Most superhero movies are content to show viewers only the positive side of the hero’s actions. We see the bus full of commuters getting saved, but don’t linger on the resulting damage to 40 passenger vehicles, three fire hydrants, and a small building or two. As long as lives are saved and criminals are thwarted, everyone is happy. There will be plenty of time and money for the cleanup later.
But the 2008 Will Smith film Hancock actually pauses to examine that residual effect of superheros’ actions. Is it worth stopping a couple of petty crooks if the damage to the city runs into the millions of dollars? Maybe not.
Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Smith stars as John Hancock, an antihero who reluctantly uses his amazing strength, bulletproof body, and flying abilities to save the city of Los Angeles from the usual menaces of high-speed car chases and bank robberies — all with a bottle of booze in hand. Right from the beginning, it’s clear that Hancock would rather not be bothered by all the superhero stuff, and he doesn’t expend any extra effort trying to minimize property damage while performing his heroic deeds.
But the citizens of L.A. are fed up with footing the bill for Hancock’s carelessness, and they decide to file suit against him. In steps PR man Ray Embrey (played by Jason Bateman), who was saved by Hancock when his car stalled at a railroad crossing. Ray says the surly Hancock needs a PR makeover, and offers to handle the case as a thank you. At first Hancock is resistant, but as he sees just how much everyone is starting to resent him, he accepts Ray’s offer.
Ray’s plan is to have Hancock turn himself in and serve time in jail. In less than two weeks, he says, the city will be clamoring for Hancock’s release as crime rates skyrocket. Failing that, Hancock can simply fly away from the prison anytime he chooses. Hancock agrees.
From there, the film goes on to show that Ray’s assessment of the situation was spot-on. A kinder, gentler, more careful Hancock emerges from incarceration, and immediately starts winning back the hearts and minds of Los Angelinos by successfully resolving a hostage situation. But the villain that Hancock thwarts in that episode comes back to wreak havoc on the superhero, exposing his vulnerability and putting his life in serious danger.
My Reaction: I enjoyed the first half of Hancock because it seemed that the filmmakers were intent on taking a fresh approach to the whole genre. I loved the idea of making Hancock accountable for his actions, and thought the film would have been terrific if the writers had been able to sustain that theme throughout. But as soon as the plot twist (don’t read further if you don’t want to know) was revealed, the film changed directions, becoming silly and boring.
Having Charlize Theron’s character be a superhero of the same mold as Hancock simply didn’t make sense to me. Why was that necessary? To present Hancock’s backstory? To reveal his Kryptonite? Whatever the reasoning behind it, I didn’t like it. As soon as Mary Embrey started zooming around and breaking things like Hancock did, I was taken out of the film and began to realize how ridiculous it all seemed. With the Smith character, I was willing and able to suspend my disbelief. With Theron’s character, not so much.
Hancock would have been a terrific film if the writers had stuck with the original premise and run with that for the entire 90 minutes. Changing directions midway through was a massive miscalculation that doomed the movie and knocked it down to mediocre status. I give it 5.0 stars out of 10.