Hancock: Does it Have Balls?

Will Smith came out of the box office success of I Am Legend with thunderous applause possibly following him everywhere he went. He was touted as the only major box office drawing star, ala an actor people will go to a movie just to see, remaining; some may disagree as they swoon over Johnny Depp. Naturally, when a celebrity is built up to such a prolific status the next thing people want to do is tear them back down. Will Smith's movie Hancock came under fire well before its release, garnering negative reviews from critics all over. Was this just another case of the critics getting it wrong and Will Smith remaining America's darling? Or does Hancock fail to fly?

Hancock was directed by Peter Berg, also known for his acting in movies such as Shocker and directing flicks such as The Kingdom, Friday Night Lights, and The Rundown. It stars Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and Jason Batmen. The plot: a heavy drinking super hero has the public against him due to his excessive property damage during rescues and he also battles with the mystery of his origins.

Ah, the plot. It starts out just like most of the trailers showed it: zany action with site gag physical superhero comedy. Then it goes into a not as funny style of comedy feeling like another comedy I am now stopping myself from mentioning due to possibly being a spoiler, then it gets dark and gritty. Most complaints I have read form people are about how the movie takes a twist that feels rushed and tries to cram too much info into the end which becomes too serious when compared to the funny first half of the film. All of the complaints you read, all of the negative buzz: it is well deserved. Hancock is a mess, and quite frankly I did not find the supposed funny half of the film to be "funny" anyway. You could take the idea behind the first portion and make a totally separate movie off of it from the second half if you wanted; one a comedy the other a cool origin story.