Will Smith's $150 Million Disaster

There’s some idea out there in the world that Will Smith "owns" the July 4 holiday weekend in terms of box office. I guess this is because of "Independence Day," one of my favorite movies, and "Men in Black," also quite good, released, respectively, in 1996 and 1997 on that weekend.
Alas, all good hype must come to an end. "Hancock," with which Sony is hoping to have a merry July 4, 2008, may not duplicate Smith’s previous successes. It is one of the worst family holiday weekend releases of recent memory — and jaw-droppingly so. And that’s hard to do, since it clocks in at a mere wisp of one hour and 20 minutes.
In such brevity there should be a reward. After all, "Hancock," directed by Peter Berg, is shorter than most Woody Allen comedies. There’s nothing funny here, however, or witty or clever or even developed beyond an idea that should never have been executed in this way.

Imagine that the word "a-hole" — fully spoken out — is repeated over and over, and that its first appearance, in the movie’s first scene, is delivered by a child. Thus, the vulgarity begins. But unlike other crass films of this month, such as "Zohan" and "Love Guru," the coarseness of "Hancock" is a wildly under-calculated mistake.
Hancock, preposterously, is an unwilling superhero. He’s a drunk, a hobo and — to be frank — an "a-hole" so lacking in charisma, charm or even bravado that there’s nowhere for him to go but down from a low rung on the ladder.
Unlike Smith’s cocky, smiling heroes of the past, Hancock is just offensive and stupid. His favorite warning to those he’s about to pulverize is an admonition that at least one of his villains will wind up with their head relocated in Hancock’s derriere. True enough, one time we get to see this and it’s not pretty. It’s not funny, either.
The screenplay, which is underdeveloped to the point of amazement for a Hollywood summer blockbuster, is credited to Vince Gilligan and Vincent Ngo. That they’ve done Smith a disservice is an understatement, but their other victims are Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman and a little boy named Jae Head. Their characters literally are abandoned to incoherence.
An hour and 20 minutes later, here are things you will not know: who Hancock is, where he and Theron came from (it’s telegraphed with the subtlety of a mallet that she has a past with him) and who the persons fighting them are (I have no idea).
This much we know: Hancock, whom we meet as he awakens on a park bench from a drinking binge, has powers of flight and super strength. He either can’t or doesn’t want to control them. He’s belligerent and obnoxious, a sort of anti-hero who in comic books usually is defeated by a good guy.
The latter is something he doesn’t want to be. When Bateman’s PR guy shows Hancock a bunch of comics featuring superheroes, Hancock’s response to each one is "Homo." Charming.
It is said the legion of writers and directors who came and went before "Hancock" was initiated had a "black" comedy in mind — something that sent up the idea of superheroes. But a mess has been made in the process and $150 million wasted.
These people all forgot some truisms: In the end, a Will Smith movie with special effects released on July 4 weekend has to be family- and early teen-accessible. "Hancock" is neither. It’s often violent in realistic ways, the plot hinges on an extramarital affair and the main character lacks swagger, confidence and manners.
Columbia says "Hancock" is tracking well, and I’ll bet it's right. The first couple of days — next Wednesday and Thursday — should be big. The fear, I’m sure, though, is that by Friday, July 4, the word will be out. By Sunday they’ll know exactly who’s head is up whose you know what .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372561,00.html?sPage=fnc/entertainment/movie