Great Concept, Flawed Execution

Rating: 7/10 (5 July 2008)

Hancock is getting a lot of undeserved criticism. Is it a perfect film? No. But is it a mess, or even the massive disappointment it's been made out to be? Not at all.
Hancock is a movie that tries to tell too much story, and ends up telling too little. I've heard it said that this film feels like all setup (similar to my comments about Jumper). But I believe differently in this case. I think if it was hoped this character would continue in subsequent films, they should have kept this first film just the introduction of the character, with his down-and-out reluctant-hero attitude, and his transformation to a more positive image and attitude (with a new subplot/villain to make a complete film). The second film could have delved more into his origins and history and his encounters with and relationships to others with his power. Then from there, they could go anywhere they wanted. As it is, though, I hope this remains a stand-alone film with no sequels. It's a great concept (both his early film personality and his origins), I loved the cast, and the film was entertaining; but it has left itself nowhere to go from here without just being the typical superhero movie.
The film also feels very incomplete, like there was more to it - and from what I hear that's exactly the case. I'm very curious to see the inevitable (hopefully) director's cut of the film. Reportedly Peter Berg had to cut and alter quite a bit (it now runs barely 90 minutes) to get the desired PG-13 rating and the film the studio wanted - a safe family-friendly Will Smith summer flick. I think there's a good chance that in trying to increase the success of the film by mandating a PG13 film, they actually may have hurt its chances by neutering it.