HANCOCK plays to the variation of the super action hero.  Hancock (Will Smith) is obliged to use his super-powers to save lives and rid the city of crime but he ends up destroying too much property and pissing off the public in the process.  Enter good-hearted PR man, Ray (Jason Bateman) who repays Hancock for saving his life by helping him improve his public. 

Simple premise with arguably great comic potential but the film fails to take flight.  For one, the film shifts focus midway and the one joke film tires early.  HANCOCK’s lazy script by TV writers Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan also fails to satisfactorily explain the source of the action hero’s superpowers.  Or how or why there are only two of their kind left.  All the audience hears is what Mary (Charlize Theron) tells Hancock.  With all the secrets and lies that she had kept or told him, one wonders if there is any truth to what she is saying.  But Berg assumes his audience believes whatever nonsense is uttered and breezes along with whatever new joke or action scene.

One has to hand it to the marketing department for effectively keeping the real story of the film secret.  The sudden twist in plot makes a good change from movies in which the audience already knows what is going to happen next from the trailers.  In a recent interview for the film, Smith claims that he never thought himself as good-looking.  This is so much like Hancock’s character or rather, what the publicists probably asked Smith to say.  I am sure if Hancock was a clean-cut dashing hero, Smith would claim a similar trait. 

Though one subplot involves Hancock’s relationship with a boy (Jae Head), the film caters towards a more mature target audience.  Two crude or violent scenes stand out.  The first, set in the prison where an inmate’s head gets shoved into someone’s behind would seem unlikely to be included in a film about a family and boy.  The second involving a circular saw and a bank robber’s lip likens the film towards a more adult audience.

Director Berg rose to prominence with his dark comedy VERY BAD THINGS about wedding guests accidentally killing a prostitute during the bachelor party.  His second notable film “THE KINGDOM” was conventional fare.  HANCOCK succeeds when Berg tackles the darker humor situation.  The cross-cutting of Hancock destroying the city while his PR man boasts his good qualities adds an ironic touch.

The person to watch in HANCOCK is the actor playing the villain.  Eddie Marson from East London screws up a bit on the southern accent (if one really pays careful attention) as Red, the bank robber.  I recently saw him in Mike Leigh’s HAPPY-GO-LUCKY delivering an extraordinary performance.

Berg’s hand held camera filming gets tiring from the first few minutes.  With the jittery frames, the film creates an unnecessary edginess.  But the problem with the film is that the filmmakers are so engrossed in surprising the audience that they have forgotten to create a story in which the audience is anticipating what is to follow.  Most of the special effects, though impressive, are unnecessary.  In the bank hold up scene, Hancock moves a whole vehicle to save an injured officer.

The film HANCOCK has the feel of a rush job.  Could have been much, much better!