User Reviews (721)

Add a Review

  • I was lucky enough to go to a pre-screening of Hancock last night and I really enjoyed it. I don't understand all of the criticism this movie is receiving. Everyone take a second and realize this is not a Marvel or DC comic book superhero movie. Now think about that again. It is a different story entirely and has some very unique elements.

    Hancock isn't action packed. It doesn't have a Superhero vs. Supervillan plot. I would probably describe it as a character study of the superhero. I think this movie does a better job of addressing some of the issues (and vices) a superhero probably would have if they existed today. The biggest conflict in the movie is within Will Smith's character's attitude, not necessarily good vs. evil.

    I think much of the criticism I have read about is motivated by expectations that were not met, which isn't fair at all. If you watch Hancock with only the expectation of being entertained, you will leave happy. Its a good movie, don't jump on the bandwagon of not liking it just because you can. Give it a chance and take it for what it is, a July 4th action/comedy.
  • What drew me into seeing Hancock in the first place was its idea, which I found one of the most interesting for a film in a while. I am in all honesty not a big fan of Will Smith, but he has given some solid performances so I thought why not.

    I have to say that I didn't think Hancock was a bad film as such, it was somewhat underwhelming and I'm sorry to say I do understand the criticisms against it.

    Hancock does have a fair number of good points. It is stylishly filmed, with some well above average special effects, the music is dynamic and the directing is solid. The best asset about Hancock is the acting of the three leads.

    Will Smith is very commanding, with a lot of subtlety amongst all the wisecracks/gags that don't feel forced(ie.flying under the influence). Charlize Theron shows a glowing presence while also showing a sympathetic side, and Jason Bateman's dry humour contrasts perfectly too.

    However, Hancock is a very uneven film. I loved the first half, it was well paced, the script was witty and fresh and the scene where the titular character brings a speeding train to a halt as he can't be bothered to lift the car up from its path is one of the better and relevant scenes of the film.

    It is in the second half where Hancock is less than successful. Here the film starts to drag, the script becomes soapy and heavily melodramatic and the film has one of the daftest twists of any film not to have M Night Shyamalan's name on it.

    The story's tone isn't the only asset to feel uneven, the script is too, it has wit and freshness in the first half, but becomes mawkish in the second. I also felt that there were only three likable characters(Smith's, Theron's and Bateman's) and the others I barely noticed, with the villain especially flat.

    So all in all, an uneven film but not a necessarily bad one. 5/10 Bethany Cox
  • Will Smith. That's all you've got to say, and you're guaranteed a big opening at the box office. Well, from the looks of it, Smith also guarantees you at least a mildly entertaining film, which is what we get in his latest movie, Hancock. In the hands of any other leading star, Hancock would probably end up being a below average film. It's Smith's charisma, charm, and unwavering likability that ultimately save the film. He can make you laugh, cheer, cry, and even root for his character (who is a total ass, as he is reminded a number of times throughout the movie) no matter what kind of shenanigans he may cause.

    Hancock is not the generic superhero film and is probably one of the more ingenious ideas to come across a producer's desk in quite some time. To me, what it seems like is that the writers of the film loved the idea, started off extremely strong, and then began to realize that how hard it is to sustain a simplistic idea over the course of a full length motion picture (and it is because of this that Hancock is relatively short). The writers' plan to solve this problem is to throw in a totally unnecessary and badly handled plot twist to keep the audience guessing. The lack of a central villain also hurts the movie a lot. The character that serves as Hancock's enemy in the finale isn't even well acted. The person is laughable.

    This is an action movie, so it should come as no surprise to see well done and original action in the movie. However, I felt the effects could have used a few more weeks of polishing in the editing room. The camera is also quite crampy. I also have problems with the film's score, as it does not add an epic feeling to the film like it should have. I felt like something was missing in the climax of the film (which is not the end). The action scenes, while entertaining and original, were not long enough to engage the audience like say, The Incredible Hulk, nor were they as jaw dropping as those in Wanted.

