With a director as talented as Peter Berg (Very Bad Things) and a writing team responsible for such megahits as Home Fries, it's hard to imagine that 2008's Hancock would be anything less than Oscar's first choice for Best Picture. Had it not been for the long shadows cast by such hard-to-beat blockbusters as Mad Money, The Love Guru, Speed Racer and You Don't Mess With The Zohan, critics may have been able to look past the abhorrent story, appalling acting and atrocious dialogue that was Hancock. Alright, I've now stretched the limits of my sarcasm just about as far as the makers of Hancock stretched the limits of my attention.
So, what was the problem with this film? A less time-consuming question might be this: "What were you thinking?" In short, I don't know why I watched this movie. I've thought long and hard about that question ever since I've tried to forget watching it, and all I can come up with is that I watched it for the very same reason I've watched any of Will Smith's films: I was bored and thought it'd be something fun and stupid that I wouldn't have to pay much attention to. That being the case, I was almost correct in my assumptions. 1 out of 3 may be mostly wrong, but it's still correct. Yes, I've tried to use that argument in my personal life. No, it has never been accepted as valid. But I digress: Hancock was not fun, but it was so incredibly stupid that I had no choice but to pay attention to how quickly it was imploding. And that's the real tragedy of this picture. Between two screenwriters, a director, a talented cast and crew, and gobs upon heaps upon mounds of cash, nobody could figure out how to turn a good idea into a good story. The idea is honestly and admittedly a good one. The world's lone superhero becomes so tangled in his own mess of depression and apathy towards mankind that the world turns their back on him, forcing him to reshape his public image. That's the whole concept, people. It's fun. It's unique. It's worth the price of admission. And yet, even with all that in its favor, it failed in ways that only something superhuman could possibly understand. (Because I certainly don't understand.)
I know Charlize Theron can act. What I can't figure out is why she didn't act for this movie. It's not even an attempt. I've seen better acting in elementary school holiday pageants. In her defense, she was given a role that shouldn't even be part of the film. Theron's storyline is of secondary importance to the story, if it's of any importance at all. And let me just say this to Mr. Berg, regarding his setup of Theron's character: there's a difference between foreshadowing and foretelling. The difference is whether or not you're the jackass that shouts "surprise" while the birthday girl is still in the driveway or you just happen to make some offhand remark about lame surprise parties weeks in advance. You see, one gives it away, the other just sets it up for those who are paying attention, so they can sit back and bask in the glory of how smart they are when all of the events finally unfold as they predicted. Another way of putting it: having someone feed you grapes is sexy (foreshadowing), but having them choke you with an entire grape vine is just painful (foretelling). Ah, much clearer. Who doesn't love analogies?
All in all, I'd have to say that the worst mistake with this movie isn't even in the movie, it was the decision to release it in the same year as the most successful superhero film in history, The Dark Knight. Don't get me wrong, I don't really think that Hancock producers had any misconceptions whatsoever of achieving Dark Knight fame. However, I think they very much wanted to overcome the major hurdle that made The Dark Knight (and also Batman Begins) so good: realism. Now, I don't mean that to say that a guy from another universe who enjoys sticking men's heads up other men's rectums could ever be as real as a real guy, a la Batman. What I an saying is that I think Hancock producers very much wanted to catch that emotional realism of a man torn between his calling and his very existence. And in that regard, The Dark Knight is a painful reminder to Peter Berg & Company of everything that Hancock is not.
Hancock set out to be a superhero movie with a heart. Ultimately, it ended up being a superhero movie without a brain.
No comments:
Post a Comment