Hancock starts off amusing enough, basically sending off Will Smith, as the titular character, in angry trash-talking mode and making it charismatic and empathetic, as only Smith can. He plays a superhero who isn't good at being a superhero -- not that he lacks a moral compass, because, as evidenced in his actions, he clearly has a beef with bad guys and bullies. He simply isn't careful. Over-aggressive, his crime-stopping antics come with a lot of collateral damage, mostly in the form of damaged buildings and properties. It's gotten to the point where the people actually boo him, even while he's saving lives. As a result, Hancock's personality has deteriorated and he's become quite a jerk with a major drinking problem.

The premise works in a number of ways, the most obvious of which involves sending up the recent glut of superhero movies. Hancock asks, what if you were a lousy superhero? What if you actually needed guidance in learning the responsibility that comes with your gifts? What if you needed PR (which Hancock gets in the form of an eager publicist named Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman)? There are a lot of comic possibilities here, and many of them are indeed played up in the movie, which balances its comedy with a bit of personal drama in Hancock's inner moral struggles. Along with these are other thematic considerations -- the rehabilitation of a gifted alcoholic, the responsible wielding of a great power, the relationship between carrying a high profile and keeping public good will.

Although execution of these ideas isn't perfectly steady (director Peter Berg shoots an essentially comic premise with jerky, "realistic" hand-held cinematography), it's mostly effective, carried off by Smith's natural screen presence and his chemistry with Bateman. Charlize Theron is also in the mix, as Ray's wife Mary, who doesn't seem to take as easily to Hancock as her husband does. All goes along just fine, and the movie seems on its way to being something reasonably entertaining: Hancock does go  through some rehab, which could have been entirely silly but is lent some gravity instead. And then, the second half hits.

Maybe the time amounts to more like the last two-fifths, but it derails the film. There isn't a better way to explain this other than by saying the last part feels like an entirely different movie tacked on to the first half. Although starting with an intriguing surprise, a backstory becomes increasingly convoluted as it continues. The main characters undergo personality shifts, so what ensues between two of them no longer carries the necessary development to give their dilemma proper weight. To give you a sense of what this is like, imagine major characters suddenly getting replaced by new actors, that's how disorienting it gets.

Attempts to reconcile the two halves feel futile because they each seem to have different tonal purposes, the first half being mostly comic and the second half becoming weighty and grave. Getting into the motifs that drive the second half is too tricky to do here, since it requires major spoiling which I'm not willing to do. Suffice it to say, Hancock is only half a good movie -- the whole of it becomes confusing, disappointing, and non-sensical. Along the way, the film also becomes the object of its parody -- a self-serious superhero movie -- unless it was never meant to be a parody in the first place. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell in the end. 

Is Hancock a send-up or self-contained? Is it just summer fun, or are we supposed to take it seriously? Alas, the movie's lack of cohesiveness proves to be its downfall.

(Released by Columbia Pictures and rated "PG-13" for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence and language.)

Review also posted at www.windowtothemovies.com

Listen to the Movie Addict Headquarters discussion of Hancock and other superhero movies by clicking on this BlogTalkRadio link.