Reaction: Hancock

Despite the inevitable comparisons to the other super-hero films flooding the cinemas this summer, Hancock has something unique about it. No, I don't mean a convoluted history (everyone knows what happens to characters who have 50 years of publishing behind them: they get retroactive-continuity to reboot the franchises). I was going to say that considering how this film was stuck in development-hell for a decade, it's amazing that a movie with as much coherency as it has came out at all... and that's not saying much.

I saw Hancock this week just like everybody else in the mainstream world: oblivious. So I think I'm a fair person to be judging the final product that made it to my grubby consumer paws in the form of a ticket at the local theatre. So what was my experience like, you ask?

Firstly, like everyone else, I saw the initial teaser which sold the film as a comedy. And I groaned. I mean really, MIB comes around once in a life-time (MIB2 proved that much). My point is, I saw a straight-up presentation of a film that would likely become a failure on the part of "we so want to be funny." And we had the typical plot about an unlikely team-up (in this case, Justin Bateman as the human publicist to Will Smith's anti-super-hero). But then something weird happened...

Internet buzz started... and the rumours circulated. I didn't pay much attention to the buzz because I "knew" it was going to suck anyway.

...then something even weirder happened. I saw a new commercial on television... and it looked nothing like the comedy teaser I had seen a few months earlier. In its place was a serious film about a man trying to redeem himself in the face of adversity and trying to protect people who hate him... in a black leather suit.

It was just a very surreal thing to see - as though the brainiacs in Hollywood got wind of the 'netizens' voices and suddenly caved, wanting to present an about face.

So there, I finally found myself sitting in the theatre and for about half the movie, it was exactly like the first teaser. And then came the second half following a really bizzarre plot twist (which I won't give away). But suffice to say, Hancock suddenly turns into a one-man X-Men movie (and I'm talking about one of the good ones, not "The Last Stand"). There are moral dillemas, consequences to the comedy from the first half, responsibilities to friends and family that must be dealt with...

So what went wrong? Why can't I recommend this? Well, a quick search on Wikipedia reveals the awful truth. This movie was like a Hollywood worst-case-scenario horror story. The script had been rewritten multiple times, changed directors several times, studio execs interfered with development and editors were forced to trim the movie down. In fact, if there was anything glaringly obvious it was that the film was simply missing parts. Cuts seemed flow unnaturally like there should have been a little something more going on beneath the surface that we, the poor uneducated masses in the audience were not meant to comprehend.

As a result, there was what could have been an incredible movie experience. In the hands of the likes of Spielberg or Jackson or even Singer, this might have been the big one this summer. But instead it was chopped to shreds and simply could not stand up on its own. I can however recommend renting it. It's a great story (if poorly executed) and if the cosmic justice be served, there ought be a Director's Cut DVD on the horizon.