Once again, I saw this movie in time to put up a very timely review, but then I got lazy and waited a week. As a summer Blockbuster, though, Hancock should be in theaters for a long time. I don’t normally expect a huge amount from a summer Will Smith movie; most of them fit securely in the category of “popcorn movies” which is to say, they make for a fun evening out, but can’t be probed too deeply for deeper philosophical themes. Hancock definitely meets this bar, being both action-packed and basically lighthearted in tone. But it has just a bit more beneath it than the average popcorn movie, though, in my view, it was a film that started well and then didn’t fully fulfill its potential.

I had a deprived childhood, virtually devoid of both comic books and cartoons, and so it wasn’t until well into adulthood that I realized what a fascinating part of American culture the superhero really is. Though sometimes passed off as children’s entertainment, real fans know that this is not predominantly a children’s genre, and the stubborn endurance of the classic superheroes through the decades is an interesting measure of things about our own society. To begin with, I take this to be one more outlet through which Americans channel their yearning for honor or courage — in other words, for that spiritedness that our culture so signally lacks. In a society where light is often made of the desire to rise above, and to put one’s safety and well-being on the line for the sake of the right, we’re bound to see various projections of these natural human virtues, like phantom pains letting us feel what we’ve lost. I explained once before how football preserves a shred of these goods, and this in large measure explains its popularity (and why, in my view, it is good for us.) Superheroes fill something like the same need, though in a more twisted way.

Undoubtedly, superheroes qualify as people who rise above the common masses, and who put themselves on the line for the good of others. Sheer strength and power are a part of their appeal, though these are accented by the bold and brazen ways in which they use their skills. But superheroes also provide a medium for exploring the various ways in which power can be tempered or corrupted by weakness. For of course, all the superheroes do have signature weaknesses to offset their gifts. Superman is basically a stand-up guy with only a classic Achilles heel in kryptonite. But many others have psychological demons (characteristically modern ones, for the most part) that perennially threaten to hinder or halt their power to do good. Spiderman, for instance, exhibits classic adolescent anxieties and inhibitions. Batman… well, maybe we don’t even want to get into Batman. It suffices to say, he’s got issues.

Then we get a movie like Hancock, which is in large part a parody of the superhero genre, but precisely for that reason very intriguing. Hancock (played by Will Smith) begins the movie as a superhero who is lazy and intemperate. Strength and courage he has, but he lacks decorum, prudence and good sense. On many occasions he helps the police in apprehending particularly dangerous criminals (at the beginning we see him coming to the rescue in a high-speed car chase.) His help is a mixed blessing, though, as he tends to lose his temper and fix the problem in a way that does enormous amounts of damage to infrastructure and private property. In between jobs he is basically a drunkard, and he sleeps on park benches. He is crude, unwashed and always in need of a shave. In short, Hancock is a bum. A bum who can fly and stop bullets between his fingers.

It’s a great premise, amusing but also potentially very interesting. What happens when a superhero is brought down, not by twisted psychological demons, but by much more ordinary human failings such as laziness? The early Hancock shows how these banal weaknesses can be just as effective as mania at spoiling our potential. The movie’s next stage proposes a brilliant and hilarious solution. A PR agent (Jason Bateman) begins to take an interest in Hancock, hoping that he may be reformable if only someone could show him how to “market” himself to the public. Though irritable at first, Hancock is attracted to the idea that people could come to like him instead of treating him as a pariah. Under the tutelage of his agent, he learns to improve his hygiene, to be more respectful of property, and to be properly appreciative of the contributions of others. (They work for some time on mastering the words “good job.”) It basically works. Hancock is transformed from a bum into a more hip version of Superman, saving lives even while entertaining us with witty Will Smith wisecracks.

Up to this point, Hancock was a great movie, offering both humor and also an intriguing plot line. About halfway through it went off the rails a bit. They introduce a new plot twist (I won’t spoil the story by telling you what it is) that genuinely startled me, but that pretty effectively transformed the rest of the show into a classic summer popcorn movie. Mind you, the second half wasn’t terrible, but it was more just your standard high-action summer blockbuster, with a kind of vague and unsatisfying ending. And it wasn’t nearly as funny as the first half. I thought this was a shame, because at the midpoint they were poised to develop things into what could have been a really fantastic film.

Suppose we took the movie to be an exploration of the theme: “what does it take to be a superhero?” In the beginning, as I said, Hancock is plagued by fairly ordinary human weaknesses, and his PR agent helps him to clean up his image. A PR agent, however, does not specialize in instilling real virtue; he is interested only in the appearance of it. A hero needs real courage, prudence, temperance and justice, and these require more than just good hygiene and pleasant manners. What I was hoping at the midpoint was that the movie would go on to expose the limitations of Hancock’s training in public relations. Maybe he would encounter a crisis for which his training had not prepared him, or where his agent’s instructions seemed to conflict with what he perceived to be the real good. Maybe he would encounter some other individual, who lacked superpowers but nonetheless exemplified heroic virtues that Hancock himself had not attained. However they did it, it would have been nice to develop the premise a little further. So they showed us that a superhero needs to be law-abiding and courteous. Anything else?

Lack of full development notwithstanding, I wouldn’t discourage you from seeing the movie if you’re looking for a fun and lighthearted evening. It is entertaining and full of characteristic Will Smith charm, and unless they have a very strict no-violence-or-profanity rule, it should be okay for your older kids to watch. Underneath the light exterior, it is always interesting to see Americans wrestling with these questions about the nature of heroism. What sorts of traits does it require? How do we get them? It’s probably not surprising that Hollywood couldn’t get very far in answering these questions, but at least it show us some reflection of the societal yearning to know.