    The film's strength rides on its three stars. Action veterans Will Smith and Charlize Theron both deliver winning performances as usual, and that should come as no surprise. Smith's charisma is enough to make anyone happy, and it's so easy to see why so many people love him. Theron is always a sight to behold (except in Monster, lol), and this film is no different. I enjoyed her performance the most, especially in the second act and the beginning of the third. Jason Bateman, who seems to be the bridge connecting the performances of Smith and Theron, is great as usual, and likable, marking a change from his recent turn in "Juno". There really isn't another performance to note, and part of Hancock's weakness is that there are really only three main engaging characters. It should also be noted that the kid who played Bateman's son was absolutely adorable.

    Hancock is the classic case of great idea, and mediocre execution. I can see this idea being remade years from now, and pulled off even better. It's not a fault of Peter Berg, the film's director, as the real weakness is in the screenplay, which falters after an excellent and wonderful opening act. It's not a bad film by any means, nor is it great. It's in between "okay" and "good".
  • *** MAY CONTAIN SPOILER ***

    I NEVER write on these opinion boards but I might start with this one. I felt as though I needed to stick up for the movie after reading all the horrible reviews. I went to see it on the 4th, mainly because the trailers looked entertaining and because I enjoy Will Smith. This movie is not at all what I expected. There is a surprising turn of events that I did not see coming. Will Smith, in his usual style, is quick, funny, witty, and charming and I thought the timing between he and Jason Bateman was perfect. If you are expecting to see a movie along the lines of Hulk, Iron Man, Batman, etc, don't go because you won't enjoy it. If you are going because you like the cast and are ready to be entertained for 1 hour and 20 minutes out of your life, then it is definitely worth the price of admission.
  • I also was at the test screening in Peoria AZ. The film was spot on for the first hour. Jokes were hitting left and right, Smith and Bateman displayed good chemistry, and the special effects, though not always finished, were eye popping nonetheless.

    Without giving it away, the final half hour was flat, straying from the comical nature that had preceded it and instead tried to get philosophical and introduce a week paint'by'numbers villain. I spoke with director Peter Berg after the film and he seemed fully aware of the issues relating to the final act. Hopefully the recent "re shoot" will polish up that last act, making Hancock one of the must see blockbusters of the summer. In the form I saw it; it still has a ways to go.
  • It isn't fair to write a film off in the first few minutes but you can sometimes get a pretty good sense as to what you're in store for from the way the film introduces itself. The film opens on an L.A. freeway, where four punks are being chased in their van by countless police cruisers while they fire their semi-automatic weapons into the air. Where's Spider-Man when you need him? (Right, I forgot – Spidey's a New Yorker.) Cut to a passed out bum on a park bench. Who is this man? Of course, we know it's our hero, Hancock (Will Smith), because we know a thing or two about the film before sitting down to watch it. Director, Peter Berg, takes this for granted though and it soon becomes apparent that convention and presumption will drive this unconventional tale. In HANCOCK, Berg, and Smith team up with writers, Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, to debunk superhero iconography as well as the genre itself. The goal, and a noble and exciting one it is, is to rip the superhero out of the sky, strip him of his glory and send him hurdling toward the earth. Only Hancock is pulled down to an earth that is an awful lot more like a movie than the world I know.

    It wouldn't be so terrible to set this enormous Hollywood action film in typical scenarios if Berg weren't trying so hard to give the film a decidedly un-Hollywood look. The aesthetic is often shaky and unstill, crossing back and forth between odd close-ups and frames finding their focus. Berg seems bent on giving HANCOCK a gritty, guerilla film-making tone but the erratic style is at odds with the predictability of the plot. The borrowed independent style works in its original context because independent films are, ordinarily, about something deeper. Removing the gloss from a Hollywood feature only allows the viewer to see how little there is underneath it all. In HANCOCK's case, the man beneath the lacking luster is a reluctant hero who would rather waste his days drunk in a dive than diving into the action itself to save the day. There is some loose discourse on realizing your destiny but little else. Again reluctantly, Hancock agrees to some help from a struggling public relations person (Jason Bateman) and is set on the path to making the most of his life and abilities. Hancock is such a complex character (lonely, disinterested, depressed) that it would seem ripe with possibility but this is mostly squandered in favor of half funny humour and sometimes hokey special effects that it feels at times like a over produced Nike ad.

