Superhuman DVD release? Simon takes HANCOCK home...
Okay so, its a little late, but here goes
This is my Everest. Trying to write a review of HANCOCK that in no way mentions the film of two halves; first good, second not so argument, despite the obvious temptation. But you know what, that wasnt the major concern that I was left with after the credits rolled; instead, I got the undeniable sense of a good film suffering a monumental identity crisis, much like Smiths wayward Marvel. HANCOCK could reasonably be classified as a Superhero movie, a (confused) morality tale, a buddy movie or a straight up good guys versus bad guys flick, among various others, but it is never wholly any of them. The film just has too many ideas- most of them good on their own- that are never afforded enough focus or development to really matter, leaving me slightly perplexed. Id hate to pin it all on bad direction, as I have a lot of time for Peter Berg- THE KINGDOM was vastly underrated, and I wait in intrigued anticipation for his take on DUNE and HERCULES- but it all smacks a bit of Fledgling-Director Syndrome, trying to shoehorn too much in to impress a superstar Producer- in this case Michael Mann. Like a fat child at a buffet, Berg picks at everything he fancies simultaneously, and loses focus somewhat, leaving unfinished scraps all over the place. Perhaps the shockingly short running time (even the slightly longer Unrated version only clocks in at 102 minutes), contributes to the problem- the desire to be short overruling the need for sustained narrative ideas; but in the current climate of bladder-bursting running times, there is little excuse for it, when even 120 minutes qualifies as comparatively short.
Ranking high among the developmental problems is the shocking neglect of any sort of character development for Eddie Marsans Red- a chief bad guy I could barely muster any interest in, let alone disdain for. And again its down to a lack of identity- Hancock spends too much time wrestling with himself and his past to really get bogged down in an old-fashioned good versus bad dust-up, which was a massive problem for me as a self-confessed fanboy. You see, despite being an unconventional Superhero movie, HANCOCK is nevertheless still subject to the unwritten rules of the superhero universe: a superhero needs his counterpoint (see UNBREAKABLE) for validation. As soon as it is revealed that it is not Charlize Therons Mary, a void opens up that needs to be filled by a super villain, or at least a super-personality, and relative unknown Eddie Marsan simply cannot fill the criteria. Hopefully it is a problem that will be addressed by the time HANCOCK 2 is in the can: no amount of Smiths heart, Batemans wit or Therons sexuality could guarantee success without a healthy injection of venom.
Of course, HANCOCK has already been mercilessly ripped by the critics, and subsequently by many a frustrated audience member; but at the end of the day I think we were all just victims of our own unrealistic expectations. I freely admit I was totally ensnared by an advertising campaign that suggested an entirely different movie to the one that followed through. I expected a dark movie about a delinquent superhero that explored the idea of regulation (maybe Im just too-eager to see THE WATCHMEN), with a little comic relief. Its just so frustrating because the idea I was sold would make such a good movie- which would make an adaptation of Garth Ennis The Boys a pant-wettingly good prospect. Surely someones planning it?
You have to consider whether Hollywood would ever allow Will Smith to star in such a film- he does tortured soul better than most, but there always has to be an uplifting resolution for Mr Smith, otherwise the world would cease to spin. He is Americas golden boy- the last real box-office draw- and any radical departure from Hollywoods idea of what Will Smith is and has to be may well spell catastrophe for his career.
At the end of the day is HANCOCK really that bad? I still maintain that there are some excellent elements- the special effects are pretty impressive, if a little unpolished and the main casting works perfectly, helping nurture an irresistible screen chemistry between all three major actors. Indeed my only gripe with the cast- and it doesnt detract from the performances- is that Jason Bateman, although eminently watchable, apparently plays the same character in every film, making me wonder whether he is in fact the American Ricky Gervais.
HANCOCK is far from the worst movie of the year, and a lot of the criticism aimed at it has been a little unnecessary- the change in tone that occurs after the major revelation of Mary being a Superhero seems to be the centre of HANCOCKs damning critical reception. Having that revelation in the middle of the film was an unconventional decision by all means and the film may well have been better executed had it been the pay-off at the end, but it is perplexing that a simple change in tone, no matter how radical, would be so difficult for so many people to accept. It simply would not make sense to continue at the break-neck speed of the opening act, or with the same comic tone, because it would compromise both the emotional gravitas of the middle section and also the audiences crucial relation to Hancock as an increasingly human figure. Again, it is a case of a good idea pulled together with limited execution, the change in tone could well have been a pivotal element in a successful film had the pay-off been better, instead of the focus of most of its negative criticism.
As its a DVD release, and a fancy-Dan Blu-Ray one at that, obviously I need to offer some form of critique based upon that fact so, what does the Blu-Ray experience add to HANCOCK? In all honesty, despite the overall increased sexiness of the picture quality, my expectations were simply not met: having seen the slightly shoddy (in places) CGI before the Blu-Ray treatment, I expected there to be some near-phenomenal change afterwards. No cigar Im afraid, they still look unpolished. The one feature that did enhance my home-viewing experience was the inclusion of both the theatrical and the unrated versions, allowing shameless geeks like myself to agonise over the differences in minute detail. It also serves to shed further light upon the seemingly limitless capacity within Hollywood to spoil films (although in truth the spoilage had already been committed) because of a skewed sense of morality and an unwillingness to diversify certain actors roles in favour of upholding a sugared image of them.
Extras:
A selection of behind the scenes featurettes, including an entertaining look at Peter Bergs role behind the camera and the usual stock of features on stunts, character development and an on-set diary; among which hide certain gems of information that cast added light on the film. In one interview notably, it is mentioned that in the fight scene between Hancock and Mary, Hancock is controlling the weather, apart from the lightning which Mary controls. Although a delicious little insight- I definitely didnt pick it up from the scene itself- its just another case of frustration and confused narrative: Hancock doesnt immediately appear to be controlling the weather, and doing so would actually confirm a self-awareness of his role as a God that he simply does not exhibit elsewhere. In fact it would completely counter Hancocks belief that he was a normal man prior to the skull fracture that caused his amnesia, and would have been catastrophic for that side of the narrative. So why include the comment on the Extras- which are essentially an extension of the feature? One has to point the finger at the editing process once more, who may well turn out to be the real missing villain of this superhero caper.