Next time, go all the way with it!

Rating: 7/10 (7 July 2008)

I saw Hancock at the Pheonix Bellair in Detroit, MI on it's opening day. The movie wasn't bad. However, it wasn't exactly great either. I liked the acting. Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and Jason Bateman all did a good job suspending my disbelief. The story,while not the greatest this summer--by any stretch of the imagination, was good enough to keep me in my seat. The action and special effect were also well done. However, there was still a problem.
There was no color to the movie. If you have a character who is super-strong, can fly, and is invincible, you're already out on the ledge--regarding plausibility. That being the case, why not go all the way. Instead of everything being rendered in a kind of drab reality, why not go with bright colors to enforce the more fantastical elements of the story. Seriously, look at it. Spider-Man has red and blue--his movies were all blockbusters. Iron Man has red and gold--his flick kicked ass. Hell, even the Hulk has green and it really helps the character pop.
What do we get with the titular character to this film? We get gray, black, and blue. It didn't really stick out that much. When Hancock first showed up to save those hostages, during that bank robbery, he looked more like a early morning jogger than a superhero. Seeing as how, by that point, he was operating as a superhero, would using a little extra color to sell it have really hurt? Instead of looking super, Hancock just looked, in Mike Epps words, like he was dressed in a "tight ass Wolverine outfit".
Then there's the other problem I had. What exactly could Hancock do? I know he can fly and is strong, but exactly how strong? I know he's fast, but how fast? I know bullets and rockets bounce off his skin, but would a stiff kick to the jewels double him over? Also, when in proximity to his other half, why, in God's name, did they have such a profound effect on the weather? An explanation about this would have been nice. Then again, it's possible I missed it.
Lastly, there was the overall lack of balance of the movie. The first half was entertaining. The last half, while still solid, felt like it belonged in another movie altogether. In the space of ten minutes, Charlize Theron's character is shot, in the gut, by a shotgun. Hancock is shot numerous times and bludgeoned too boot. Then we have Jason Bateman, who saves the day by hacking off a baddies hand with an axe, just before burying the blade in the guy's chest. I felt this was all rather unnecessary and kind of defeated the lighter, more enjoyable tone of the first half of the film.
At the end of the day, two tickets for Hancock was money well spent. However, shortly after leaving the theater, it's colorless nature was already causing it to loose out, in my memory, against some of the other blockbusters I've already seen. If there's a sequel, slap some more color on the dude. Make him look super. Also, explore the limits of his powers, possibly with a main stay of this kind of character--an arch-villain.
All in all, Hancock was a decent enough summer flick--if somewhat forgettable. If you haven't seen it yet and are on the fence, go for it. Like I said before, it's money well spent. As to the crew of this film, kudos for keeping that twist under wraps in the internet age. You must have tighter security than Fort Knox. Next time, though, if there is a next time, go all the way with your concept. It might just help you deliver a more memorable experience.