    Luckily for HANCOCK, the film is still somewhat enjoyable thanks to the strong performances of all its leads. Smith continues his streak for picking complicated characters with broad appeal and he also continues his streak of pulling them off. After a heartbreaking turn that pushed his dramatic abilities in THE PURSUIT OF Happiness and his commanding yet vulnerable turn that pushed his presence in I AM LEGEND, Smith plays a character we don't ordinarily see him as. His impossible-not-to-like face is covered in stubble and his physique is hidden by baggy, dirty clothes but his eyes are what give away his disenfranchised soul that shows his hurt for being shunned by society and disinterest in placating to that same society. Smith is joined by the modern master of comedic timing, Bateman and Charlize Theron, as Bateman's wife, who is simultaneously frightened and intimidating. This trio of talent is HANCOCK's salvation. Their grasp of their characters in unfailing and they pull the elements of the film together despite how flimsy the elements are to begin with.

    HANCOCK is occasionally astounding but mostly mundane. Above all, it is a disappointment. This original premise has been sloppily slapped together and most of its potential was squandered in the process. It didn't show me that superheroes are people too. If anything, it just made me miss the real deal. If the goal was to truly bring the superhero down to earth, then there was still a long, long way to go before this guy would have touched the ground.
  • The moment I saw the preview for Hancock, this just looked like the most ridicules movie that could be made, I was sure that it was going to flop or get horrendous reviews. But after talking to people who saw it, it was half/half of either they loved it or hated it, so I guess this was just a movie I had to see for myself. So I watched it yesterday, I am dumbfounded, I'm the half/half, I loved it and I hated it. I felt like the beginning was just silly and rushed, not to mention that the villain was just under developed and didn't have any depth to why he was so bad. But however, I did like the little twist they had, which I refuse to give away, even though I did predict it sadly, it's one of those things you'll have to see. But I also did enjoy the originality, it's not just a typical super hero movie with all the stereotypes, it was John Hancock(which by the way should've taken place in Chicago after it's famous building).

    John Hancock is a homeless bum who just has a bad attitude along with a horrible drinking problem, he also is different, he is a super hero. The only problem? He causes a lot of damage when he "saves the day" and doesn't care what people think. But when a failing advertiser, Ray Embroy, is saved by John, Ray offers John a chance to look good and be the ultimate super hero. But Ray's wife, Mary, isn't so excited and has a little secret about her and John. But Ray is determined and will make sure that Hancock is a great super hero for the whole city.

    Hancock is over all an alright film, it's not bad by any means, but I feel like it could have been so much more with a better script. Not to mention some of the camera angles were a little extreme, there were times where I thought the cameraman was on a tilt-a-whirl and I felt sick. But for the story I'll admit that it was original and fun at times, Will Smith is a good actor, I will always admit that, but it seems like his movies(which are always released around the fourth of July, you notice) have become like a love letter to him and how great he is. Hancock is worth the look, but I'd recommend the rental, it's just a notch under a great blockbuster.

    6/10
  • I've read a lot of the reviews here complaining about the film flagging in its final act. I respectfully disagree.

