Review: Hancock -- Scott's Take
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Drama, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Sony, Theatrical Reviews, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Well here's something you don't see every day: A big, flashy summertime "tentpole" movie that A) takes chances, B) bucks convention, and C) takes some real risks with its subject material. Obviously the safe approach is for Will Smith to do (yet another) easily-digestible (if somewhat mindless) blockbuster like I, Robot or I Am Legend or Independence Day -- but this time the endlessly profitable Will Smith is working with a rather distinctive director who refuses to cater to formula. That director would be Peter Berg, and this guy has yet to make a bad film.
Unfortunately the production history on Hancock is not a fantastic one. There was a revolving door of directors and script polishers before Columbia finally started production -- but there were still marketing issues, last-minute reshoots, and MPAA miseries to deal with. And yet, despite all that, Hancock arrives like a breath of weirdly fresh air for moviegoers who like a little heart and soul mixed in with their hyper-kinetic action mayhem. Toss some sharp wit and an impressive display of edge into the mix, and I think you may have one of my favorite movies of the summer. (Although one can plainly tell that there was some late cutting done to the flick, all in the name of the almighty PG-13 rating, of course.)
Here Smith plays a mysterious (and perpetually inebriated) superhero who, frankly, is kind of an asshole. Sure he'll get in the way of a few criminals, but overall Hancock is a selfish, arrogant, insensitive jerk of an immortal being. To call him a reluctant hero would be an understatement. But Hancock makes an unlikely friend in public relations expert Ray Embrey, a likable enough guy who seems to have the best intentions. So once we're introduced to Hancock's unpleasant ways, much of Hancock deals with the titular character as he tries to mend his ways, become a little bit nicer, and basically straighten up and (ahem) fly right. Hell, the invincible butt-kicker even agrees to go to jail, so you just know that -- despite his miserable exterior -- this indestructible misfit really does need a little bit of the human touch.
But when Hancock figures out the shocking truth about Ray's lovely wife (an excellent Charlize Theron), things go from clever and amusing to surprisingly touching. Sure, the third act "revelation" feels a bit jarring (again, it's a good movie that feels like it was edited in a hurry), but once the initial shock wears off and you figure out where Berg is taking us, Hancock manages to transcend simple escapism and becomes a flick about loneliness, friendship, and sacrifice. The flick covers a lot of ground, both character-wise and in relation to tone, but it all comes together in a finale that's quite unexpectedly powerful. (Those expecting a Spider-Man-ish display of high-end mayhem at the close may be a little disappointed, but I thought the ending was just perfect.) And while Hancock certainly doles out ample doses of action, one never gets the full impression that this is an "action movie." It's actually a very subversive character study that wears comedy and action like a layer of icing.
We all know that Will Smith is all but a guaranteed lock at the summertime box office (especially when early July rolls around), but it's good to note that he's not just matinee material: This guy is a really good actor. Watch Hancock carefully during his early (extra miserable) stages and you begin to build empathy just by watching the actor's body language. In the hands of a different leading man, the Hancock character might have had zero in the likability department, and that would be the flick's kiss of death, but Smith allows us to care just a little -- even though this hero really is an aggressively active jerk most of the time.
And hats off to Peter Berg for casting his pal Jason Bateman in a big-time role in a big-time summer movie. Although he seems destined to play mainly in failed television series, Bateman is an effortlessly smooth comedic actor, and he and Smith share some really excellent scenes together. (You want drop-dead(pan) funny? Watch Bateman in any random episode of Arrested Development. Like, today.) Other highlights include some very creative special effects (it's been ruined in the trailer by this point, but the bit where Hancock tosses a whale back in the ocean still makes me laugh), a snappy pace (barely 90 minutes!), and a rousing John Powell score that both pays homage to classic superhero scores and forges a little new territory of its own.
Best of all, this is a movie that attempts to tackle very human issues by way of a very superhuman character. The themes most prevalent in Hancock are loneliness, isolation, loyalty, and commitment -- but if you're paying close attention you'll catch some interesting ideas about racism, political correctness, and the importance of both morality and mortality. In some ways Hancock is a messy movie that goes in more directions then it manages to explore, but I'll take an overabundance of ideas over a lack any old day -- especially when we're dead smack in the middle of the summer movie season. It sure isn't flawless, but I think there's still something pretty special about Hancock.
