Movies, with a TWIST! Part 1 - Hancock

So it seems like all of the movies I've seen in the past few weeks have had a pretty big twist which, in most cases, completely changed the tone of the film (for better or for worse). The first of these films is Hancock, starring Will Smith, which I saw on the night of July 4th (hey, rain made fireworks and late night BBQing difficult).

Given the premise of these reviews, I would obviously suggest you don't click the "Read More" link unless you want the big twist revealed.

Hancock is one of those films in which I don't regret the time or money I spent watching it, but I'm also not sure I would overwhelmingly encourage others to see it, and I'm not sure I'd go out of my way for a second viewing myself. This is truly one of those "thumbs in the middle" type movies -- a good way to spend a boring rainy evening, but perhaps not worth planning your whole night around.

Like most people, I enjoyed the first half of Hancock far more than the second. With the onslaught of superhero movies that have been produced in the past few years, it was very different and refreshing seeing a superhero (or Will Smith, for that matter) portrayed as a drunk, selfish, prick. I still laugh when I think of the scene when he first meets Jason Bateman's character, and the spectators bring up all those logical arguments you always wonder about (why not just fly UP with the car, instead of flipping it over and causing all this damage and destruction?) I also love when one woman yelled, "I can smell the alcohol on your breath" and he immediately responds "that's cuz I've been drinking, woman!"

With that in mind, the original premise of the film is rather interesting, innovative, and entertaining. Here you have a superhero who is such an asshole and so unlikable that he literally needs a PR consultant to retool his image. Along with that, the whole "turn yourself into the police and make them WANT you" mentality was clever, yet realistic.

Now, the spoilery stuff:

Whenever the creator of House does an interview, he always states that they don't ever plan on "developing" House's character and making him a nicer guy. This movie made me really come to appreciate that strategy. Don't get me wrong, the whole bad ass with the heart of gold character is possible (like with Sawyer on Lost), but I think the big difference between the first and second halves of the movie is that the first half is fun and unconventional, while the second half becomes a cliche that is determined to have a deeper meaning.

The actual process of Hancock transforming from drunken jerk to the traditional superhero is pretty hilarious (I especially loved the scene where he repeatedly thanked everybody and reminded them that they're doing a great job), but once the morph was complete, the movie became something we've seen countless times before. And perhaps, in this sense, Hancock is inherently flawed. The arguable brilliance of the film is seeing a non-traditional superhero. The enjoyment comes from watching him rehabilitate his image. However, once he succeeds, the movie loses its charm, immediately making it noticeably less brilliant and enjoyable. And unfortunately the solution isn't as simple as "don't have him succeed," because -- in my opinion, anyway -- Jason Bateman's character is truly likable, and seeing him essentially get screwed over would have hurt the movie as well.

So perhaps my suggestion would be for you to enjoy and appreciate the movie for what it is.

And by that, I encourage you not to have high expectations for the story. After the movie ended, one of the people I saw the movie with said, "it occurred to me that the movie had no plot." That is arguably a fair assessment. There is also an awful lot that is never explained. For example, there are countless allusions made to eagles. There's an eagle on Hancock's hat, he wears an eagle necklace, when he's in jail he draws images of eagles on his wall, there seem to be numerous eagle references in his trailer, he passes by a giant eagle statue when he becomes "virtuous," and so on and so forth. Yet beyond the connection of both of them being able to fly and both being noble creatures, the relationship was never explained. And that's a pretty weak connection to begin with (and yes, I am aware of the Zeus/Hera theme). So why was all this time devoted to making these allusions?

Along with that, how incredibly vague was Charlize Theron's explanation of where they came from? I don't remember the last time I received such a long winded explanation that provided no information whatsoever. All we really found out was that "they were created in pairs so that they could live a normal life." Lovely. So who created them, exactly? God? Aliens? Or are they robots? I usually don't need everything spelled out for me, but geez, give me SOMETHING!

I don't want to be overly critical, however, because I did leave the theater satisfied. I thought the twist was great, and very unexpected. It truly was a twist in the literal sense of the word, as it completely turned around the tone and overall story, arguably in a good way. I also liked how they didn't give too much away. Sure, you found out Charlize Theron also had powers, but was she good or bad? That didn't become clear until about three quarters of the way through the movie.

I was also pleased with how the movie ultimately ended. Like I said before, Jason Bateman's character was genuinely likable, so I really appreciated how he did the right, noble thing by rescuing Hancock (despite the relationship the hero shared with his wife) and that, in the end, he ended up with the girl. It would have been disappointing if Hancock and Charlize Theron had an affair, or if we found out that Jason Bateman's character was just using Hancock. I know I had complained about how the film tried to become deeper than it should have been, but I think, in this case, the happy ending was the right one.