    Hancock is most definitely DIFFERENT in it's last half - it drops off the comedy significantly and introduces some fascinating superhero mythology that is almost like an ancient Greek myth in its context. It also introduces some pretty tense and violent moments that really made me wonder if they should be marketing it as the kid-friendly summer blockbuster that they are. However, both halves have their own merits - the first being the humour, and the second being the (almost tragic) origin mythos. I suspect if you are prepared for the switch in tone, rather than shocked when it arrives, you might enjoy Hancock as much as I did.
  • i saw a press screening of HANCOCK this week and I enjoyed it. At first it starts out with some typical hokey action-comedy, but then it starts getting 'serious'. I agree that there might be some imbalance of tone on occasion, but i liked the seriousness combined with big action, humor and a great message.

    Some of the cgi work looks a bit too cartoonish and the movie could probably benefit from less of the typical 'comic hero' elements in regards to costuming and certain plot elements, but overall it's a cool movie.

    If anyone is an Arrested Development fan, you might notice some odd visual references in Hancock (other than the fact that Bateman and Theron are in this movie). I wonder if any of the filmmakers are somehow connected to the show.
    • Look, I have an idea. Let's make a Superman flick, but instead of everybody liking this Superman-like character, everyone could, like, hate him.


    • Hmm.. interesting. But why would they hate him? Is he a villain or something?


    • No, no. He is..well.. a jerk. He still catches bad guys and stuff, but he, like, insults people, creates a lot of collateral damage.. you know. A jerk.


    • I like it, I like it. He's like a superhero dr. House or something, right?


    • Right. Only less witty and more bitter. We can also make him a drunk.


    • Well... I dunno if it would fly. Perhaps if we could get Will Smith to do the role. People dig Will Smith.


    • I'm with you there. Will Smith, flying around, insulting people.. man, this will be great!


    • Right. But we have to go with it somewhere, we can't just let him do superhero stuff while being a jerk, this would get old pretty fast. How about he somehow gets involved with a PR specialist, who will, like, try to improve his public image?


    • Great idea! And wait..wait.. what if we get that Michael Bluth guy from Arrested Development to play, umm... Michael Bluth the PR guy?


    -Terrific! We're seriously up to something. Let's write!

    (scrib scrib scrib... hours pass..)

    • Congrats, we have a hit! Let's celebrate!


    • I'll get the champagne!


    • Umm hold on just a minute...


    • What?


    • I just realized.. this script is only good for about 45 minutes of the movie! Hour tops!


    • Oh no! What can we do? Can we pad it a little?


    • No! It's unpaddable! I even added a female lead as Michael Bluth's wife, it still only added about 5 minutes of the movie. Nope, sorry. This is a dud.


    • Oh come on...


    • Look, look..perhaps we can think of something. Think, think...how do we further the story along, put in, like, some kind of a twist...


    • They are all dead or something?


    • No, no.. how about..


    (scrib scrib.. hours pass)

    • Hmmm... I don't think this will work. No chance.


    • Why?


    • Just look at it! It's stupid, insultingly illogical, and the ending.. it's horrible. Look, I've greenlighted Jaws 4, so I know what I'm talking about.


    • But, but.. Will Smith.. Bluth guy.. maybe we can get Charlize for the wife...


    • I know! But this stuff... it.. just does not make any sense! The second half is nothing like the first half. It kills the movie!


    • Yeah, perhaps we should just rewrite the whole thing..but..know what?


    • What?


    • Remember "I am legend"? With Will Smith?


    • Yeees....


    • That one also had a great first half, right?


    • Yes. The first half was good.


    • And the second half royally sucked, right?


    • Riiight...


    • And it still was a success, right?


    • I see.. what you're saying is that a Will Smith flick can have a great first half, idiotic second half and still come out a winner?


    • Exactly!


    • Well it IS kind of late and I'm kinda tired.. What gives, let's do it. Although it *does* sound kinda hancock to me. Btw, how do we call this thing?
  • tim-23425 July 2008
    Lots of people, including the critics, are ragging on this film. Seriously, what did they expect? It's a Hollywood blockbuster with Wil Smith in. Get over it, turn your brain off, and sit back and enjoy the ride.

