These days, when it comes to political thrillers, audiences seem to be a little wary, mainly because they don’t want to sit through a lecture about our nation’s political system.  That’s probably why a film like last year’s “Rendition”, which I consider to be one of 2007′s best films, didn’t fare too well at the box office.  The new thriller “Traitor”, an overall effective film, may fall victim to the same problem seeing as it deals directly with issues that the average movie going audience most likely won’t want to hear about.  However, I’d still say go see it because even though it may be a relatively predictable film, there’s no denying that it was made with solid skill.

The traitor that the title refers to is Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), a black man with a partial Sudanese background who decided to become an undercover Special Op for the United States after, as a young boy, he watched his father die in a car bombing.  One of Samir’s best abilities as a U.S. operative is how he can infiltrate a terrorist network and convince them that he’s on their side.  When we first meet Samir, he’s selling a group of terrorists some weapons, but all of a sudden, the FBI bursts in, arrests everyone and sends them all to a terrorist prison.  After a brief stint in jail and a daring escape, Samir enters another terrorist cell that’s planning an elaborate scheme which involves thirty different suicide bombers.  However, conflict arises when the FBI begins to hunt down Samir, because he’s the only suspect they know of, and at the same time we learn that Samir may be a plant by the CIA, who are using him to take down that same terrorist cell.

The main reason to see “Traitor” is Don Cheadle.  He’s such a good actor, and he’s able to excel above some pretty standard material.  The character of Samir horn is someone who’s pretty open about religion and he’s also internally conflicted about his position.  The screenplay does a good job of exploring the moral questions that operating on both sides can entail, especially considering it’s set during the present time, but it’s Cheadle who effectively shows the weariness and scattered bursts of frustration that a man in his position would experience.  Plus, Cheadle never turns Samir into a full-on action hero, just like how the filmmakers never turn “Traitor” into a full-on action film.  It does have the same realistic tone and style of the “Bourne” movies, but it’s more action-oriented sections are more spaced out, but that’s not particularly a bad thing.  I like the fact that “Traitor” is more about how the system works when it comes to terrorism, rather than just the acts of terrorism by themselves.

In addition to Don Cheadle, there are some other good actors on display here.  Guy Pierce, who was in one of my favorite films of all-time, “Memento”, plays Roy Clayton, the FBI agent spearheading the team pursuing Samir.  Yes, the role of the straight-arrow FBI agent is one that’s pretty much been done to death, but given how good of an actor Pierce is, he keeps his character interesting enough all the way through, and the same goes for his partner played by Neal McDonough.  Jeff Daniels is also in the film, playing the top CIA brass who is the only person who knows about Samir’s inside operation, and unfortunately, Daniels is criminally underused.  But he’s still good with what little screen time he does have.

Now, I understand filmmakers putting the war on terror in the spotlight when it comes to stories such as these, but in my opinion, it’s starting to wear a little thin.  The issue worked as the main idea of a film such as “Rendition”, but even though I loved that film, I still thought that showing the issue full-on got a little tiresome after a while.  The majority of “Traitor” takes place in the foreign “conflict countries”, I guess you could call them, but I have to say that I could do without some of these movies for a while.  How about taking a break from these foreign political thrillers and making some that stay in the U.S., huh, Hollywood?

But in the end, “Traitor” is nonetheless a well-made film with some solid performances and good suspense.  It ain’t no “Jason Bourne”, but I’d still recommend it.

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆ 

He’s hungover when we first meet him. With two empty bottles of alcohol rolling in the wind slightly underneath the public bench he’s sleeping on, and another bottle hanging loosely from one of his hands, his ragged and dirty clothes give him the appearance of a homeless man. Nobody seems to be paying him much attention, but it’s more like they don’t care about him. His wool cap is pulled down over his eyes, the image of an eagle stitched into it. He has days’ worth of unshaven facial hair masking his skin and his snoring is loud and obnoxious, further solidifying his appearance as a bum. Then, all of a sudden, a young boy walks up to him, slapping his arm to wake him, proclaiming his name: “Hancock!” Hancock awakens grumpily, the kid points out news coverage of a high-speed pursuit (“Bad guys!”), and Hancock tells the boy to get the hell out of his face. After cricking his neck, putting on a pair of sunglasses and making a face, Hancock blasts off into the Los Angeles skyline with a fresh bottle of booze, leaving the debris of the demolished bench in his wake. Not exactly the first impression a superhero should make, wouldn’t you say?

