An entertaining summer flick....and nothing more

Rating: 6/10 (11 November 2008)

I am most definitely a Will Smith fan seeing as the movies he has been in, on average, tend to be of high quality. So when I went to see Hancock, I was hoping for a decent film starring Will Smith. And that is exactly what I got: A somewhat confused film that wasn't great, but not bad at the same time.
Hancock starts out with the statement that it is unlike most traditional superhero films out there, and in my opinion, this was a great decision by the filmmakers. Superhero films are all the rage nowadays, but having a film starring a super-powered alcoholic is a comedic twist and makes it somewhat original. The storyline after the first 20 minutes or so becomes incredibly generic and mindless though, which really ruins the movie. Considering the beginning looked incredibly promising due to how it was original, I was disappointed to see the filmmakers take the generic and easy road that as been walked down way too many times in the past. Not to mention how the ending was absolutely terrible, and I almost cried at how shallow and lame it was.
The acting was very good though, and Will Smith showed that he is still at the top of his game. I was unaware of Jason Bateman (Arrested Development, Juno) being in the film, so it was a very nice surprise on top of the fact that he did an excellent job in his role.
If you have seen a superhero film in the last five years or so, you will be aware that they are computer-generated extravaganzas, and Hancock is no exception. While many scenes look incredibly realistic and authentic, many scenes look absolutely horrible, and Will Smith flying in front of a green screen was not cutting it for me. By now, I am really getting tired of these CGI fests, and while Hancock boils down to just all computers with some acting, it was done decently.
The camera-work is another thing in which I am not sure whether or not the film did right. Instead of having professional camera angles and smooth scenes, Hancock goes for the raw approach in which the cameras are incredibly shaky to try and immerse the viewer into the scene. It's really a matter of opinion on which way viewers like best, and although I am not always a fan of this camera style, it got the job done.
The main problem with the film is just what the hell the producers wanted it to be. It basically seems like an incoherent mash of comedy, action, romance, fantasy and superhero all mashed into one. It seemed like the filmmakers were trying to appeal to as many audiences as possible, which turned out to be a mistake seeing as they just had too much on their plates. I was happy to see that the film did not rely on its comedy to propel itself, due to how most comedies rely solely on the jokes tend to fall flat on their faces by the end. As for the comedy found within the movie, the jokes were really a mixed bag. Some were hilarious, while the on-going joke of "Call me an a-hole....." really wasn't funny after the second time, which was a problem considering it popped up many times throughout the film.
Was Hancock an amazing film? Absolutely not. Was Hancock a decent summer flick? Indeed it is. As long as you go into the theater with low expectations, I think it is an entertaining ride throughout. Yes, it does have quite a lot of problems such as genre confusion and some fake-looking CGI, but for someone who just wants a fun movie with no real purpose or meaning, Hancock should be sufficient.