    For what it was, I thought it pretty good. It was entertaining, took a unique take on the superhero thing, and didn't have an overt number of huge gaping plot holes or completely blithe dialog.

    If you're feeling like a Wil Smith movie, go for it. It's not as bad as they say... just don't expect any more than the typical Hollywood affair.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I recently attended the Toronto premier of Hancock and I have to say I was disappointed. When I saw that both Will Smith and Charlize Theron were in a film with a very entertaining plot I have to admit my hope were high. The film starts off very strong with Smith playing the comedicly lazy and un-phased, Hancock who is seldom seen without a bottle of alcohol in hand. Hancock's careless attempts at rescuing people in need have created a cornucopia of property damage, damage that the government is forced to pay for causing the public to unanimously hate him. When public relations rep, Ray (Jason Bateman) is saved from on on-coming train by the unconventional superhero, he makes it his mission to clear up the less then appealing reputation of Hancock despite pleas not to by his CNN addicted wife, Mary (Charlize Theron) who has a deep rooted hatred for the hero. It looks like Ray has his work cut out for him until he hatches up a plan for Hancock to go to jail and give the city of Los Angeles a chance to realize how much they need Hancock to save the day. This begins 20 minutes of Hancock being taught single handedly by Ray on how to be a respectful, presentable superhero, including putting on an X-Men inspired leather jumpsuit. When the Los Angeles Police Department finally realize they need the superhero, Hancock responds showing he can be a superhero LA can be proud of as he properly rescues a group of people strapped to explosives from a bank robber. And here we come to where the film goes up in flames as everything up to this point has been thoroughly enjoyable, because now we find out Ray's wife Mary also has powers and that Hancock isn't the only superhero on the planet. But it doesn't stop there. According to this film, superheros are created in pairs as Hancock and Mary are actually husband and wife. However thats not the craziest part. As it turns out whenever Mary and Hancock are together for an extended period of time (I guess a decade in the same city doesn't count) they begin to lose their powers and become mortal. This leads to many strange action sequences with natural disasters. With Hancock vulnerable, his enemies attempt to kill him as well as Mary, almost succeeding but lest we forget, this is a Superhero movie. With a little help from Ray, Hancock is able to fend off his attackers before leaving LA for good and relocating to New York. In conclusion, if you are looking for a funny enjoyable film, leave an hour into it. But if you are looking for a film more obsessed with explaining the origin of Superheros, stick around and watch a perfectly good film turn into a train wreck.
  • Hancock began life as a good idea and with a very intriguing premise; it bills itself as the alternative superhero film by aiming to show that the Superhero can be humanized. The film centers on a down and out alcoholic superhero called Hancock, played by the ever impressive Will Smith. He is a superhero that causes destruction and fuels his own public hatred where ever he goes due to his lifestyle and his indolence. It becomes fortunate therefore that one day he should save the life of PR man (Jason Bateman), who is married to the lovely Mary (Charlize Theron) and that in return for saving his life he chooses to help Hancock change his image.

    The film starts well by introducing us to Hancock asleep, scruffy and unshaven on a public bench but ultimately establishing him as a lousy, grumpy oaf. As the film progresses Hancock evolves into a very endearing character, his apathy and self loathing - exhibited by his alcoholism, are all traits that manage to humanize the myths that surround super human beings. The fact that his physical prowess and lifestyle choice is his undoing is an interesting concept and in some quarters would be regarded as a microcosm of the manner in which gifted, black American men have been marginalized over the years (but this is a short review and I don't want to get that deep... however, examples that come to mind, and help to support this theory, are such great physical talents like Ed Moses, Shaquille O'Neil, Carl Lewis, Jesse Owen etc) some film scholars will no doubt give more precedence to this side of the film.