Then again, Hancock isn’t your average superhero. As the tagline for the film says: there are heroes, superheroes…and then there’s Hancock. Hancock is a sarcastic, uncaring and widely hated superhero who always leaves a trail of destruction behind him whenever he “helps out”. Hancock is played by Hollywood’s biggest blockbuster provider, Will Smith, whose performance here is not as emotionally intense as the one he gave in “I Am Legend” last year, but is still pretty good. The movie “Hancock” is certainly more entertaining than the mediocre “I Am Lame”, oh sorry, “I Am Legend” from last December, mainly because of its interesting setup. Here it is: a superhero who is the polar opposite of idols such as Superman, possessing pretty much the same powers as The Man of Steel, but not doing a good job of using those powers properly. This causes him to become an encumbrance to the police and an inconvenience to the public, mainly due to Hancock’s lack of concern when it comes to the well-being and safety of others.

What Hancock needs is an image consultant, or someone working in the field of Public Relations to help him become the superhero of comic book charisma. He conveniently gets just that after he saves the life of PR man Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) from a speeding train. After being saved, Ray does something that no other civilian has done before; he thanks Hancock for saving his life. Ray even goes so far as to invite Hancock over to his house for dinner. There, Hancock meets Ray’s son and his wife (Charlize Theron), and it instantly becomes clear to us that she and Hancock know each other from somewhere after the first of many penetrating looks Theron gives him throughout the night – only problem is Hancock doesn’t remember that much about his past. So naturally, he wouldn’t remember ever meeting Theron’s character before. Ray complains that people don’t like Hancock primarily because of his overall attitude, and to that Hancock responds, “Do I look like I care what people think?” Ray suggests that Hancock should willingly let himself be arrested and spend some time in jail so that crime can escalate and people can start to desire his help. While Hancock is behind bars, Ray coaches him on some of his techniques, such as landing.

“Landing is like your superhero handshake. You can’t come in too hard, but don’t come in too boozy. And don’t land on the $100,000 Mercedes.” Just as Hancock becomes fed up with prison life, he gets that phone call from the Chief of Police telling him to come back because the police need his help. After shaving off his stubble with his fingernails and donning a custom-made black and gold suit emblazoned with the eagle, Hancock leaps into action by taking down a group of bank robbers who seem like they’ve watched “Heat” one too many times. Now, Hancock has to deal with all the publicity and burdens that come with the job while delving deep into his past to figure out his ties to Charlize Theron’s character.

Will Smith has now become such a big star, it was just inevitable for him to star in a superhero movie. And while it may not be based off anything from DC or Marvel, “Hancock” still feels like it came from some sort of comic book or graphic novel. The screenwriters have come up with an origin for Hancock’s character that is admittedly interesting, but at the same time it feels like they should have gone into just a bit more detail with it. This explanation of how Hancock became who and what he is obviously gives us some insight to the character’s past, but again, I feel that the writers could have spent just a little bit more time developng that because while this explanation may be interesting, it could have been explored more.

But I guess the rushed feeling that character development has is owed to the fact that “Hancock” clocks in at a mere 92 minutes. That’s right, 1 hour and 32 minutes; one hour less than the upcoming “The Dark Knight”. It’s said that about 20 minutes of the original cut had to be dropped, mainly because those 20 minutes made the film R-rated, and Columbia Pictures definitely didn’t want their big Will Smith vehicle of the summer to run the risk of losing money to that R rating. But here’s a tip: people will flock to see Will Smith’s latest film, no matter what the rating is. Now, despite those missing 20 minutes, “Hancock” still has some pretty mature themes even with a PG-13 rating. The climax especially treads that line between PG-13 and R. “Hancock” is certainly an adult’s superhero film, but we’ll see how it holds up against “The Dark Knight” next week.

So, how are the the acting and action in “Hancock”? Well, as I said before, Will Smith perfectly captures that crusty and sarcastic demeanor of the title character that makes us recognize him as the jerk he really is, but at the same time makes us love him. As we follow his transformation from an ***hole into a serviceable superhero, we can believe his journey. Jason Bateman brings a good amount of optimism to his role that makes a great contrast to Hancock’s cynicism. Charlize Theron does a pretty fair job and even though she may seem to not have that important of a role at first, her character turns out to have a great impact on Hancock’s past. The action is entertaining to say the least, but of course, what else do you expect from a big blockbuster courtesy of Will Smith?

Also, people should take note of a serious tonal shift in the middle of the film. At first, the film starts out with a comical tone, putting a lighter spin on the story than the film’s second half, which becomes darker and more moody. Some people who’ve seen it have said that they preferred the first half to the second half, but I have to part ways here. I sat there for a while as the film began, thinking that it started off at sort of a plodding pace, but once Hancock and Ray meet each other, everything starts to pick up. The second half puts an interesting spin on the story, while providing some pretty good drama. It’s almost as if “Hancock” is made up of two different films, each of them good.

Bottom line, “Hancock” may not quite be up to today’s superhero standards, but thanks to some good performances, entertaining elements and natural tone transitions it winds up being a very entertaining summer flick.

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