Which means it'll probably be Smith's lowest-grossing movie in about ten years.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-02-2008 @ 11:50PM
Scott Weinberg said...
P.S. I went over to Rotten Tomatoes after writing my review, and I was stunned to see the rating at 35%. Wow, seriously? Guess the studios simply shouldn't bother with anything other than Fantastic Four 3 and Spider-Man 4.
Matters not a whit to yours truly. I say Hancock is a damn good movie.
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 1:29AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Berg is a talented director. He's THE reason we will see Hancock.
7-03-2008 @ 8:45AM
Scott K said...
*****SPOILERS****I like Peter Berg, And I was really digging Hancock until the "big twist". The first shot of Charlize Theron makes it painfully obvious that she knows something about Hancock, and I'm not normally one of those people who picks up on every upcoming plot twist. Well before it was revealed, I said to myself she either 1. knew him as a kid or something 2. was involved in giving him powers, or 3. has powers herself. It's not like the underlying story is bad, it just wasn't told in a good way. So what was a very well told, albeit somewhat "standard" story, got derailed for an interesting concept, that wasn't as interesting.
Pete hates everything including shift.
7-03-2008 @ 3:53AM
rahul said...
I dont think Peter Berg is such a good director. The movies he made like Kingdom and Rundown were total crap and by the looks of Hancock, I dont think its that good either. Kids themselves will get bored of seeing too many superhero flicks...
I am not even surprised to see it got like 35% as Scott said......
With the likes of Hellboy2 and Dark knight to come this month, i dont think hancock stands a chance.
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 5:07AM
pete thomson said...
Went to a preview of Hancock this evening in Edinburgh, Scotland. The cinema was almost full which can be attributed to Will Smith's ability to open any movie. He's bland, he's consistent, he's popular. Everybody knows who he is and he has zero baggage - like squeeky clean Tom Hanks, you assume you're bound to be entertained no matter how contrived the vehicle. Anyway my expectations were low I had read on a website that the movie had received fairly dicey test screening results an that they'd sliced 30 minutes off it. You could tell, the plot was paper thin, very contrived and required little concentration to follow. Peter Berg isn't that good a director. He has little conviction and what may have started off with a lot of potential from a satirical point of view ended up like a corny TV movie afraid to stand by its convictions with the now standard "setting up for a sequel" ending. At one stage my eyes drifted up to count the ceiling tiles and then over to the teenagers who were playing with their phones and noisely munching popcorn like rats scrabbling in a dustbin. As has been typical of this summers crop of "event" movies the film was CGI heavy and character lite. The general consensus on the way out was it was disappointing. It is surprising though how little people expect nowadays from a good night out at the cinema, and it will do well simply because of Will Smith and his everyman charm. Charlize Theron and Justin Bateman were ok and took solace from the fact they were both doing it for the cash. Both will restore their credibility with a less annodyne independent movie soon enough. Will Smith will continue to act in rubbish like this- assuming its more than it is, although I did like "I am Legend" till the smaltzy ending. Actually that really does reflect the inflated ego of the guy, terrified to do anything edgy he bases his ability purely on the revenue he can generate. Hancock was though fairly terrible- a superhero concept designed to capitalise on the current fashion for heros and I could have done without it and so could the thousand or so other folk who left muttering about how bad it was. Course if there had been a D in the title it might have been a whole different film on a totally different website!!!!??
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 9:30AM
pete thomson said...
Lol sorry Scott K I don't quite hate everything but everything recently- im just bored of unoriginal CGI and want to watch something less action orienatated with a better script. It would STUN me if the studios got round to making a movie comparable to the depth and intelligence of Battlestar Galactica. I am looking forward to Hellboy 2, Batman 2, Savage Grace, The Visitor, X-Files 2. Im not just a ranting Scot!!!:)
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 10:33AM
Adam said...
