Unlike some who feel every remake amounts to a personal affront on their gentleman's honor, I've gone on record saying remakes rarely irk me.* So I say, why not remake Hancock? How about now? Leave the "too soon" charges for those joking about your recently deceased goldfish. Strike while the passion's hot. My friend, the sex therapist, said that once, and wisdom like that goes for things other than when the Viagra takes hold.

I'm not saying a Gus Van Sant frame-by-frame remake. Now that'd be madness. I'm thinking something along the lines of Batman Begins or The Incredible Hulk. So a reboot, reworking, reimagining, or whatever word you want to use with "re" as a prefix.** Just because Hancock didn't spring from the comic pages doesn't mean it isn't a viable candidate for a redoing.

The current incarnation of Hancock is a frustrating mess, a fascinating failure of schizophrenic filmmaking: one part brilliant (the concept and first act are pretty darn good); one part mediocre (the whole middle of the film); and one part pure shit (who was the genius behind the James Carville impersonating villain?). And while I'm well aware that an R-rated version exists with a statutory rape subplot and a super-powered jizz shot, I doubt any director's cut can fix that last act.

Nor am I proposing that the redoing goes back to Vincent Ngo's original script, Tonight, He Comes. I read it recently. The rumors are true. Other than containing a smoking, hard-drinking superhero named Hancock, a father-mother-son family that befriends Hancock, and a bank robbery scene (occurring much earlier), Tonight, He Comes has nothing in common with the Will Smith vehicle showing at a theater near everyone.

In Ngo's version Hancock mumbles rehearsed platitudes and comes off more as a force of nature that an actual character. No big plot twists are to be found. And the story is much darker (e.g., Hancock slaughters a whole precinct of cops during the climax). Some have labeled the original screenplay as brilliant, while others have tagged it as pure drivel. It's neither. Pretty good, but definitely flawed.

So I say take the fantastic concept (an asshole, sort of a superhero whose heroics and powers have real-world consequences on the tax-paying public) and rewrite the rest. The idea lends itself to several interesting themes and allegories ranging from American foreign policies (several reviews for Hancock touch on this symbolism) to the suggestion of a God, who contrary to popular belief, does not like us. The possibilities are endless. You only need a writer/filmmaker with the talent and focus to lasso these notions together and funnel them into a smooth, singular vision. That also means you need a filmmaker with enough clout to keep the studio from breaking out the editing scissors. Could somebody get Peter Jackson on the phone?

Now, I know comic books have explored this territory for two decades now. But I've yet to see a superhero film that grabs onto the genre's subversive tentacles and really crack things open and flip them inside out—although if Watchmen lives up to its source material, then it will have done just that. Hancock teased us with that possibility, but failed miserably. However, I'm willing to give the character another chance.*** It's the American way.

*Okay, Death Race irks me a tad, but that's only because I despise the taint of Paul W.S. Anderson.
**My vote: a redoing.
***But not as sequel. Without the booze, wouldn't a Hancock sequel just be Will Smith flying around in a reject costume from the X-Men films? The answer is yes.