“Hancock” may seem like a smart release for the middle of a summer, which has been more densely populated with super hero movies than any before.

While it does contain measures of comedy, action, thematic deconstruction of heroes and Will Smith being cool, none of these elements are presented in high enough dosage to make the movie worth watching.

The basic premise of the film is a bankable enough high concept.

John Hancock (Smith) is a sour, unfriendly, vulgar drunk with the generic super powers of flight, strength and invulnerability.

He saves the day when he has to, but does so without regard for decency, property or the safety of others.

When Hancock is on the scene in the generally enjoyable early sequences, a trail of destruction and unhappy bystanders can be expected to be left behind.

This changes when Hancock saves the life of public relations guru Ray (Jason Bateman, “Juno”), who tries to help the unwilling Hancock change his ways to win favor with the public.

This story line is largely enjoyable.

Smith turns in some great character work and Bateman is a sharp and likable straight-man for Hancock’s antics.

Much of the humor works solidly, but is never laugh-out-loud hilarious.

The movie occasionally falls back on immature toilet humor. Such juvenile antics work against elements such as the score and cinematography, which attempt to make the film feel epic.

One particular gag involving a man’s head and another man’s rear would be more at home in an Adam Sandler movie from 15 years ago.

Unfortunately, no amount of orchestral swells or upwards-angle camera shots can make butt jokes feel epic.

The entire plot line of Ray and Hancock winning over the public’s favor is concluded by the film’s halfway point. From there, the filmmakers opted to drop all the momentum, humor and logic of the movie so far and barrel into a story about the origins of Hancock and his love interest Mary (Charlize Theron, “Monster”).

This part of the movie never feels like it is going anywhere.

It is hard to care about the characters because the film never really makes it clear how things work or what significance it holds.

The story as written fatally stumbles over its own logic.

Hancock and Theron have a strange connection that is never really explained, but the entire climax of the film revolves around it.

This sequence should be offered as a text book for those looking to inspire apathy in a film audience.

Hancock is chalk-full of big-budget production values, strong performances from top-dollar stars, and an A-plus concept that could have been turned into a summer flick for the ages.

Instead, a sloppy script and lazy filmmaking leave “Hancock” as disconnected parts that do not adhere into a complete story and certainly a complete film.

What is onscreen is certainly not a terrible film. It’s just one that does not give anybody a reason to care about it whatsoever, which makes it an even greater failure.

Two stars out of five

E-mail the author: defaultuser