    Many critics have labeled the film as being unequal and disjointed and I would have to say that I agree. The first half of the film is amusing, engaging and quite plausible (given its premise) but upon the introduction of a second hero with equal powers the film quickly descends into the farcical. For example, some of the early scenes have Hancock exhibiting his strength in often mundane scenarios from dragging a car up a driveway to dunking a basketball from over 50 meters away but given there placement in the context of the film they are clearly the conceivable actions of a super strong human being. During the latter stages of the film this demonstration of strength becomes inane and coarse, epitomized by a scene in which the two superheroes battle it out the sky, throwing each other across blocks and through buildings, and affecting the weather to such an extent that lightening, twisters and snowfall all takes place. This is ultimately where the film falls down as it resorts to the clichés that are so often witnessed in films of this genre. Ultimately this decline is driven by a foolishly executed back-story that has no place in the film and should have been erased the moment it was conceived. The internal logic of the film is preposterous and nonsensical and would remain so even if it was chief plot device in a Saturday morning kids cartoon.

    When it comes to the direction it seems surprising to me that Peter Berg should be able to make the leap to making a blockbuster like Hancock, this is because Hancock was always going to be a commercial risk given its target audience and release date and his previous film The Kingdom was not a huge success. In these situations it is normally an established director that is chosen by the studio to carry films of this nature. This is evident from the manner in which the plot, story and narrative transpire to the screen as Berg's direction is gritty, with frantic zooms, sharp fast-pans and steady-cam sequences. His direction does not really complement the film, leading me to believe that in Hancock we have a director that is better than the film he is trying to make, a rarity in film making but it does happen.

    Finally, Hancock is probably one of the biggest let downs I have had the misfortune to witness this year. The incoherent story has seriously affected the outcome of this film; it has led to it being almost incomprehensible. The futile subplot and unnecessary twist laid the foundations for the films demise. However, despite my immense disappointment I can still sit back and take light in the performances and the direction, but they can do nothing for my overall feelings towards Hancock.
  • I wasn't expecting anything great from 'Hancock' and I was really hoping that it wouldn't be another cheap-humoured 'Men In Black' type movie. What really got me to watch it was the curiosity of how Will Smith, Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron (loved watching the two on 'Arrested Development') work together. Now, i must say that I was pleasantly surprised. 'Hancock' certainly turned out better than expected. It has all the ingredients of a successful superhero film. What we get is sheer entertainment. There's a lot of action, drama, romance and comedy in it.

    Yet, it's not exactly among the best superhero films and what really makes it work are the three leads. I thought Will Smith would replay his 'Men In Black' persona but what we get is a nuanced performance. 'Hancock' is an alcoholic, depressed superhero who does the usual superhero stuff albeit in a very clumsy way and is not careful (nor does he care) to avoid collateral damage. As a result, people see him as a super-nuisance rather than a hero. But, there is a reason why Hancock acts this way. He's angry and he's upset. I won't say more except that Smith brilliantly displays the layers of his character. The eternally hot Charlize Theron (that is, if you forget 'Monster') springs a surprise. At first glance, I thought she'd be the typical wife who at in the beginning dislikes Hancock but gradually grows to like him. But no, it's something else and this becomes more apparent as the chemistry between Smith and Theron strengthens while Mary's attitude gets more curiously awkward. Yes, Theron is fantastic and shares an excellent on screen rapport with both her male co-stars. Jason Bateman's Ray is the suitable link between Theron and Smith. His camaraderie with Smith is very amusing and his scenes with Theron are nice to watch. Sadly, Eddie Marsan is awful as the villain and this is mostly due to poor writing.

    'Hancock' has quite a few flaws. The execution is not of top quality. The special effects are poorly done and look unpolished. CGI has greatly improved throughout the years but 'Hancock' is no proof of that. As a result the action sequences look fake. Nor is the background score any great and this really takes away from the slick feel one gets from an action film. The screenplay is faulty. It's a very short movie and the writers seemed to be in a hurry as the twists seem really drastic and at times rushed. I would have liked to see more plot development. The villain character is terribly written and has little significance to the overall story. The film starts off as a comedy and then moves to drama followed by romance and then action. Nothing wrong with that but perhaps a little more balance could have helped. Yet, this one is only a minor quibble.

