Ebert Reviews Hancock (3 out of 4 stars)

Hancock has been getting some pretty stinky reviews so far. I just saw one that said it was an "absolute zero," for instance, but I was kind of intrigued to read Ebert's, since he gave it 3 out of 4 stars. My interpretation of a 3/4 Ebert rating means it's basically a movie worth the price of a movie ticket. It's not really good (3 1/2 stars) nor is it a masterpiece (4 stars). It's just good. For genre films, like a "superhero" movie, a 3 star to me means, sure it had its flaws, but it obeyed the laws of the genre and was pretty entertaining. Which means I want to see it, which means I shall see it... eventually. The last two paragraphs of the review, though, really piqued my curiosity. The relationship that Theron's character has with Hancock sounds kind of unexpected, but important.

It’s not long after the bank hostage business that Mary reveals her secret, Hancock starts asking deep questions about himself, and the movie takes an odd, penetrating turn. This is the part I won’t get into, except to say that the origin stories of superheroes consistently underwhelm me, and Hancock’s is one of the most arbitrary. Even Mary, who knows all about him, doesn’t know all that much, and I have a shiny new dime here for any viewer of the movie who can explain exactly how Hancock came into being.

Not that it matters much, anyway. I guess he had to come into being somehow, and this movie’s explanation is as likely as most, which is to say, completely preposterous. Still, “Hancock” is a lot of fun, if perhaps a little top-heavy with stuff being destroyed. Smith makes the character more subtle than he has to be, more filled with self-doubt, more willing to learn. Jason Bateman is persuasive and helpful on the PR front, and it turns out Charlize Theron has a great deal to feel odd and penetrating about.