E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS







There was an error processing this request. We cannot subscribe you to newsletters at this time. Please contact technical support with details.
Featured Sponsors
PARENTING

AVERAGE USER RATING

RATE THIS ARTICLE

  • Email
  • Print
  • Discuss
Search The Bible   
Advanced Search
Product photo

Will Smith Can't Save "Hancock"

Jeffrey Huston

Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

Release Date:  July 2, 2008
Rating:  PG-13 (for some intense action sequences of sci-fi violence, and language.)
Genre:  Action/Adventure, Comedy
Run Time:  92 min
Director:  Peter Berg
Actors:  Will Smith, Jason Bateman, Charlize Theron, Eddie Marsan

Hancock went through “Development Hell” and it shows.  After various scriptwriters, directors and even titles came and went, the project finally landed at the feet of director Peter Berg (reportedly the fourth one attached).  Rather than bringing a cohesive vision, Berg’s Hancock feels like a movie that was made from whatever draft was lying on the producer’s desk at the time and with the guiding principle of “let’s just get this done already.”

Not that the film lacks energy or is boring.  If anything, with all of its loud destruction, bombastic music and profanity-laced dialogue, it overcompensates.  But all the bells and whistles eventually can’t distract from the fact that Hancock—despite its intriguing high-concept premise—completely falls off the rails halfway through.

Hancock is a superhero movie with a twist:  the superhero (Will Smith) is a foul-mouthed drunk who makes bad situations worse before finally bringing them to an end.  His rescue attempts (often under the influence and performed with a bitter, careless attitude) create even more destruction that racks up damage costs into the millions.  Much of this is played for humor (that works), though it should be noted that the film goes to excessive lengths (through profane and crude language) to establish how much this guy is not a role model.

The citizens of Los Angeles have had enough and wish that he were gone, but PR guru Ray Embry (Jason Bateman) wants to help change all that after Hancock saves him from an oncoming train.  Ray’s makeover plan is extreme and requires sacrifice on Hancock’s part, but slowly it begins to effect good until a major robbery-and-hostage crisis could prove to be the catalyst that really turns things around—both for Hancock’s public image and personal struggles.

And then the movie falls apart.

About halfway through, a major character revelation sends the story careening in a completely different direction.  Though a lurking secret is strongly insinuated in the film’s first hour, the revelation still comes as a complete surprise and, subsequently, requires the film to essentially ditch its unique anti-superhero character study for a muddled mythology. 

Though the turn attempts to define why Hancock is the way he is, it’s more messy than clarifying.  Plot holes are created, major lapses of logic required, and the level of details revealed about this new context are limited to what will keep the plot moving but fail to make everything actually come together (let alone actually care about these people or what’s happening to them).  An original concept suddenly becomes a generic legend, and Hancock and Ray—two entertaining and well-matched opposites—become flat.

1 | 2 | Next | All
Most Recent User Comments
jdl82
7/16/2008 3:40 AM
I went to go see Hancock Monday night. My mother, who had seen it earlier, had strongly suggested that I do.
Upon entering the theatre, my only knowledge of the film was from one or two of the commercials I happened to have seen, which was this: Will Smith stars as a mean, super-powered, homeless drunk who performs carelessly destructive feats of heroism. Also, one single phrase that I had heard one character say in the commercial also led me to suspect that at some point Will Smith’s character begins to become mortal.
Jeffrey Huston, the author of the movie’s review at Crosswalk.com, seems to have watched it with a wealth of presumptions fed by a superfluous knowledge of its production history. He was so keen to which parts of the dialogue had been written by which people...

For the rest of my review, go here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=188693716&blogID=415274644
Sarizona7
7/7/2008 4:39 PM
Sorry, Zippy, but I believe the reason some discerning Christians view these movies is so other Christians may follow the instructions in the Scripture you posted. I think many Christian families are most grateful for reviews that enable them to choose wholesome movies for their families.
rgod
7/6/2008 1:30 AM
I just saw Hancock and while I do agree that there were many places where the language was unacceptable (particularly the cursing by the kids), I understood the purpose of the main character using some profanity - particuarly because of how he saw himself. I think that there were some pieces of this film that were quite good actually. There were some themes about the vulnerability that is part of love (I'm not sure though if I agree with the message sent concerning this), a very good message about who is different types of heros - whether they have supernatural strength or a super-human faith in another person's goodness. There was also a good message about how we see ourselves and the erroneous ways in which we might view past events in our lives - and the impact that has on our current living situation. The theme of responsibility is also present as well. For me, the fact this this movie addressed these themes was admirable.
Sign up to post your comments

It's quick and easy to register with Crosswalk.com! Just fill out the short form below. You'll have the opportunity to post comments, and be more involved in our community and forums. Plus, with this one account, you can sign in anywhere in our network of sites displaying the Salem All-Pass logo, including Oneplace.com, Christianity.com, Lightsource.com, Crosscards.com, and more!