The first half of Hancock was better than what I could have expected. Hancock is a homeless superhero with no respect whatsoever. The opening act has him stop an armed chase with a price tag of $7 million dollars in property damage. He destroys pavement wherever he lands. Everyone, from kids to criminals, call him an a-hole. Then the film gets surprisingly better. He saves the life of Ray, someone skilled but flawed at public relations and convinces Hancock to improve his image, by answering the demands of the public to answer for all his crimes, apologize and turn himself in. From this point, it all goes downhill from here, and it's the second half twist and ending that stinks up the whole movie, to the point where you don't care about how good the first half was anymore. How could they have screwed up such a good premise? Hancock's origin and weakness, though I will not spoil, are the mother of all cop-outs.
It's not as if Hancock shows any Achilles heel in Will Smith or Charlize Theron's acting abilities. The second half of the film is that bad if an Academy Award winning actress who worked with Will before cannot pull it through. Throw in a pathetic stinker of a villain, a story of love and tortured relationships and Hancock is crushed by the weight of too many generic superhero clichés.
It's not as if Hancock shows any Achilles heel in Will Smith or Charlize Theron's acting abilities. The second half of the film is that bad if an Academy Award winning actress who worked with Will before cannot pull it through. Throw in a pathetic stinker of a villain, a story of love and tortured relationships and Hancock is crushed by the weight of too many generic superhero clichés.