My Review of Will Smith's "Hancock"

Hancock (Released July 4th, 2008)
Budget: $150 million
Gross revenue (as of 07.10.08): $190,994,414



Official Sony Pictures Hancock Site: Hancock

Before I begin this review, I would like to refer to Merriam-Webster definition of hero, superhero and anti-hero:

he·ro - 1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage 2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement 3 plural usually heros : submarine 2 4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol

superhero - a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person.

anti hero - a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities.

Based on that last definition, several other "anti-hero" movies come to mind that have been listed under that category. Kurt Russel as "Snake" Plisken in Escape From New York (1981), Bruce Willis as John McClane in the Die Hard series (1988 - 2007), Bruce Willis as Butch Coolidge in Pulp Fiction (1994), Thomas Jane as Frank Castle in The Punisher (2004), Vin Deisel as Richard B. Riddick in the Pitch Black series (2000 - 2004).

At least the anti hero movies above had mainly decent scripts and the anti heroes could think on thier own!

I finally saw "Hancock". OK, where can I start? I didn't like it and I wasn't impressed. Can I rephrase that? I thought it sucked.

Aside from a few chuckles it gave me that I can count on one hand, not including my thumb, what a severe disappointment. What a waste of time. What a waste of money. What was Will Smith thinking? What were the producers and director thinking?

I have enjoyed for the most part Will Smith's other films over the years but this movie was as bad of a train wreck as the one we see in the movie itself.

Let's go back several months. I knew from the first trailers of "Hancock" that I saw earlier this year that this movie was not going to be the traditional superhero movie so I was prepared for something different. I knew in advance that they were taking a different approach to the super hero so I walked into the theatre wanting to give it a chance to see what they came up with.

Yet from the first reel to the last reel, I was basically uninterested, un moved and overall bored. I can't count the number of times I rolled my eyes to the ceiling because I kept thinking "You have got to be kidding". What was wrong with this movie? Where can I begin?

Let's start with the storyline that was weak, weak, weak.

"A hard-living superhero who has fallen out of favor with the public enters into a questionable relationship with the wife of the public relations professional who's trying to repair his image."

Come again? OK, let's continue.

Onto the negative images:

Image #1 - The images of a young, homeless black man, dressed like a hobo with a knit skull hat on in the summer, sleeping on a public outdoor bench who coddles his whiskey bottle like a child would hug his favorite teddy bear he can't do without.

Image #2 - The images of a Black Superhero who is an alcoholic and actually flies with his whiskey bottle in his hand. He just can't let go of that bottle. Did I mention he takes gulps of his whiskey while he's flying too?

Image #3 - The image of a Black super hero who has to be called to action by the public in order to do his job. Did I say called? I meant to say asked. Begged. Pleaded. He has to be told what crimes to go to because he has no initiative to find the crime himself like other normal superheroes. He just doesn't give a damn.

Image #4 - The image of a Black Superhero who can't seem to make a smooth landing and can't seem to make a smooth departure without leaving potholes all over the cities streets and sidewalks.

Image #5 - The image of a Black Superhero who is rude to people including kids, and likes to fondle passerby women is not my idea of a superhero, not even an anti-hero. Who's idea was this?

Image #6 - The white executive has to be the one to tell him how to remake his image? The white executive tells him to go to prison so the police can later call him out when they need him? OK, thanks, Hollywood, we get to see another brother go to prison as the correction to all his ills.

The negative images I counted go on and on. I also found the vulgar language to be excessive and over the top especially given a Will Smith movie. So were parts of the prison scenes.

My suggestion: They should have shown in the first part of the movie more history or scenes where it showed how much Hancock's character was being called for every little and big crime so we as an audience could understand why one day he just plumb got sick of answering the world's calls. That might have been helpful but no it starts with him being told by a child, "Hancock! (points to TVs) "Bad guys!"

I am fully aware this was supposed to be an "anti-hero" movie but when we as Black people have never really been given or rarely had the opportunity to create a real righteous superhero like the countless other superheroes we see on the daily on the big screen, I would rather see us portrayed as a real superhero first rather than an anti hero.

I think that it was also hard to see Will Smith as one who does not care for the world because we all know what a humane Libra humanitarian he is in person, so it was hard for me to accept his character. Maybe a Tracey Morgan or Eddie Griffin would have been a better choice?

My conclusion? This movie made its money because of the power of Will Smith. But the story? Weak script. Weak ending. After the first 40 minutes to an hour - its all down hill. Save your money. Wait until it comes out on DVD or Cable. Or better yet, skip it altogether!

~LT