Hancock

Hancock

Hancock is a great example of how Hollywood can take a simple and yet brilliant idea, combine it with great special effects, great acting, flawless execution and totally fuck it up in the third act. I have been excited for this movie ever since I first saw the trailer for it months ago. It looked great – a totally unconventional, original take on the superhero genre with a large dose of humor. As every brilliant idea this one was simple that I was amazed no one did this before.

What if superman was real? Let’s consider this – we would have a guy who can fly, is virtually indestructible and he is strong enough to lift a car and fling it across the town if he wants to. But where does that car land? Does it destroy someones house? Does it demolish public property? What happens when our superhero accidentally bumps into an overhead road sign while flying over he highway? What if the sign falls down on the road, demolishing several cars and creating a gigantic pileup. What if he tries to toss a beached whale back into the sea and due to bad aim sends it crashing down into some yacht on the horizon?

Let’s face it – it is not easy to be superman. When you are indestructible, you take many things for granted – for example, if you get hit by a train, nothing will happen to you. The problem is that the collision with you will cause the train to come to a sudden stop. Thanks to pesky things like laws of physics this means that the wagons will still want to keep moving and will likely pile up or fly off in random directions destroying the tracks, the electric poles, and half the neighborhood.

Hancock may be a superhero, but his exploits cause incredible amounts of collateral damage. Most of it is un-intentional, or accidental. Some of it is just gutsy bravado stuff. The public hates him, the police thinks he is a nuisance, and local officials want him either out of town or behind the bars. On top of that (or maybe because of that) our hero reminds me of the characters people roll up for super hero RPG games. He used charisma/personality as a dump stat. He sleeps on the street, he is dirty, coarse, rude, has a really bad temper and an advanced alcohol problem. Not really a shining role model, or all American hero like Mr. Clark Kent. But because of that Hancock is almost tangibly more realistic super-powered vigilante than the ones we see in comic books. He could stop fighting crime, and saving lives but he seems to feel the need to help people. His intentions are good, but execution is usually less than perfect. In effect instead of chairing when he arrives people threaten to sue him, call him names and etc..

That’s until he meets a PR expert who convinces him to turn his life around, take responsibility for his actions and become a real superhero. To do that he has to willingly go to jail, be rehabilitated and change his ways.

To me this was a brilliant – pure gold. Will smith is excellent at playing the stubborn, rude, drunken, bad-ass Hancock. His road to become a real hero is both funny, moving and entertaining. They could have stopped here, and have a movie about a hard journey from a hated outcast vigilante to a beloved superhero and a role model.

If they wanted to do more they could have taken it even further. Perhaps having the reformed hero feel betrayed when he is blamed for completely accidental damages he could not prevent and people turn their backs on him once again. Or perhaps do something else – for a bit it seemed like Hancock and the PR experts wife (Charlize Theron) will have some sort of a fling which would probably be an interesting dramatic twist. But no.

Someone in Hollywood decided that this plot is not cinematic and grand enough. So in the third act the movie mutates into something completely different. And by different I mean crappy. Up to this point Hancock was original, funny, light heated but also moving. Past that point it is none of the above. It is a rehash of old ideas, and played out storyline. I’m not going to tell you what happens, but I will throw this out there. This new movie into which Hancock changes in the third act can be described by using classic “X meets Y” Hollywood pitch. It may be spolish so you will have to highlight the next line to see it:

Highlander meets My Super Ex-Girlfriend.

Yep. I’m totally not shitting you. Watch the movie and tell me I’m wrong. The mood changes, the tone is different and most of the humor is gone. It is a train wreck. In fact, I would recommend stopping watching the movie around the time when Smith and Theron are about to kiss. It all just goes down hill from there and the film becomes some sort of grotesque parody of itself.

Wasted potential. This could have been a good movie. In fact, I was kinda hoping that this will be the single star studded blockbuster this year that will not be a complete disappointment. As usual however, the trip to the movies leaves me disappointed and angry. Every time Hollywood fucks up a decent story I die a little inside. And yet I keep hoping that this next movie won’t be a complete dud.

To be fair, Hancock is not a complete disaster. The idea is great, and the initial setup is perfectly serviceable. I’d say the movie is actually worth checking out but you should keep in mind that the third act will want to make you want to claw your eyes out of your skull just to stop the pain. Watching Hancock is almost like watching Highlander and then Highlander 2 one after another for the first time. You suffer a similar kind of shock, disgust, anger and nausea. The difference is in magnitude – Hancock is much milder experience but it doesn’t change the fact that the ending sucks big time.

Oh, and sorry for the late post. They usually appear before noon, but I fucked up the date and time thing and did not have access to the internets to fix it all day.

[tags]hancock, movies, reviews, will smith, charlize theron[/tags]

This entry was posted in movies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.



9 Responses to Hancock

  1. … and to think… lately (since vietnam) the only thing liberals were good at was being rich, and making good movies… now they are slacking on the second… so they can add more to the first.

    >.

    Reply  |  Quote
  2. Luke Maciak UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    I don’t mean to make this a political disputed but it’s funny how conservatives always talk about “liberal media” while liberals lament that the media is controlled by conservatives. Go figure. :P

    Not to mention that some prominent republican politicians came out of the movie business (Ronald Regan and “The Governator” just to name two). So I believe that neither political philosophy holds sway over the movie industry. It is ruled by the laws of supply and demand which means catering to the lowest common denominator most of the time.

    I’m beginning to think that Hollywood always sucked, and that the occasional good movies are simply flukes – low budget productions that fell through the cracks because one decided to “improve” on them.

    Reply  |  Quote
  3. Jake UNITED STATES Konqueror Linux says:

    Not too be off topic, but are you going to be going back to computer related articles soon?

    Reply  |  Quote
  4. Zack UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    also, not to get too political, but anyone who thinks that the media is actually LIBERAL in today’s day and again…is flat out stupid.

    On the other side. I agree with this post Luke. I was really excited for this movie as well, then the whole “crap” with Charlize happened and I was like, UGH, really?! It almost felt like this could have been the plot if there was a sequel to this movie.

    Reply  |  Quote
  5. Luke Maciak UNITED STATES Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    @Jake – yup, there are several computer related posts queued up to show up in the next two weeks. :)

    @Zack – LOL! Well said. The third act of Hancock is like a sequel to the first 2. :)

    Reply  |  Quote
  6. ido ISRAEL Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    yup, had the same reaction to Hancock.
    really good potential in the first half, totally fucked up in the second half.

    I mean, it was a fresh look on superheroes, a more “superheroes are like the rest of us, but, like, they have superpowers…”

    but instead of making it a “person movie”, showing us how will smith struggles with his problems while trying to make a difference, they hack up a unrelated ending, glue it up with tape wrap and CG and try to serve it…

    Reply  |  Quote
  7. lol @Zack for being the first to start the name calliing.

    I started to watch the movie but then had to go… (I was watching on my computer, like all movies) it seemed really good so far.

    Reply  |  Quote
  8. Steve CANADA Mozilla Firefox Windows Terminalist says:

    Finally saw Hancock, and could comment on your review…

    You are usually bang on, and I end up agreeing with you, but I liked the “twist”. It wasn’t expected, and was different…that is, wasn’t your typical “mutated-from-toxic-waste/insect-bite” or “came-from-another-planet” origin.

    And Charlize was freaking hot in that tight black outfit. :)

    I don’t know…I guess I was just wanting to be entertained and could suspend logic.

    Reply  |  Quote
  9. Pingback: Terminally Incoherent » Blog Archive » Potentially Awesome Movies Ruined Half Way Through UNITED STATES WordPress

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>