    To sum it up, 'Hancock' is very entertaining and a good enough flick. But it could have easily been one of the greatest films of the summer. It is Theron, Smith and Bateman who lift this movie from being an average to below average flick. They make it worth the watch.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *Throws Hancock out of the house for no reason, destroying the whole street*
    • Please don't tell my husband.


    • 'Kay.


    From this scene, I lost my interest. Started good though.
  • Hancock (2008) is a movie I recently watched on Amazon Prime. The storyline follows an anti-super hero that often causes as much damage as good during his times of heroism. One day, when saving a struggling public relations expert, he gets the advice he needs. Hancock will partner with the PR guy to try and save his image while continuing to do good for mankind. This movie is directed by Peter Berg (The Rundown) and stars Will Smith (Men in Black), Charlize Theron (Monster) and Jason Bateman (Ozark). The storyline for this is fairly clever and well done. The cast is very well selected and Smith, Theron and Bateman all deliver their characters perfectly. The script and dialogue is very good, loved the head in the ass references throughout. The soundtrack is also very good. There are some great action scenes that insert the comedic content very well. This isn't a great picture but it is clever and entertaining in a lot of ways. I recommend seeing it at least once and would score it a 7/10.
  • A film I remember watching years ago, re-watched 2022, enjoyable. Obviously more than the first time as I've increased my score from 5. There have been so many superhero movies since this, it's come up in my estimations.
  • It probably had problems, whether literal or subjective (that most people had a problem with), but nothing stood out to me, and I enjoyed this film. It was fun, lighthearted, and easygoing, which is likely why it did so well at the box office. It also had a little bit of heartfeltness with Hancock and Mary. There were quite a few memorable scenes. The premise/backstory was intriguing, although I wish that were more of a focus. Even the CGI was surprisingly decent, although it also looked not-so-decent at the same time; it was a weird but okay middle ground.

    The most significant praise I can give this film is the comedic moments between Hancock and Mary, including the general chemistry between Will Smith and Charlize Theron. That was further amplified by how impactful (and enjoyable) all their scenes were. I was invested in/cared about their characters and the connection there. Will and Charlize were a fantastic pair that lifted this film to a greater height not reached without them.

    All three performances of the main cast (Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman) were decent. Will's was probably the best, with Charlize as a close second: and together, they bounced well off each other. Jason was the weakest of the three, but he wasn't bad; I liked his character. He did well with what he got.

    I liked the score by John Powell, who I'm already familiar with: the Bourne films (excluding The Bourne Legacy), Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and Knight and Day. I think he's my most watched composer; he keeps popping up. That final cue at the end of the film was great. The one before it, as Hancock is on the ground, was good, too, and the one as he's trying to get further away; both may have been the same cue. And I liked Louise Mingenbach's costume design work for Hancock's suit.

    One thing that could've been better was the tone/story. The first half of the film was about building Hancock back up from a low point, making you think it's going to be about him as a superhero, and it felt competent with a destination in mind. But it shifts to something different, which goes back to what I said in the first paragraph about wishing it was more of a focus; I liked that aspect a lot. And the superhero aspect wasn't that relevant anymore; yeah, there were breadcrumbs sprinkled throughout the rest of the film, but you could tell it was more for show.

