Hancock (2008)

Hancock the title of the feature film that here is being recommended to you is starring 'Will Smith' and 'Charlize Theron'. The duo are working together in this movie and the turn over of wealth through telecasting has been; time to renew that lease to us with a watch. Trusting that safety in movies is due to the pre-cautions taken by actors and actresses who fall in love on screen or do not. Watching a movie relaxes us and a review is after all a pre-text to find talent or wit like at the window of being helpful.

Continuing my plan to watch every Will Smit movie in order, I come to Hancock (2008)I watched the unrated version. The year the MCU started, also saw Will Smith trying his hand at a superhero movie. Hancock is two movies. The first movie is about an anti hero learning to become superhero, and is by far the better of the two. The second movie is more of an origin story, as we learn more about Hancock's past and he finds out he is not alone. Both parts could have worked well as as stand alone movies, but put together its muffled and uneven.The movie shows all the signs of studio interference and never establishes a clear tone. Hancock only works because of Will Smith, whose performance is stronger than what the movie deserves. Don't get me wrong; I don't hate it, it is sometimes funny, sometimes clever, and occasionally enjoyable. Especially the first 50 minutes. Charline Theron is ok, as is Jason Bateman (who basically just plays the same guy he always plays) One of the problems is the lack of any real villain. Red Parker is just a weasel with a gun and is no real threat. Hancock grossed $227 million at the domestic box office to end 2008 the 4th highest grossing movie of the year. Smith highest performing movie since Men In Black.

Hancock has been on my watchlist since I really started liking Will Smith, which was about a year ago. When I finally managed to watch it, I didn't know much about it, apart from it being hopefully a different kind of superhero movie.At first the movie feels refreshingly simpler compared to the epic superhero movies we keep getting. It felt like most of the idea came from how in those epic superhero movies the heroes cause a lot of damage to the city and its people. But as the story goes forward the story does become richer and, even if I hate the word, more epic.It's refreshing to see a character like Hancock. He is like an asshole, clearly an antihero (it's already refreshing not to see a brooding white man antihero, mind you), but there's more to him. And what's important we actually can see how he feels about the people kind of hating him, even if he tries to save them. It's not just superficially shrugged off. I also love how the music is used so well with the story. When the movie becomes more like a superhero movie the soundtrack feels more like a classic score for that type of movies. Hancock is an entertaining and a surprisingly good superhero movie. I think I would've preferred something simpler, something more refreshing, but Hancock is good for what it is. Of course it's a bit typical, but it has several new elements, and it has great cast. And while the story is not great, there are a lot of things I like about it. Hancock definitely is worth seeing whether or not you are tired with the typical Marvel or DC movies we get.

(Will warn when I get to the spoilers...) The concept is superb: A superhero who acts like a bum and causes just as much damage as he does good, making the whole world hate him, yet he feels compelled to continue saving lives. What's more, Will Smith gives this character depth in a superb acting job, instead of just making him a cartoon character.The first half sets up this character with just the right amount of comedy, and has him meet a PR guy who wants to help him improve his public image and himself as a person, leading to some great comedy.(Major spoilers follow) Then comes the second half that ruins everything. It's not that the second half switches into a different movie. It's that the writers seemed to have been drinking all of the bottles that Hancock left behind, and stopped making any sense whatsoever.First of all, if he was a superhero for 3000 years before they found him in a hospital, then obviously the world knows who he is, so why did no one know him and tell him who he was?! And why would he and his doctors think he became a superhero only after his hospital stay? I don't believe they missed this obvious point. This alone kills the whole setup.Second, if they become mortal every time he gets close to her, why didn't he feel anything during their first long family dinner together? Or worse: When they fought, why didn't they kill each other or cause any damage to each other? According to the ending, all he has to do is put a mere kilometer of distance between them to become immortal again, so obviously it's the distance alone that causes it, contradicting everything that happened before.And what's the deal with the popcorn and tornadoes? Anyone? They get a triple-tornado when they get together and yet they stayed together several times before according to her, and the world didn't notice? And then there's her character. It's like they used a different writer for each segment of the movie. She transitions from normal person to super-bitch, to crazy person who enjoys wrecking the city for no reason, who then claims to be stronger than him just for the feminists in the crowd (and yet the world forgot everything she did for 3000 years?), and finally to a self-sacrificing saint. I kept praying that the movie would switch back to the Hancock character and save itself, but it never did. Huge disappointment. If only they had focused exclusively on his slower transition as a character...