|
In response to
"I know that's a common complaint, but I completely disagree with it."
by
Cuzzin Todd
|
The problem that wasn't solved, I think...
|
... had to do with a pile-up of problems which the tonal shift coincided with. I admit I don't remember the second half in much detail on one viewing. The unpacking of the mythological backstory is less interesting than the fresh and inventive business about Hancock as misanthrope in the first half. The "coincidence" of the publicist's wife turning out to be you know who is survivable.
The bigger problem, I think, is that shift coincided with more screen time being given to Hancock's criminal antagonists in his current incarnation, the incarnation we'd happily accepted for the film's day to day world in the first half. The antagonists just aren't interesting at all. The overall effect, I think, is that a tidy and witty first half in which an audience is invested yields to a messy, duller second half, and that investment dissipates.
It might be okay for something which begins as a comedy to stop being funny, and shift tone in a way that works. But I don't think "Hancock" is an example of this.
|