Wanna see how a movie can be good in the fist half and then out of nowhere turn into a horrible one? Go see Hancock.
Reply
7-05-2008 @ 9:25PM
d59d0af5 said...
I agree wholeheartedly!
7-03-2008 @ 1:06PM
madgamer said...
I was suprised by the ammount of negative stuff on this movie on the web. I liked it quite a bit myself.
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 2:16PM
nintendo fanboy hater said...
people that compare hancock to the the poopstain likes of Hellboy 2 are utter tools to me. there is no way hellboy 2 could be as good as hancock. not to mention there is no way the story could be as good.
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 3:15PM
rahul said...
@ nintendo fanboy hater.....I dont think u saw the trailer of hellboy 2 and u might have forgotten the fact that guillermo del toro is directing this. Incase you dont know him, he won 3 oscars for Pan's labyrinth, not to mention that film being nominated and won are several prestigious film festivals all over the world.....so after the success of pan's labyrinth, hellboy2 is gonna be appreciated big time
He also got signed on to direct Hobbit 1 and 2......so obviously to do LOTR prequels.....the man has got to get some credit....
Atleast he is any day better than Peter berg who has no idea how to execute a script and film...
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 2:33PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I dig del Toro - his passion for film is evident when he speaks. Devil's Backbone is a masterpiece. Cronos is really well made. As a producer, the Orphange was solid. That said, Pan's Labyrinth was about as overhyped and underwhelming as any big tentpole pick of the last 10 years.
He's also made some of the worst films EVER. Blade 2 is unwatchable. Mimic is far from good - and steals liberally from Aliens. Hellboy, while fun, was uneven. As already mentioned Pan's just wasn't that good.
So while my wife insists we see Hellboy 2, we both agree that Berg - haven't seen Hancock yet - hasn't made a truly bad film yet. And his creations for television are above reproach. There isn't a drama on TV that comes close to Friday Night Lights (I wouldn't call Dexter or Breaking Bad dramas but more darkly comic). Quite simply, he's show himself to be varied jumping from buddy action to drama to comedy to thrillers. For his own work he's also shown a willingness to hurt his characters - something that is far too rare in 99% of the TV/movies made. Hancock may blow but I doubt it will be just retarded like Blade 2.
Del toro's like a big happy kid. It's clear in how he makes his movies. Sadly, that enthusiasm doesn't always translate into good films. Blade 2 will forever be a blight on the man's resume.
7-05-2008 @ 1:03AM
nintendo fanboy hater said...
i guess i wont see the hobbit then... it has to be jackson. he even made king kong semi-decent. but anyways yes i have seen the trailers and i have read the interviews and i just am not interested. after seeing the "imaginative creatures" and i am like i could think up better in a coma and these are the designers he was working with... oh snap golden army woohhh frickity hooooo
7-04-2008 @ 12:33AM
Riley Freeman said...
yea ythe moment charlize looked at him u knew what was going to happen. the twist wasnt much of a twist. the movie was dull predictable same ol crap. misrepresented a la the village making u think its one type of money and once they take ur money switch it to something else.
and they wonder why people bootlegg movies. cuz people hate wasting their money on such crap.
this movie should have kept its dark tone that it somewhat started with. the funniest part was the 30 seconds mike epps had on screen
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 6:34PM
jake said...
"That director would be Peter Berg, and this guy has yet to make a bad film."
The Rundown!?
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 6:42PM
jake said...
I know Peter Berg is a fan of Michael Mann, but will Michael Mann himself tell Berg that it is quite alright to *hold* a shot, if only for a few seconds? I thought filmmakers were done shaking their cameras.
He also needs to relax on the close-ups. All three principals have the camera practically lurching into their pores.
Reply
7-08-2008 @ 9:12PM
Scott said...
I liked Hancock a lot. It was like a comedy and Unbreakable all in one. Check out my thoughts here:
http://whatdvd.blogspot.com
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 11:54PM
Maurice said...
Super heroes are a selfish lot. Think about it. What do they really do for the common man? How does a superman really benefit our kind? Oh sure, they occasionally save us from a giant, alien starfish and they can be called upon to stop a magnetic mutant from stealing my paper clips or hubcabs. But that does not put gass in my car. I feel no sincerity from them. Expect for Batman.
