Hancock

  • 2008-07-23
  • By Talis Saule Archdeacon

HALF HERO: Hancock is like the bad Clark Kent from Superman III all the time.

Director: Peter Berg

Superheroes are people too.
The tried-and-true formula for a good superhero story has to involve a human side. But with the more traditional champions of all that is right and good, like Superman or Spiderman, the "human" part of the equation usually takes a backseat role to the "super" part.
A few perfunctory scenes 's a lone teardrop at a remembered childhood injustice, or maybe a slow camera pan showing the hero's profound loneliness following a lost love 's are all we see from the stoic demigods of old. It gives audiences something to relate to, but not very much.

Traditional superheroes are always espousing the idea that with great power comes great responsibility. Yet none of the stories take a close look at what that "responsibility" involves. And none of the heroes ever make the wrong choice.
"Hancock" changes all that. John Hancock (Will Smith) is such a far cry from these superheroes that it's hard to use that word to describe him. He is really more of a regular guy with superpowers.
The emotional stress of being the only person in the world with superpowers has taken its toll on Hancock, who has had trouble dealing with the responsibility that comes with his power. Eighty years of being the world's only immortal has left him searching for meaning in all the wrong places.
Hancock turns to drink and can usually be found passed out on a park bench with a few empty bottles of whiskey. He still fights crime, most of the time, but he usually makes a mess of it because of his nearly constant intoxication.

The idea really is a brilliant one. There is great potential in a superhero without direction, one who has started to lose his faith in humanity. Unfortunately, the film goes a bit too over-the-top with some scenes and fails to fully delve into the mind of a superhero without a cause.
Throughout the first half of the film, Hancock is an asshole. So many people refer to him with that word that it starts to feels like the filmmakers are trying way too hard to get their point across.
Hancock, who is more than a little drunk, lopsidedly flies through Los Angeles crashing into flocks of birds and nearly taking down a passing airplane. He manages to stop the first few criminals of the film, but in doing so he causes millions of dollars in damage to the city and puts numerous innocent lives at risk.

The public is not amused. It seems this sort of thing is a regular occurrence for the wayward crime-fighter. Public officials 's with the support of the city's citizens 's are fed up.
The city government sends yet another subpoena to the hero, the latest in a long list, demanding that he appear in court to explain the damages that result from his escapades. He never shows up.
Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is a failing public relations specialist trying to change the world by convincing huge companies to make massive charitable donations. In exchange, the companies would receive permission to use the "all-heart" logo and all the good press that comes with it. None, of course, are interested.
Hancock saves Embrey's life when the man's car gets stuck on the train tracks. In the process, however, the drunken Hancock derails the train and nearly kills a little old lady. An angry public heckles the hero until Embrey steps in, thanking him for his actions.

Embrey then convinces the hero that it is better to be loved than hated, and that he needs to change his public image. With little left to lose, Hancock agrees to go to jail and tries to turn his life around.
The trouble with the film is that every aspect of it seems to be either too much or too little. The comedic parts of the film have a sort of exaggerated ridiculousness of the sort common to Eddie Murphy movies. This just doesn't mesh well with the intense action scenes or the potential for internal conflict.
The humor and the goofy action scenes take too much of the edge off the emotional and philosophical aspects, which should be the film's main attraction. Hancock lacks the depth that the character calls for and doesn't seem to really connect with any of the other characters.

The idea for the film may be a good one, but the director fails to take full advantage of it.

Now showing in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

 

Please enter your username and password.