BOOKS AND ARTS JULY 1, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It briefly looked as though the 4th of July might be up for grabs again. For about a decade, this week on the cinematic calendar had been officially unofficially reserved for Will Smith, whose 1996 Independence Day (I know, it wasn't really his, but it was reimagined to have been after the fact), 1997 Men in Black, 1999 Wild Wild West (yes, even that one), and 2002 Men in Black 2 dominated the box office on America's birthday. But MiB2 was a good while ago, and Smith had lately seemed to set his sights higher still, opening The Pursuit of Happyness and I Am Legend over the last two holiday seasons.
Yet a dozen years after Independence Day, Smith has once again staked a claim to Independence Day, with the superhero subversion Hancock. And, like any good self-fulfilling prophecy, it will likely reign supreme at the box office because everyone has already assumed it would: Summer’s other blockbusters have all deferentially ceded the field, so Hancock will go head-to-head against only a few limited releases and a kids-oriented film, Kit Kittredge: An American Girl, which just happens to star Smith's seven-year-old daughter, Willow, whom we can safely assume has been promised a lifetime of spinach if she doesn't take a dive for Daddy.
Which is a shame because, Smith's indisputable talents notwithstanding, Hancock is an utter mess. Its premise is dark, but not unpromising: Smith’s John Hancock (yes, there’s a story behind the name) is an L.A.–area superhero with the typical package of abilities--flight, super-strength, invulnerability--who also happens to be a surly layabout and an alcoholic. When first we meet him, he’s passed out on a public bench, and it falls upon a grammar-schooler to rouse him to a crime that needs fighting. (“What do you want, a cookie?” Hancock grouchily replies.) In the course of apprehending the bad guys, though, Hancock does more damage to city infrastructure--highways, road signs, police cars, etc.--than the criminals would have managed in five lifetimes. Little wonder that Hancock is not the most popular airborne savior in the City of Angels.
Luckily, a subsequent rescue, despite its characteristically high economic toll, introduces Hancock to Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a do-gooding P.R. guy (the movie evidently assumes that if you’ll believe a man can fly ... ) who offers to help Hancock clean up his public image. Said cleaning up involves some fairly serious criminal charges, and--perhaps because he lets Ray represent him rather than, you know, a lawyer--Hancock winds up doing his public penance in prison. On the way to the jailhouse, we’re also introduced to Ray’s concerned wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), who initially appears to be another Gwyneth Paltrow–in–Iron Man indicator of the dearth of major roles for actresses during summer-movie season, but turns out to be something else entirely.
A few problems are evident from the start. The direction (by Peter Berg, who did a rather good job of elevating last year’s The Kingdom above its jingoistic source material) is negligent in the extreme: The action sequences are sloppily choreographed, the soundtrack is intrusive, and the performances, even by Mr.-supremely-comfortable-in-my-own-skin Smith, are all oddly tentative. On top of that, the dialogue is flat and the effects are second-rate at best. But what is most obviously out of whack is the pacing, which is remarkably choppy and rushed. Barely a half-hour into the movie, it seems that it’s entered its redemptive home stretch.
And indeed, it has. The great surprise that Hancock offers--I hesitate to call it a “twist,” because that makes it sound like a good thing--is that it is not merely a subversion of the superhero genre, but two subversions, stitched together with the same laziness evident elsewhere in the film. By its midway point, Hancock hasn’t merely sobered up, the movie has all but forgotten that he was a drunk in the first place and has wandered into another plot--featuring a fellow super, a tragic backstory, a love triangle, etc.--only loosely related to the first.
The glass-half-full approach to the film, I suppose, would be to imagine that it’s two for the price of one: Hancock and Hancock 2: The Hidden Hero--and you don’t even have to wait two years for the sequel. I’m afraid, however, that I subscribe to the glass-half-empty view: This is a lurching, misbegotten wreck of a movie that has little idea of where it’s going and less of how to get there. Is it a comedy? (The jailhouse scene in which Hancock inserts one thug’s head into another’s posterior, scored to the bum-bum-Ba-dum theme from “Sanford and Son,” offers strong evidence.) A heavy melodrama? (The bleak, violent climax, which among other amusements features the devastated face of a small boy who believes he’s lost everything, would seem to suggest so.) A movie about love and destiny denied? Or a movie about love and destiny fulfilled? Hancock is all these things, and not in a good way. By the end there are enough loose threads hanging around--narrative, moral, emotional--to knit at least two or three other movies.
Hancock is hardly the worst movie of the summer season. (That would probably be this or this.) But it is in some ways the most frustrating: a clumsy, half-hearted mishmash dropped carelessly into the holiday weekend with the clear assumption that Big Willie’s superpowers will be enough to catch it and hold it aloft. I (like every moviegoer on Earth, if box office numbers are to be believed) consider myself a fan of Will Smith. But Hancock, even more than its protagonist, has deep-seated problems, and anyone who gives it money is only enabling its misbehavior.
18 comments
Browning?
- itzik basman
July 2, 2008 at 10:06am
I'm going to see tis tonight. Maybe I should buy a ticket for something else instead and sneak into Hancock. A wonderfully lean, and clear piece of writing, Mr. Orr. Funny too.
- Sean in Dublin
July 2, 2008 at 11:11am
Orr should start writing the entire issue of TNR
- Brian
July 2, 2008 at 5:01pm
I don't care what you say, as long as Will Smith is not a Scientologist, I'll go see almost any movie he is in. That said, I hope you're wrong. Which, given how often I disagree with Movie critics, you probably are just that... Wrong.
- Alexander ML Jones
July 2, 2008 at 5:10pm
Alexander- You may think I'm wrong about Hancock, but I regret to inform you that Will Smith is, in fact, a practicing (and proselytizing!)Scientologist.
