Hancock (Theatre) - Both

Will Smith is back to his July 4th blockbuster shenanigans once again. And as with his previous efforts this film smacks of mediocrity. It is inventive, interesting, and still somehow vacant.

The opening scene is boisterously ridiculous with a Michael Bay flamboyance - too much for me. It shows Hancock (Will Smith) drunkenly apprehend a cadre of thugs while showing that he is an asshole. This becomes a catch phrase ala Marty McFly’s dreaded nickname “chicken”. Don’t call Hancock an asshole or you will get what is coming to you.

This sort of lazy writing humbles this promising popcorn flick along with Will’s lackluster performance. However, along comes Jason Bateman’s P.R. character to save the day and the film. He befriends Hancock after being saved by him and works pro bono to build his rep. This is when the movie shines – Bateman is his affable self (I fear Bateman may be a one trick pony, but, oh - what a trick) playing against Smith’s cardboard cutout of a self-loathing man.

At this point in time the film has quite a lot of potential. The scene is set for a quality ending as Hancock rises to the occasion showing he is a worthy hero. This is until the small twist rears its ugly head. Every encounter Hancock has had with Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, has been filled with confused stares and glaring eyes. There is a history there, a lumbering gorilla in the room; these two mean something to each other. The film takes a detour on the way to becoming a hit as Theron throws Hancock through the room displaying her hidden superhero powers. Oh, my – what a twist!

This hack doesn’t completely ruin the film and on the positive side navigates around any attempt at creating a supervillain for Hancock to fight. However, I somehow disliked the addition. The film never really addresses the fact that Theron’s character could have been a superhero too, but chooses domestic life instead. They then simply avoid the fact that Theron and Smith obviously have an unrequited love, but she is married to Bateman. And the film ends on a horrible candy coated note that almost ruins the film entirely. I will be fascinated to get my hands on the disc and see what kind of alternate endings this film had (read: the endings before the homogenization). The garble of ideas that come after the twist do add to the story giving Hancock a background of sorts and allowing the leads to display some emotional growth, but I find it hard to swallow the incomprehensible mess that they force on the audience. I won’t say I hated it, because I didn’t, but I also can’t say I’d recommend it.

5 out of 10: I appreciate the novelty, and can see where it could have been good, but the second half betrayed the first half’s promise.