Every once in awhile, a movie comes along that literally raises my heart rate. I can feel the thuds getting faster and faster as the movie progresses. This feeling isn't elation, it's pure unadulterated rage! The last 45 minutes of "Hancock" felt like an attempt on my life. After it ended, I felt like a killer speeding home to get my weapon. I was trying my damndest to reach a keyboard. I needed to type. I needed to kill this movie from my memory.
What follows is a bullet fired right at the heart of the new movie "Hancock," a ridiculous and shoddy endeavor that has the nerve to call itself a movie.
The most aggravating thing about the movie is its potential for greatness. "Hancock" has great actors and a competent director in "Friday Night Lights" helmer Peter Berg. The story, not the script, had a lot going for it. So many themes could have been explored, especially those of the first half of the movie - redemption, individuality and acceptance. But the writers didn't drop the ball. No. They took a Bowie knife and shredded it apart so no amount of duct tape would ever allow the ball to hold air again!
(Breathe Jesse, breathe... Ok. I'm calm.)
"Hancock" is two movies.
The first 45 minutes is one movie. It has a beginning, middle and a conclusion. Then the last 45 minutes starts an entirely different movie with Hancock's origin story. Yes, you read that right. The origin story is at the end of the film.
Every problem this film has , and there are many, stems from the screenplay. You can see it at every misguided twist and turn. What irked me the most was that each half, if developed properly, could have made a good movie.
If you've seen the trailer, then you know how the first half plays out.
Hancock is a depressed superhero with an identity crisis who self-medicates with alcohol. While saving lives, he causes millions of dollars in property damage. He meets Ray Embrey, a public relations expert played by Jason Bateman, who helps endear Hancock to the public. Hancock gets his life together and finds his purpose. That is the first half - character introduction, conflict and resolution.
The first half also introduces Embrey's wife Mary, played by Charlize Theron. We are supposed to think that a box office heavy weight like Theron is only playing a mother and wife. Right. And all those furtive glances she shoots at Hancock for no reason? Oh, don't pay attention to that. Just vaguely recall them so we can shock you when we start the second half of the film.
That's as far into spoiler territory as I'm taking this, but just know that when the twist happens, your reaction is supposed to be "Oh, my, those writers are so clever! I bow to their creative genius." After the "big twist no one saw coming," we are thrust into an underdeveloped fantasy love story with its own, separate structure, about gods and angels. Nothing from the first half, not the themes or relationships between the characters, is used for the second half.
After the last half finishes, if you leave the theater knowing exactly what happened, you are far smarter than me. Just imagine being told everything that is happening instead of seeing it. Then try to remember all that terrible exposition, so the ending makes sense. I could see the ideas behind it. Just like the first half of "Hancock," the last half could have been a great movie with the entirely different themes of love, loss and devotion guiding the action. But they didn't make two movies, they made one and "Hancock" suffers for it.
Another main problem is the lack of a villain. Every superhero film must have a bad guy. These movies are all about the duality of morals.
For every good, there is an equal evil waiting to challenge the viewers sense of benevolence by pitting the villain against the hero.
Look at all the superhero flicks of the past - Superman has Lex Luthor, Batman has Joker, Iron Man has his bald fluffy bearded guy, and the Hulk has his Predator/Alien hybrid on steroids. You can't just omit this crucial part of the superhero universe and expect audiences to accept "Hancock" as a worthy addition to the genre.
Ok. It's not all bad. There are quite a few funny one-liners. These quips just come naturally to Bateman and Smith. These were the only moments the actors seemed to enjoy.
My favorite actor in the film was Bateman. The actor's demeanor, not his character, made me laugh the most. For the first half of the film, Ray is pivotal to the story, but when the second half starts, he becomes such a minor character that the filmmakers didn't know what to do with him. And it shows all over Bateman's expression. Bateman's apathy shined throughout the last half. I could just hear the actor's thoughts.
"Oh, what the hell am I doing here? Why don't they just kill me off so I can go home and try to get my Arrested Development movie off the ground now that "Sex and the City" has made so much money? Kill me.
Kill me now."
Because it stars Will Smith, you are probably rushing out the door to see this, just as I was. But, I beg you to resist the urge. You will thank me later when all of your friends come over to tell you, "Man! We should've listened to that Helmsman guy."
