Review: Hancock (2008)
Steve Rhodes
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): **
HANCOCK is a disappointing mishmash. Featuring the very bankable star Will
Smith, the movie will undoubtedly make a mint at the box office during this
long Independence Day weekend, but it shouldn't, since it is only
sporadically entertaining. Even my college-age son, who is one of Smith's
number one fans, found HANCOCK to be a big letdown.
While I don't deny Smith's talents and eminent likeability, this is the
third of his films in a row, the last two being I AM LEGEND and THE PURSUIT
OF HAPPYNESS, which I didn't like. Smith has fallen into the trap of
playing the same character in every picture, with the variations between
them being increasingly small. It seems that he always plays himself and
with fewer and fewer nuances each time. Still, I would never bet against
his ability to rake in the ticket dollars. His movies are as close to
presold packages as anything Hollywood produces.
On the other hand, is the world really ready for a superhero who is a
slacker, an alcoholic bum and a foul-mouthed guy who gropes the women in his
path? Perhaps, and, in the case of Will Smith's Hancock, quite probably.
But, for my taste, I never warmed up to Smith's character, so I didn't care
much when his predictable redemption came.
What I especially did not care for were the story's many subplots, the worst
of which was a do-gooder marketing scheme that had companies giving away
their products in return for a heart-shaped label. With this label on their
other offerings, the companies could market themselves as officially holier
than their competition. This storyline had absolutely nothing to do with
HANCOCK.
Smith's Hancock is a superhero who likes to fly drunk. With a whiskey
bottle in one hand, he uses the other one to scoop up the bad guys. Since
Hancock's rescue missions usually cause significant amounts of collateral
damage, he has become persona non grata in Los Angles, even though he keeps
saving the citizens. The police force is shown to be particularly
incompetent when the thugs turn to the use of automatic weapons. But, with
Hancock around to save the day, the police's inability to protect and defend
is effectively not much of a problem.
With the community hating him, Hancock turns to Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman),
a P.R. man, in order to improve the his superhero reputation. Ray suggests
that Hancock allow himself to be put in jail for his misdeeds. Once
imprisoned, his absence will quickly make the public grow fond, since the
bad guys will run rampant in the city.
As soon as you see that Academy Award winner Charlize Theron has what would
appear to be the very small part of Mary, Ray's wife, a suburban housewife
and mother, you can easily guess that there is another subplot brewing.
What the movie doesn't have is a villain. Sure, there are a few criminals
who might nominally be called villains, but they are such ineffective and
lame villains that they hardly count.
There is also a love story, but it is so inconsequential that it is hardly
even worth discussing.
The movie is in love with one thing -- its use of the shaky-cam. Maybe they
are trying to get the audience seasick, since they aren't able to
successfully induce any other feelings about the film. Sure, there are a
few laughs and a few smiles, so the movie does work occasionally, but, other
than some motion sickness, the main thing it produces is a mild case of
boredom.
HANCOCK runs 1:35. It is rated PG-13 for "some intense sequences of sci-fi
action and violence, and language" and would be acceptable for teenagers.
While watching it, I guessed incorrectly, based on the language, that I was
watching an R-rated film. I think I agree with the MPAA that PG-13 is the
correct rating for the movie, but it's close.
My son Jeffrey, age 19, giving it **, said, "What an utter disappointment!"
He found the jokes repetitive and complained that the movie could never
decide what to be: a comedy, a drama, an action movie, a mythological film
or a romance. Overall, he said it that was not horrible but that not much
happened. He noted that, if you've seen the trailers, you've already seen
all of the good parts. Jeffrey's girlfriend Yasmin, almost 19, gave it **
1/2, saying that she did like the beginning of the film, which she found
funny, but she did like not the rest of it. She found the last half of the
film especially bland. And, although she normally likes romances, she
thought this love story was too lame. She and Jeffrey both hated the
heart-shaped label subplot.
The film is playing in nationwide release now in the United States. In the
Silicon Valley, it is showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and
the Camera Cinemas.
Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com
Email: Steve....@InternetReviews.com
***********************************************************************
Want reviews of new films via Email?
Just write Steve....@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the
subject line.
Homer Yen
by Homer Yen
(c) 2008
If you've seen Will Smith's new movie, "Hancock", then you'll easily
remember the parts of the film where the titular, undisciplined
superhero takes off or lands. He thrusts into the air leaving behind
a crater. He smashes into the ground upon landing, creating a crater.
His movements felt so herky-jerky that he makes the Hulk seem like a
ballet dancer. The movie also felt too herky-jerky. It lurches
between gears so many times that I felt that "Hancock" had a
transmission problem. I wasn't sure whether to take this review to
the film posting website or to scribble it on the back of an AAMCO
comment card (double-A, beep-beep, M C O).
"Hancock", nonetheless, is still a novel idea because it doesn't focus
on the super hero. Rather, it focuses on the super amounts of
collateral damage that result from the nature of his work. Spiderman
puts the bad guys in a sticky web. This makes it easy for the cops to
come and get their quarry. However, Hancock leaves them dangling in
their getaway car atop the Capitol Records building in downtown Los
Angeles.
Hancock has the same powers as Superman minus the cape, the manners,
the charm, and the thoughtfulness. Seeing Hancock up close and
personal can either elicit feelings of assurance or feelings of
impending property damage. Of course, the crater is a given. I can
imagine the heads of the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Public Works pulling their hair out each time Hancock
arrives or leaves.
The interesting twist is that Hancock doesn't seem to really care
about his surrounding environment. I'm not even convinced that he
cares all that much about the people. A successful rescue without
human loss of life seems more like a bonus rather than the goal. This
superhero is boozy. This one curses. This one retaliates. And this
one takes everything and everyone for granted.
You know how we kind of take things for granted when staying at a
four-star hotel? Trash is thrown on the floor, crumbs are left by the
bedside table, and towels are haphazardly tossed into the corners of
the bathroom. We know the cleaning crew will tidy everything up.
Goodness! I can hear my Dad in the back of my head yelling at me when
I was 14, living at home, and had left my laundry on the floor: "hey,
do you think you live in a hotel?"
"Hancock" is sort-of-funny in two ways. When Hancock applies his
brand of heroics, the result is more than just bad guys getting
captured. His efforts get overshadowed by huge damage costs, warrants
for his arrest due to his wanton disregard, and even the ire of
Greenpeace. It's also sort-of-funny when he meets Ray Embrey (Jason
Bateman) and his wife, Mary (Charlize Theron). Ray is a wide-eyed and
earnest public relations pro who would genuinely like to help Hancock
change his image. Actually, in his scenes where he pleads with
Hancock to think through his actions, he is surprisingly the best
thing about the film. Mary has her own agenda, and the Hancock/Mary
kitchen conflict scene is probably the funniest of the film.
Unfortunately, the film is just all over the place. There's a good
film in here somewhere. There are nice plot twists as the story moves
along. The acting is as good as it can get for a film like this.
There are some grand moments that get your adrenaline going. But it's
all buried deep beneath needless over-the-top destruction, invariably
unconvincing special effects, and uneven pacing.
Grade: C+
S: 1 out of 3
L: 2 out of 3
V: 2 out of 3