It is nice to be the contrarian once in a while. Standing up against the critical masses, sticking to your guns on why a film is a complete piece of shit when everyone is losing their head and heralding it as a masterpiece. Or speaking up for a film that has been dumped on by everyone and, not only is it not worthy of such scorn, it is actually so good it doesn't deserve anything other than wholesome praise. I find myself doing the latter in the case of the near-brilliant Hancock.
I keep reading how everyone hates this film, but then I read two rave reviews from respected critics in amongst all those negative ones so I decided to go see it. I'm thrilled I did. This is not only almost certainly going to be the best movie of the summer, it may very well end up in my top 10 for the year. I'm not going to deny it has its problems, but the quality is otherwise so good that they don't detract from the picture that Berg and co have made.
I've mentioned Peter Berg before on this site. He last directed The Kingdom, a less ambitious but well-made picture, that died a death at the box-office. That didn't stop him getting the nod in a big-budget Will Smith July 4 picture, which suggests Berg is gaining some serious clout in Hollywood. Will Smith's July 4th films could probably be directed by you or I and still make money - he is after all the biggest box office draw in the world who hasn't had a box office dud since 2001's Ali (and even that went on to score him an Oscar nomination so can hardly be called a failure. ) Clearly though the summer movie season is all about the big bucks and for Berg to helm this is a serious vote of confidence.
Smith plays the title role, who is a washed up superhero; an inarticulate, inconsiderate drunk who knows not who he is or where he came from. Far from being revered like the traditional superhero, Hancock is vilified by the citizens of Los Angeles due to the thoughtless destruction of property that accompanies every rescue or intervention he exercises. The city loses all patience with him after a latest destructive escapade and issue an arrest warrant. Despite the fact that he can fly off at any time, Hancock gives himself up and serves his sentence after taking advice from a PR consultant (Jason Bateman) whom he just happened to have rescued the day before. The PR guy's big idea is for LA to miss their superhero, ask for his help when they really need him, and for Hancock to show up after some elocution lessons, a makeover and an image branding exercise to save the day with a bit more care and politeness, thus winning over the very people that have cursed his name.
It's a great idea for a film and it is especially welcome to see a superhero film which dares not to tread the same well-worn path that pretty much every single comic book film has trampled down over the years. However the reviews have not been kind, so what have people got against it? Reading through a number of comments since I got back from seeing it, it seems people are down on the third act, complaining that the "big twist" came out of nowhere and not only that, but it caused the film to veer from light comedy to something more dramatic, which ultimately ruined the tone of the whole film. I have two issues with this. 1) Without knowing what it was going in, the "big twist" seemed to me to be very clearly signalled throughout. I don't think Peter Berg intended it as a big twist at all. And 2) The dramatic final act was pretty near-perfect in my eyes.
I really liked some of the choices towards the end, especially (spoilers in white) how Hancock and Mary's only weakness was each other. It seemed really fitting and the scene on the hospital bed when Mary recalled their past was completely convincing. You could feel their love - and yet Mary could only save Hancock by sacrificing herself and Hancock could only save her by leaving her. It was almost Shakespeare-esque and it elevated a super-hero flick above and beyond the scope of anything the genre has seen before.
All three stars are perfectly cast. I've loved Bateman ever since he did Arrested Development and whilst his range is limited, he is always very watchable and has perfect comic timing. Theron - who also appeared in AD - is also effective and looked very hot once she put on that black thing with the black eyeliner. Smith has been consistently delivering great performances for years. The all interacted brilliantly and, as mentioned in the spoiler, that scene on the hospital bed was brilliant and actually had me choked. John Powell's excellent score really hit its stride in the final third as well, and I've been listening to it since I got back from the cinema. Top quality stuff.
Sure there are some issues here and there. Some of the CGI is ropey - especially when Smith is flying at speed. There are implausibilities in the plot, but there's nothing so outrageously improbable that it would take you out of the picture, and I am the very first to complain about plot-holes, believe me. Whatever its faults, nothing even begins to explain the bizarre and pathetic 36% rating on rottentomatoes. I'm totally bewildered by it.
I would normally not hesitate to recommend a movie I was about to give an low A/high B to (I'm torn between an A- and B+) but I'm completely outnumbered so I have to be honest and say you may very well not agree with me. However, I found this to be extremely enjoyable from start to finish. The comic touches at the start, the convincing drama at the end - it all worked. I am not a lone voice rallying against the critical tide, but I am a lonely one. I really do think this is a first rate summer film. In fact scratch that, this is simply a first rate film and if Will Smith's box office numbers hold up as well as usual, then it'll be one of those rare occasions when the public, and not the critics got it right.
A-/B+
Friday, 4 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the look of this, and am even more eager after this review!
Post a Comment