Hancock

Directed By: Peter Berg
Rated: PG (Can) / PG-13 (USA)
Runtime: 1 hour, 32 min

I was a little reserved in my desire to go see Hancock, based on some less-than-pleasant reviews from critics and public alike, however, I am addicted to the air conditioning in the theatre these days, so trumping up my interest wasn’t such a stretch. Not to mention, Derek had picked up on some controversy regarding a mid-film twist. It seems there has been some debate on whether this was a good move for the film. My curiosity as a writer was peaked, as was my thirst for a $5.00 iced tea, so off we went.

Hancock is marketed as a Super-Hero redemption story. John Hancock, as portrayed by Will Smith, lives in L.A. and fights crime, in between bottles of Whisky and not showering. Hancock, it seems, is immortal. Bullets bounce right off him, he is immensely strong, and possesses the power of flight. He seems to have a vague understanding with the L.A. police that if there is trouble that they can’t handle, he can swoop in and deal with it, generally leaving a pile of destruction and the stench of hangover in his wake.

Ray, played by Jason Bateman, a PR rep who is out to change the world decides to take on the challenge of reforming Hancock, when Hancock saves him from an oncoming train, and the mess amplifies the public distain towards the anti-hero. An unwilling student, Hancock proves a challenge for Ray, who is good natured and tenacious enough to stay the course. The film focuses on Hancock’s redemption and provides a taste of dry humour, mostly via Bateman’s trademark offbeat delivery style.

About halfway through the film, I began to feel as though I had watched the whole story already, and that, unless this was a short film, I was missing something. At that point, the movie takes indeed takes a drastic turn, though not only in terms of the plot. The film shifted into high-comic book gear at this point, ditching the quiet humour and launching into action fantasy mode. I felt as though I had gotten lost on the way back from the bathroom and entered a new theatre, where the same actors were acting out a different story.

Though Will Smith is always solid, and rarely hard on the eyes, it seemed like he was on a short leash where Hancock was concerned, and unable to act to his full potential. Jason Bateman gave a charming performance in the first half of the film, though his character was virtually mute through the second half. It felt like watching a really short movie with a bad sequel from a different director. Generally if half the movie is going to be bad, I’d prefer it to be the first so I can at least walk out with the feeling that it redeemed itself at the end. I would call Hancock a renter, if that, and be prepared for a phase shift with a few shining moments early on.