Hancock: Critic-Proof?
HancockBased on seeing Hancock the other night, I can tell you this. Todd McCarthy's early negative review will be one of many. The knives are out, and they are sharp. When this movie opens July 2, it will be eviscerated.
But because Will Smith is in what I call the Fluke Zone, the movie will open great over the 4th of July weekend (estimates are from $80 to 100 million), and will do robust business. But it won't be one of the top-grossers of the summer, because it is unlikely to please everybody, or generate repeat biz. It could do better overseas.
It's a movie that tried to be smart and weird and interesting, with gifted filmmakers behind it: producers Michael Mann and Akiva Goldsman (who do cameos), edgy screenwriter Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), and director Peter Berg (Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom).
They created a fascinating damaged, alcoholic, homeless superhero, well-played by Smith, but their attempts to mix and match smart character-based drama (Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman also star) with superhero action adventure (VFX by Sony Pictures Imageworks) is a Frankenstein's Monster. These are not cynical people. I don't know who to blame, so I'll start with the budget.
If the movie cost, as I have been told, from $150 to 180 million, then Sony Pictures Entertainment and investor Relativity Media may have a tough time getting their money back. Studio-think dictates that you take these elements and spend tons of money on a big big movie. Which means the risk has to go down, and what's interesting and strange has to be mitigated by the usual series of second act action sequences that someone like Spielberg knows how to pull off without getting dopey, but this group could not.
Another problem, as Rachel Abramowitz points out, is superhero overload. Watch for Hancock's second weekend drop-off. If it's more than 60%, the movie could be in trouble.
