Will Smith suddenly hates the public and gives us Hancock.

Rating: 3/10 (5 July 2008)

It turns out that the new Will Smith Summer extravaganza 'Hancock' is actually two films spliced together with all the finesse and care of Dr Joseph Mengele. Half of the 92 minute runtime is a promisingly original concept concerning an "only one of his kind" superhero alienated from the rest of society and existing only as a recluse who occasionally shows up in Los Angeles to save its hapless inhabitants. The problem lies in the fact that Hancock frequently conducts his superhero-ing whilst under the influence of a bottle of Jim Beam or two and thus often causes more havoc than he prevents. One sterling example the movie presents early on is when, upon having his sunglasses destroyed by a car full of criminals, Hancock effortlessly lifts the car up and skewers it like an olive on the spire of a nearby skyscraper. Events like this lead to public outcry and Hancock's semi-voluntary incarceration after striking a deal with public relations man Jason Bateman, who vows to help him change his ways after the Übermensch saves his life. Seemingly, the remainder of the film would therefore consist of Hancock's gradual path to redemption, winning back the admiration of the public and possibly experiencing a climactic 'Boss Battle' where Hancock learns some kind of important moral. Although not a particularly groundbreaking road to take and particularly wasteful of the idea of what it could mean to 'play God,' 'Hancock' would remain an interesting little package. Instead, at around the one hour mark, director Peter Berg inflicts a whiplash-inducing U-turn on the audience and embarks on a totally different story arc. Does this mean that it is less predictable? No. Does it mean that Berg destroys the film in much the same way that Robert Rodriguez did with 'From Dusk Till Dawn?' Yes.
It is difficult to analyse anything about 'Hancock' without relating it to the second half of the movie, like Will Smith's performance for example. It isn't possible to abhor Will Smith. He exists in the collective unconscious of the world's population as one of the coolest and most likable actors around. The second half of 'Hancock' tries its hardest to change this preconception. Willard (yeah, Tonight With Jonathan Ross IS informative) must have known that the movie couldn't work when he read the script for it, so why did he agree to do it? Does he hate us? He seems to be sleepwalking through much of the film, the antithesis of his role in 'I Am Legend' earlier this year. Also, something I've noticed more and more in the past couple of year is the use of the "Will Smith Patented Sad Puppy Eyeballs Look" for whenever Will has to convey a heartfelt emotion. He does it the most in 'The Pursuit of Happiness' but 'Hancock' receives its fair share too. And why is he pouting so much? Constipation, probably.
Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron are pretty much the only other characters in 'Hancock,' unless you want to acknowledge the existence of Eddie Marsan as the thoroughly mismatched antagonist, which I don't. He is about as good at acting as Shane Ryder is at singing. Even if 'Hancock' wasn't a mess already, he would totally ruin it. Luckily for him it sucks, which means he merely makes any scene he is in unwatchable. Bateman on the other hand mellifluously occupies space and does nothing more, although you can't help feeling sorry for him around two-thirds of the way through. Considering Charlize Theron's character is responsible for the abrupt twist (well not really, the writers are), it is difficult not to hate her. So don't even try. Just loathe every moment she spends talking, eating, moving or just breathing. It will make you feel better.
Just because 'Hancock' features the irrefutable king of the blockbuster does not mean that it is good. At one point our hero asks "Do I look like I care what people think?" Clearly, nobody involved in the making of this fiasco does at all.