The TV Addict 

There’s a scene in HANCOCK where the invulnerable reluctant super-hero played by Will Smith stops an oncoming train by standing directly in front of it. The sheer force of a speeding train ramming into an immovable object causes it to not only stop dead in its track but to be crushed, and all the cars behind it completely derail and scatter everywhere, making a huge mess.

It’s a perfect encapsulation of what goes wrong with HANCOCK halfway through the film, and what makes the Peter Berg directed movie the second Will Smith project (after I AM LEGEND) in a row that starts of promisingly and then violently and destructively derails. What’s more, in both films it happens after a very particular turning point that marks an abrupt change in each films’ narrative status quo.

Till that turning point occurs HANCOCK proves to be a somewhat refreshing, maybe even unique, take on the super-hero movie genre, by providing a distinctly anti (super) hero. John Hancock is a petty, alcoholic, abrasive, inept self-involved super. He’ll commit heroic acts, but it’s such an obligatory burden to him that he does it with callous disregard of property (ringing up millions of dollars in damage to the city) and others. As a result people have come to hate him, so he treats them and his surroundings with equal – and perhaps vengeful – distain. Hancock is a welcome spin on the superhero mythology by somewhat subversively suggesting that even if “with great power comes great responsibility,” if that responsibility isn’t accepted with the right intensions – or through only a sense of obligation – it’s perhaps more destructive than not accepting it in the first place.

Of course, Hancock is played by Will Smith, so you know deep down he’s just a big softy who will do his duty once he knows someone loves and believes in him. Sure enough that person comes along in the form of Ray Embrey (a wonderful Jason Bateman), a public relations guy hoping to nobly yet naively encourage multi-million corporations to save the world. In the mean time he makes it his mission to revamp Hancock’s public image, a neat little idea suggesting that superheroes – like celebrities – need to have their images micromanaged, need to embrace the idea that to an extent the public owns them and need to act accordingly. Heck, you could even argue the film is even an light existential rumination on the nature of superheroes, their responsibilities not just to the public, but to themselves. Who am I, and where do I belong? Or perhaps, whom do I belong to?

It’s these surprisingly fresher and deeper issues, coupled with a deliciously fun turn by Will Smith and Jason Bateman, that make HANCOCK an initial joy to watch.

Then “it” happens. Because I don’t want to give anything away, it somewhat hinders me what I can say so you may have to bear with some vagueness. Needless to say, once “it” occurs and the status quo is violently changed, HANCOCK turns into a completely different movie. What once was a smart little movie, becomes an uneven, plot-hole riddled summer action superhero flick that starts fluctuating wildly in tone and suffers from a handful of questionable decisions and narrative developments. I’m not certainly adverse to light superhero fair if it’s done well (like THE INCREDIBLE HULK), but HANCOCK doesn’t even turn into a good summer action flick. It takes on too much too soon, and yet at the same time not enough.

It’s heartbreaking to watch what was an interesting and fresh film become something tired. As the movie continued on its detoured path, I couldn’t help but sit there like a child on a road trip sitting in the backseat looking out the rear window watching his parents drive past a McDonalds. I kept on thinking “Wait, no! Go back. Turn around,” but like that child I just couldn’t help but mourn the fact that what I wanted was fading further and further away.

Overall rating: C+