Hancock

CAST: Will Smithm, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head

WRITTEN BY: Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan

DIRECTED BY: Peter Berg

RATED – PG-13

**1/2 TWO AND A HALF STARS

Anne Thompson, the long time reporter of Hollywood biz and co- editor of the show business bible, Variety, last week wrote about the concept of The Fluke Zone. The Fluke Zone is that rarefied status that some movie stars attain where they can do no wrong in the public’s eyes no matter how bad their film is. It could be the worst film of the century and people will flock in droves to see it simply because they’re so beloved by the public. Movies stars such as Harrison Ford and Eddie Murphy have all at one time in their careers experienced what it’s like to be in the Fluke Zone. But it never lasts. One too many stinkers eventually turns the audience cold and after that it’s usually hit or miss with those actors who were once “in the Zone”.

The latest occupant in the Zone is Will Smith. He’s definitely had more than his share of god-awful disasters as The Wild Wild West and Bad Boys II will attest, but his position in the Zone has remained firm. But, the word in Hollywood and on the Internet is that his popularity is about to be put to the test with the negative advance buzz about his latest summer blockbuster, Hancock. The reality is that, though it’s far from perfect, it’s not nearly as bad as the rumors made it out to be.

In this day and age where movies are afraid to challenge themselves and their audiences, it’s a relief to see Hancock try to do something different and challenging. It has an intriguing premise that, if it had the courage of its convictions, could have been a real and unique winner. Instead it’s an ambitious failure, filled with missed opportunities and obvious last minute compromises.

The premise, which is a send-up of the played out superhero genre, is in itself clever enough and has potential in abundance. In the film Smith plays Hancock. a superhero in Los Angeles on the skids. Homeless, foul mouthed, surly and frequently drunk, Hancock has the annoying habit of creating more damage and wanton destruction and breaking laws while stopping criminals or ordinary citizens from sudden death. All of this doesn’t make him the most popular guy around, and he incurs anger and wrath from the public, the police and the media.

After saving the life of Ray Embrey (Bateman), a struggling PR image consultant, Embrey sees in Hancock a golden opportunity and, despite the objections of his wife (Theron) finally convinces Hancock to recreate his image, first by agreeing to do prison time for his acts and then with a whole image makeover including a new superhero suit and haircut. But Hancock finds himself in uncharted territory when, halfway through the film, things go not as planned.

The film’s subversive nature is nicely played out in the first half of the film and it’s admittedly refreshing to see Smith, in effect, smack down and tear apart his usually perfect image. But, after the big plot twist Hancock goes completely off the rails.

The film’s reported post-production problems, which involved re-editing and extensive shooting of new scenes, clearly takes it toll along with softening the film from a rumored R-rating to a more family friendly PG-13. The end result is a second half that flounders around going from one set piece to another with no real narrative clarity. A massive fight scene, for example, complete with lightning storms and tornados, involving Hancock and another character, comes out of nowhere, seemingly with no reason or logic . Though we learn about the origins of Hancock’s super powers they remain strangely vague, nor do we learn why he’s such a jerk in the first place. Was he that way before he acquired his powers or did he change afterwards?

Maybe even worse is the film’s sudden switch to heavy, fantastical drama which throws the film completely out of whack. It’s as if the filmmakers and Smith got scared that audiences would be put off by his character’s unlikable, negative personality and decided to make him more sympathetic.

Surprisingly, also for a film with a reported $180 million budget, the special effects are for the most part pretty third rate , on the level of a 1950’s low budget sci-fi thriller. Director Peter Berg (Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom) is usually a terrific director with a keen visual style and sense of pacing, but perhaps he might have been the wrong person for the job. The film’s grainy, rough-hewn, purposely ugly cinematography and his over use of tight close ups would have been more appropriate for an action thriller or drama and not a film like Hancock where a lighter touch is needed from a director with an understanding of satire.

After watching Hancock and seeing what it was trying for, all one can do to put it on the list of films that might have been if they hadn’t chickened out. At least it deserves credit for making an effort.