bad guy's heads into bad guy's butts (think Abu Ghraib). The damage US inflicts onto 'rogue' nations, lost human lives are weighed against the potential good. Meanwhile, we experience the sublime on TV projected by CNN, comfortably resting on sofas and lazy-boy chairs with popcorn and beer.
''Your head is going up his ass, his head is going up his ass, and you get the short end of the straw, cause your head is going up my ass!''
I think, Vincent and Vince Gilligan could do much better with their plot by simply following major event of the latest US wars, using US = Hancock symbolism. And Will Smith? - yes, camera loves him it seems. But for me, it is a memory of Six Degrees of Separation that attracts me like a moth to the flame, to the cinema. It is regrettable, that after amassing such personal success, wealth and authority, he produces such low grade output.
Now, to answer the big question – Do I regret seeing this film? The answer is yes and no; and not because of the film itself, not because its entertainment value, nor because it made me better or relaxed me and helped me to get through the day. It made me realize yet again that star power and big budgets do not necessarily equal a film of any consequence, of quality and indeed depth and originality.
''Call me crazy one more time.''
4/10
