Bad boy super hero

Hancock (2008)
Cast: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman
Director: Peter Berg
Running Time: 93 mins

The film follows the alcoholic superhero John Hancock (Will Smith) who struggles to come to grips with the responsibility of being the only one of his kind while telling on his costly theatrics and fighting crime in Los Angeles.

In fact it is because of his blatant disregard for public property and his unconventional and sometimes plain illogical methods of saving people that have the citizens of LA hating the very sight of Hancock.
The millions of dollars in damages that Hancock bestows on the public come back to him in the form of several subpoenas and lawsuits which Hancock in his predictable disinterest chooses to completely ignore.

Of course the good law keepers of LA are helpless in actually apprehending the superhuman vigilante, and instead choose to head a defamatory campaign which most of the people of LA are only too happy to join in on. When Public Relations expert Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is saved by Hancock he thinks it fit to help the superhero improve his public rating by first going to prison as punishment for his offences while hoping to prove how much the city needs him. The plot continues through its ludicrous storyline which introduces Embrey's wife Mary Embrey (Charlize Theron) who is adamant that her husband stay away from the destructive Hancock.

In the midst of a summer-fest of superhero flicks such as Ironman, The Incredible Hulk and The Dark Knight, Director of Kingdom Peter Berg brings us Hancock, an almost tongue in cheek and unconventional look at a bad boy superhero. However, the very duality and darkness of the character is portrayed in comedy which somewhat dilutes the very depth of his emotional toil. Here we have a character who is lonely, angry, unappreciated, has an acute problem with drinking while taking his responsibility for granted but somehow all these problems which would make a character enticing and deep seem to be shunned aside for something less provocative.

Hancock instead becomes some sort of laughable joke in which his actions of public property damage, disregard for the safety of civilians in some cases and more importantly flying under the influence are portrayed as comic defects. The film's plot also deteriorates into an absolute nightmare. I was comfortable with not knowing Hancock's origins simply because the story was not exactly about him as a superhero it should have been about so much more.

Once his origin and history are revealed the film becomes nothing more than a big budget action fest with a lot of special effects and minimal script value. Hence the predictable one-liners and clichés can be expected although the acting is one of the only aspects of the movie I can possibly comment positively on.

Will Smith (iRobot, Ali) in his reprising role as saviour of the world delivers a solid performance as the less than perfect bad boy superhero.

However his powers of flight, superhuman strength, invulnerability and immortality give me the impression that the writers didn't bother too much about being creative with their hero. Smith however makes the most of the limitations of the story in his performance which has him standing out like an emotionally charged sore thumb. Bateman (Kingdom, Juno) plays a very one dimensional goody-two-shoes and I suppose he could only watch while his character was torn to shreds by the script writers.

Theron's (Monster, Devil's Advocate) character ruined the film single handed and her abilities as an actress could not salvage what she was left with.

In fact the film was so badly thought out that in its comic representation of serious human problems it seems to forget about one very important additive in a superhero flick; a bad guy. You're not dreaming this up folks there is no actual villain or arch enemy in the story. Sure the movie's big budget and action packed but the look of it is not spectacular and the film itself offers up a little more than nothing.

What's worse is the movie leaves audiences with a sickening premonition of a sequel. If there's a petition going around against the release of another one of these horrors sign me up right away.

The movie in truth does exactly what Hancock does in the film, which is it leaves a trail of undesirable debris in which you'll be asking yourself 'what did I just see and why was I watching it'?

Send your opinions, enquiries and review requests to moviecritique.mm@gmail.com