Batman let’s you know he’s self-centered. He bounds around, stomping the fingers of criminals in HIS city and back-handing Poison Ivy every time she tries to germinate a monster from a tulip bulb. So what. Batman cares about you and me about as much as Streisand does when she warns us to stay out of Colorado but his contempt is obvious. You want to fight help him fight crime? Stay the hell outta Gotham, touristas!
Ever pondered how these muties suddenly possess these powers with little effort. Some of them can fly but none are afraid of heights. Some are strong enough to rip a tank in half but are able to easily get a Ritz cracker out of the package with no breakage. They can even give Betty a shoulder rub without dislocating anything important, like, say, her pesky spinal column. Some have eyebeams (seeing red), some can change shape (wearing red), some can create a tornado with their lower extremities (is red) and some can swim and talk to fish (pansy). But how does that benefit the little guy?
I always thought that once, just once, I’d like to see one of these guys that would develop superpowers and be pissed off. He’d laze around with an attitude of screw you and a t-shirt that read “Free Mustache Rides” and he’d give bad guys a wash by wizzing on them. In fact, he’d be a borderline bully, grumpy all the time and doing what ever he wanted. He’d get your cat out of the tree and then use the beast for a quick Ray Guy imitation, using the Twin Towers as goal posts. His surliness would be his costume and he would never need a surfboard to fly around on. He’d be Hancock.
While this may not be a great film, it’s a great concept: The hero who has no idea who he is. I know it’s a good concept because I thought it up 20 years ago at a bar one night. We (cops) had finished a shift and over chicken wings and beer, I brought this idea to the forefront and have ran with it ever since. By the way, I also created the idea of the Borg’s Cube ships at a Star Trek convention 30 years ago but I didn’t get credit for that either. Never ask a Roddenberry why starships aren’t square and expect compensation later when he steals the concept. Hancock is a great concept. Will Smith is not.
Will Smith is rapidly becoming the Wolverine of filmdom. Wolverine is Marvel comics go-to guy when a series is boring or in danger of cancellation. I’ve seen the little Canuck in more titles than I have seen smooshed out roaches in the ashtrays of a ’69 VW microbus with a Steal-Your-Face air freshener. It’s not that he makes the title book better or more interesting; it makes comic geeks buy one more issue. It’s always about the bottom line, isn’t it?
This film fell apart right about the time Hancock “sneezed” and for those who have yet to see it, that’s a code word you should remember for this to make sense. He sneezes and the film falls in the crapper and no one really cared because Will-verine’s in the film. Let’s wreck something, more mayhem, bash more props, add some tear getting pathos and viola! A complete film. Well, heck, that’s just like “I Am Legend.” Hey, that also sounds like “Independence Day” and also “Men In Black II.” Wait, he’s not Wolverine. He’s that pesky voice actor guy from the Pixar films who get’s speaking roles because he’s buddy’s with Doris at the studio’s coffee shop and she’s the bosses widowed Mom.
Go see “Hancock.” It’s not all bad and you’ll be able to enjoy the good parts. In fact, the whole gag with the jar lid was funny in its context. As a bonus, you get a handy guide to all of the variations and uses for the word “ass” and even I, a seasoned veteran, never knew that there were so many possibilities for its use. Thanks, Hollywood. You’ve made a lesser man of me.
Reply
7-14-2008 @ 10:15AM
lisaverse said...
Hancock was outstanding. I agree that Peter Berg has yet to make a bad film. He brings a distinctive edge to everything he directs, and doesn't pigeon hole himself in just one genre. I would have seen Hancock just based on the fact that Berg was directing.
The fact that it starred Will Smith was a major bonus. I'm more impressed with his acting every time I see him do something new. If someone would have told me during his Fresh Prince days that I would someday feel he got robbed of an oscar, which is exactly what happened with Pursuit of Happyness, I would not have believed them.
With Charlize Theron and Jason Batemen in there too, I went in expecting to see something great and it delivered.
Reply