Don't Mess With The Hancock

So the verdict is out, and most critics have made up their minds about Hancock. Unfortunately , or expectedly, most of them hate it. You can head on over to Greencine Daily for their compilation of Hancock reviews. One of them is that dreaded Christopher Orr of The New Republic. I don't know why this guy is still allowed to write "reviews." He's way off most times, as with The Happening where there's lots more to talk about the film but he chooses to slag off M. Night in a childishly sarcastic manner. He's way off again with Hancock, calling it a "clumsy, half-hearted mish-mash."

Clumsy? Half-hearted? You'd think that only if you watched the movie while in a coma.

That's why David Poland is fast becoming one of my favourite critics. He has just written a review with spoilers, following up on his initial spoiler-free one. He is one of the very few, very few, people who could see Hancock for what it really is. Although he calls it "complex," I wouldn't though, but I do think Hancock is a very well thought-out, extremely cleverly conceived film.

It's probably the first superhero movie to deal directly with the idea of "power" in such an interesting manner. There is one scene in the movie that I thought was perplexing the first time I saw it. Three bad guys that Hancock has recently put away are sitting in the prison courtyard talking. One tells the other two that their "power" has been taken away and they have to take it back. But this is actually very consistent with the rest of the movie.

Read Poland's great review for more, but only after you've seen the movie.

The only real problem with Hancock is that Peter Berg has given us a movie we cannot discuss properly without giving anything away. Those of us who want to support the film and tell others to go see it can't do so convincingly without giving away spoilers.