Hancock

In many ways, Will Smith’s new film “Hancock” is the 2008 equivalent of Michael Bay’s inherently energetic scrap heap “Transformers.” It’s cluttered, clamorous, and complete with enough big budget brouhaha to find itself right at home amidst the mid-Summer mash-up we call July. It didn’t have to be this way. The studio wasn’t forced to abandon every ounce of hard-nosed badassery (Okay, so it’s not a word. Sue me.) in favor of a schmaltzy, Disney-esque narrative about reluctantly fulfilling your destiny, but sadly, that’s what becomes of this one following the halfway point. Not even Smith’s audacious, wisecracking charisma is able to salvage this sheer catastrophe of a screenplay and, when that happens, you know something is clearly out of whack.

Director Peter Berg (“The Kingdom”) has a unique premise that he’s not quite sure how to handle, so the frenzied plot progression ends up souring any feeling of delight generated by the mesmeric opening sequence. When a grizzled and whiskey-ridden Hancock is woken up by a young boy alerting him to a crime in progress, the film sets a very comedic tone and allows Smith to deliver some classic one-liners that almost make you forget that you’re watching a PG-13 superhero flick. His face is rough, his attitude is ornery, and public relations are visibly absent from his to-do list. He’s the perfect anti-hero, the kind of grumpy old boozer who would bring scotch to Sunday mass, because wine just doesn’t cut it.

Yes, Hancock is what many people would call an “a-hole,” but he doesn’t care as long they don’t say it to his face. No matter how many citizens he saves, his perception will never improve unless he opts for a complete personality makeover courtesy of Ray Embrey, played by Jason Bateman. Embrey’s plan is to send Hancock to jail and give Los Angeles a taste of life without the troubled superman around to save the day.

The energy Bateman brings to this role is more than the film deserves, because the script isn’t even close to living up to expectations. Then again, all three main characters are too skilled to fall victim to a putrid plot twist, so they do their best to weather the storm until the credits roll.

Hancock’s stint behind bars provides a few laughs, but mostly serves as a facilitator for future destruction of property. Since he has no real nemesis, Berg tries to highlight the internal struggle that consumes Hancock throughout much of the film, but even that loses steam in a hurry. His new and improved persona isn’t as interesting as the creators think it is and the scenes involving Charlize Theron are often too weird for words.

I love Charlize as much as the next guy, but was her involvement in the big picture necessary? My guess is that the writers wanted as many bombastic confrontations as they could fit and didn’t care how much talent they wasted in the process.

If Dickens wrote “A Tale of Two Cities,” then this is a tale of two films. One is a hilarious look at an alcoholic loner who is anything but your friendly neighborhood superhero and the other is an overblown clunker that never offers a hint of something we haven’t seen a hundred times before. As for which one prevails, I think I’ll let you decide.

- ** ½ out of 4