"Gasp," you say. "You've got to be kidding -- in the Year of the Bat, you picked Hancock?!"
And the answer is: Actually, yeah.
Don't get me wrong, The Dark Knight was awesome in so many ways. It broke all kinds of conventions, it brought the superhero genre a little closer to reality and it made a hell of a powerful sociological statement.
It will go down as one of the best movies of all time. I truly believe that.
"Well then what about Iron Man? You choose Will Smith over Robert Downey, Jr.? Jason Bateman over Jeff Bridges? Charlize Theron over Gweneth Paltrow?"
Well yeah actually -- if I'm gonna be hot for a blonde, as unlikely as that sounds -- it's way more likely to be Theron than Paltrow. But I truly did love Iron Man, even though I'm not particularly a fan of the comic. It was a good movie, had a lot of fun and brilliantly brought the characters to life. Add to that the cameos and tie-ins and all the plans for the future -- Iron Man was absolutely fantastic. I bought the DVD as soon as it turned up on the bargain table at Blockbuster.
Now before you interject again and start bringing up all the Oscar bait and whatnot (incidentally I haven't seen ANY of the movies nominated for best picture. How's that for irony?), let me explain why I picked Hancock.
For one thing, it starts with "H" and I needed an H word for my blog.
Ha ha nah, that's just why I'm writing about it. The actual reason I consider Hancock my favorite is because they tried something new. It was something completely original in a multitude of ways, and all concerned in its creation were terrifically brave and utterly brilliant to bring this film to the screen.
Perhaps you have to be a super hero aficionado like myself to appreciate what they've done. Or maybe a science fantasy buff, again like myself. Hancock did something that I myself aspire to do: Introduce the public to an entirely different take on super heroes, or even people with more-than-human abilities.
True, they did succumb to a few of the tropes that I intend to avoid, but that was in no way bad. Some touchstones are necessary, after all. But they worked out a completely new mythology; they went where no one has gone before by really showing a down-and-out superhuman, really showing the loneliness and pain that would go with a scenario like that, and the shifts a man would take to try to relieve himself of that burden.
They gave him a truly unique weakness, and allowed him to be the real hero not by dint of his powers or by beating up the bad guy, but by making a sacrifice of the heart, for the greater good of others.
They also weren't afraid to have a little fun, but they managed it without being goofy or stupid. The humor was entirely and perfectly in character all around. People talk about how the movie got all serious in the second half, how it stopped being funny. Fools, the movie's tone didn't change. The funny was because the titular character was drunk! He wasn't hamming it up; he didn't care. Nothing changed except he got sober and grew a conscience.
The movie also showed that heroes need help, too, and regular people can be heroes in their own right, just by being good and decent people. That's a message that America needs to have drilled into their minds, Clockwork Orange style. Sadly, that need (and Hancock's sad lack of true blockbuster status) demonstrates the country isn't ready for that.
I haven't really touched on the performances, which were all quite good. I'd highly recommend the movie even if you're somewhat cynical about another Will Smith vehicle. Don't see it or avoid it because of that. Watch it because it's something different.
I liked Hancock better than Iron Man myself, I liked the way they had his character played out, not all here I am the super hero to save everyone! It made it more...real for me.
ReplyDeleteNot that Iron Man was bad, but I think Hancock was just better put together.