|
Hancock 7.5 out of 10 Posted: 07/13/08
Running time: 1:32 MPAA rating: PG-13 (Some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language.) Peruvian rating: Mayores de 14
Cast:
Will
Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head, Eddie Marsan.
Photography:
Tobias A. Schliessler |
 |
Warning: Spoilers ahead!
Hancock is a very peculiar film. It has been marketed as an action/comedy, when it’s actually an actioner full of special effects and a convoluted plot, with some comedy thrown in for some measure. Is it a good movie? It is, yes, but not as good as it could have been. Hancock works because Will Smith is one of the most likeable actors around, and because, despite working with a weird screenplay, Peter Berg’s direction is solid, not because Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan are master storytellers. Although maybe the fact that Hancock didn’t live up to my expectations has to do more with studio interference than with the script itself. I’m pretty sure the writers wanted something different from the finished product, but you know… Columbia might not be the Weinstein Company, but it nevertheless messed with the film (really obviously) to make it more teenager-friendly. Hancock should be a gritty, R-rated endeavor, not a PG-13-rated summer movie. The film is funny and entertaining, but it could have been a more ambitious motion picture.
The movie tells the story of, obviously, John Hancock (Will Smith), an alcoholic man with superpowers similar to those of Superman. He doesn’t care about other people – he drinks and doesn’t take of himself, and beats the crap of anyone who dares to call him “asshole.” What I like about the premise is that Hancock’s so-called “heroics” often have consequences on society – all the damages that he causes actually cost the city. One day, he saves Ray (Jason Bateman) from getting hit by a freight train but, in the process, damages a few cars and causes the train to derail. Recognizing that the superhero needs a couple of image makeovers – pretty much everyone hates him and the DA wants him behind bars -, he tries to help Hancock to make him more liked by the people of the city. Because of this, he has to go to jail and get people to miss him so that he can make a triumphant return. Meanwhile, though, Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron) gives weird looks to Hancock, implying that she has some mysterious connection to the flawed superhero.
The first part of Hancock is great. It kinda reminded me of Iron Man believe it or not, especially in tone: it’s light, it’s funny, but it’s also interesting and thrilling. Special effects are used here and there with effective results (although the first shots of Hancock looked kinda fake, even to my girlfriend; I guess you have to get used to them), and Will Smith’s charisma leads to the film’s best sequences. The jail scenes are also great – a sequence involving Hancock shoving heads into butts is amusing in a disgusting kind of way – and develop the plot in interesting (and original) directions. Direction is effective – Berg’s shakycam style is not overused, and makes the movie feel gritty without being overly dark – and Smith’s comedic talents are used to good effect.
The second part of the film, though, is what makes Hancock slightly less recommendable that I would’ve wanted it to be. The twist that involves Charlize Theron’s character being a superhero like Hancock – his ex-wife, actually – is a little bewildering, to say the least. It is from this point that the movie becomes much more serious and gritty, and the plot goes to really unexpected places that makes one wonder if these latter scenes are actually related to the first scenes in the film. The first half of Hancock is light and funny; stuff one expects from a typical summer blockbuster. The second half, on the other hand, is serious, gritty and melodramatic. Berg’s direction is still good, but many special effects – especially during Mary and Hancock’s fight – are unconvincing and too abundant for my taste. Additionally the ending is a little unsatisfying; it does give a sense of closure, but it also feels a little too convenient. If you ask me, I think the original screenplay had a different ending, but you know, studios always want potential money makers to have happy, predictable finales…
Performances are really good, though. Will Smith is his usual charismatic self. Hancock is not the most likeable superhero ever created; he’s drunk, selfish, irresponsible… an asshole, basically. But it’s Smith playing the character, so we naturally root for him, because: a.) he’s charming, and b.) he’s funny. Jason Bateman is also really good; he plays an impossibly good-natured guy, and manages at making him likeable and not annoying. Charlize Theron… oh my God, her role. It was obvious from the very beginning that there was something about Mary (pun intended) because of the glances she exchanged with Hancock, and because… well, it’s Charlize Theron. The filmmakers wouldn’t hire an actress of her calibre to play a friggin’ housewife, now, would they? Even considering how weird her character turns out being, she plays it with credibility and intensity; she’s a really great actress. Eddie Marsan, as last-minute bad guy Red, does what he can with a pretty pointless character. I know superheroes are supposed to have a nemesis, but if the writers didn’t know how to insert a bad guy into the film, they shouldn’t have done it in such a half-assed way. I’m not exaggerating when I say Red is one of the most underdeveloped, boring, lame and pointless villains ever created.
It’s a pity Hancock has received such negative reviews because, well, it’s not that bad of a movie. Granted, the ending is disappointing, and the “main villain” is horribly lame, but it nevertheless manages to entertain the audience with all its special effects, humour and action sequences. The disappointing thing, though, is that the material lends itself to grittier, more interesting and original stuff, and Hancock ended up being a pretty typical summer movie: loud and full of jokes and CGI. Is that a bad thing? More or less. Hancock should have been something more ambitious, but the final product, while a little disappointing, is still not half-bad. Will Smith has once again proved that he can make even the most formulaic movie work, and that he’s one of the most bankable stars out there – despite the dismal reviews, Hancock has been a box office success worldwide. I just hope, though, that for his next project, Smith chooses something a little less “safe.”
©2008 Sebastián Zavala - GG site