- Chris Orr
July 2, 2008 at 7:39pm
David Denby actually liked 'Hancock.' At least he SAID he liked it. I think sometimes you critics are pushed to find the positives in commercial crapola simply because it gets to be too soul-destroying to write one pan after another. It's sort of pointless too. This review was fine and all, but wouldn't it have done just as well to say "Hancock is another dose of money-making nonsense, with no coherent story" and leave it at that?
- aeromonas
July 4, 2008 at 1:23am
what?! handcock was frigggin awsome if you ppl come here in order to determined whether a movie is good or not your misleding yourself(see how i didnt say stupid)okay what if willie is a scientoglist so friggin what leave him alone u dont like that i doubt he cares get a life you act like will killed someone or tortured dogs for a living and if your chirstian isnt it a sin in itself too judge-peace and god bless
- dudeluv
July 4, 2008 at 5:23pm
Actually, I enjoyed Hancock. Rushed, yes. Not well choreographed, yes. But, the acting you found to as "tentative," I found to be "grounded." And, I thought the script was trying to do something a bit different with the super hero's frailty/Achille's heel thing. I liked the parable about love as something that comes at the cost of invincibility... and that the choice of love vs. 'invincibility' is not a no-brainer. Romantic love ain't always the most important thing, even if sometimes it is. The movie tries to say something good about public service. Not a great movie, but not a bad one. That I'm crazy mad in love with Charlize Theron has nothing to do with it.
- David
July 5, 2008 at 3:11am
Saw it. Liked it. I found it strangely satisfying, especially the ending.
- Kit
July 5, 2008 at 10:33am
May I suggest to any writer who cannot use "whom" correctly that you probably should not use it at all? The second paragraph of this article reads, in part, ". . . Smith's seven-year-old daughter, Willow, whom we can safely assume has been promised a lifetime of spinach. . . ." Obviously, that should be "who." You wouldn't say, "We can safely assume [that] her has been promised a lifetime of spinach." You would say that "she" has been promised a lifetime of spinach. Keep it in subjective case.
- Frank Lee
July 5, 2008 at 12:59pm
I saw this movie this afternoon, and I think that your review is overly negative, Chris. Yes, it's a mess. And you don't mention that this is in no way a safe movie for kids (like ID4 and the MiB movies). It's also really, really short, which makes one wonder why they didn't just up the length to 2 hours and flesh some things out (Roger Ebert used to write that as previews and the pre-screening ads took up more time, studios would be pressured to make shorter films in order to maintain the turnaround time in the individual theatres; this movie might be an early symptom). But is it "terrible"? My wife and I both kind of thought so after walking out of the theatre, but now some six hours later, I've come around. This movie is no better or worse than The Incredible Hulk. There are probably more individually fine moments in Hancock, and the idea is far more interesting. But TIH is more flawlessly executed. If TIH is a slick pop record, Hancock is a rough indie release that could use a little more production. I still probably would have been better off seeing WallE again this weekend than checking out this flick (and everyone would be). But I don't think this is a movie without fine moments (C'mon, Michelle the French bully?).
- kerouac9
July 6, 2008 at 2:52am
Alexander, you're all over the place. What's the point of reading a movie critic if you're going to dismiss him entirely at the end, especially if such dismissal will be based on an overly broad generalization about movie critics in general? Seems like you're wasting your time by reading, and wasting our time by posting. IMHO, Mr. Orr has been right about every other review that he's written this year. I saw Hancock a few days ago, and he's definitely right about this one, although I happen to think he understates the film's lack of direction, mostly since he generously (or maybe not) doesn't reveal the specifics of the entire second-half of the film, which proves that the screenplay was a disorganized and illogical jumble of a first-draft.
- James Mata
July 6, 2008 at 3:02pm
I thought that it was just me......I just came back from the theater and I was soooo disappointed. 1. It went from comedy to love story to just plain bad. 2. It seemed like the writers just rushed the whole TWIST part into it, for the sake of finishing the movie. 3. It was like 5 different movies in one. And not in a good way. If I want 5 for 1, I will cut out coupons from the newspaper. 4. It tried to touch on too many damn topics. 5. The stereotypes were ridiculous 6. Im still thinking this is propaganda of some sort. 7. Total crap and waste of my $10.00
- jodi
July 7, 2008 at 12:56am
Will Smith's Daughter is in the Better Movie. Go see the G-rated Kit Kittredge, an American Girl... it's a good movie! Hancock, on the other hand, is a waste of time and money.
- Richard Bennett
July 9, 2008 at 7:43pm
It's reviews like this one that make me realize just how far out of touch some critics can be. "Hancock" is a terrific movie, regardless of what Orr says, and I would hope that anyone who reads his ill-conceived review not take his advice. You'd be missing an excellent film. I loved the premise, certainly not the same old crap Hollywood has turned out over the last decade. Fine acting on everyone's part, well shot and edited, and a smart script. I keep reading that it's two movies instead of one. I saw it as a clever and original set-up to a fascinating concept. If you go to the movies to be entertained, to find enjoyment, to see something you haven't seen before, to appreciate the combination of talent, then see "Hancock."
- easyg1 in St. Louis
July 9, 2008 at 10:04pm
i totally agree it was an amazing movie and i do not care what people say! it was great
- jrboston
July 21, 2008 at 4:52pm
ok first of all the movie was obviously not targeted at you so that is y u did not like it. secondly there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. and thirdly the idea has never been done be4. a superhero in the dumps? come on give them credit 4 that! and what stereotypes?
- jrboston
July 21, 2008 at 4:59pm
Your Web Site is really wonderful and I bookmarked it. Thank your for the hard work you must have put in to create this wonderful facility. Keep up the excellent work!
- Tramadol_Evannatuede
October 26, 2008 at 2:25pm