    I feel like one or the other should've been the entire focus instead of doing one for most of the film, then shifting gears completely, even though I liked the underlying details of the film's second half the most. It's hard not to notice the potential of this film. The backstory of Hancock and that side of things could've been more prominent. There could've been more emphasis on the superhero angle of which the first half of the film was building up or more focus on comedic moments or even the action. It's like there was a complete script, but everything after the halfway point got scrapped or rewritten out of nowhere. But what we got was still enjoyable; the first half was the best.
  • Hancock was a pretty interesting as well as entertaining movie. It definitely wasn't your typical superhero movie; and it wasn't originally a DC or Marvel comic. It's more about what would happen if someone with superheroes was around in modern times, and that is what makes it interesting. If there's some property damage done while catching criminals, people will be angry; if a vigilante has a bad attitude, people will be angry. I suppose Batman explores some of that not being liked by the public, as well as the bad attitude and personal trauma of the hero, but I found Hancock to be quite original in its handling of these issues. I liked the media attention and the use of sunglasses as a "mask" of sorts. I really liked how Hancock progresses as a character, and I liked the other characters as well. Usually little kids in movies annoy me, but the son of the supporting character was pretty cute and endearing. This isn't really a hero movie where there is a superhero and a super villain; I think it's more about what it means to be a human and relate to other people, to do good things and the desire to be accepted. I think the best part of Hancock is that it's about a superhuman who is just very human. It was a lot of fun.
  • Pros: 1. Both Will Smith (John Hancock) and Charlize Theron (Mary) give great performances. 2. The emotional scenes, with thanks to the acting and well-timed pauses, land with great effect. 3. The humour is fantastically dry and dark, which prevents the film from becoming stale. 4. The action scenes are well-choreographed and entertaining. 5. The CGI and special effects, aside from a couple instances, look great and still hold up 12 years later.

    Cons: 1. There are a plethora of really strange editing and camera angles which take you out of the viewing experience. 2. There are a couple plot-holes. For example, why did Red (Eddie Marsan) only take Man Mountain (David Mattey) and Matrix (Maetrix Fitten) to confront Hancock at the hospital, after it had already been established that most of the prison population was there because of Hancock? 3. During the action scenes, obnoxious and corny stock action music is played. 4. The movie doesn't focus enough on the philosophical reasoning behind a superhero negating their duties, and whether or not they should have free will to decide their superhero role. 5. The entire sequence featuring Hancock and Mary fighting in LA not only has the worst looking special effects, but the conflict just feels really forced.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    they say will smith is the last remaining box-office magnet, but it won't stay that way with movies like this. the only good thing about hancock is the idea of a superhero drinking and being rude, but we had that already in superman 3 (or 2, or 4, cant remember). apart from that hancock is average cinema-stuff, a little dull, even boring at times. then they have this surprise in it, which makes you think: wtf, cool! but then it turns out to be completely random. with no real villain and plot holes over plot holes this movie is just not good. wait for the DVD and rent it if you're a will smith fan, for all the rest of you: stay away and go watch the dark knight instead on Friday.
  • I was nicely surprised to find this a very entertaining movie, start-to-finish, about a reluctant super hero who winds up getting an attitude change for the better. What changes him? A man who cares and his little boy, who also cares and looks up to him. Corny? Maybe....but I liked it.

    Yeah, it's a nice, sentimental story in those regards which is why the cynical national film critics didn't care for the movie. Nice message: thumbs down; evil - thumbs up. Pretty sad, eh?

    Being this is a "superhero" movie, I didn't expect any credibility: just a fun, escapist story, and that, pretty much, was what was delivered. It had a nice twist near the end, too, which I won't go into for anyone who hasn't seen the film. It's not a total shock, is all I will say, because you can see it coming if you read between the lines.

    Was this film enjoyable enough to watch a second time, or a third? Most definitely.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I read a number of reviews made by people who had watched the pre-screening and a number of criticisms that came up was things like camera work, the last half of the movie, lack of supervillain, epic fight etc etc The whole point of this movie is to see it behind a superhero who to be honest, isn't really super. This is a hero who doesn't follow the rules, who isn't ridiculously polite with a cool costume. He has a bad attitude and uses his powers to do what what he likes, though not to do bad things. It's more to it then that, it explores why he is who he is. What most superhero movies don't pick up on is what the knowledge of being the only one of your kind does to you. The film may not be action packed with a supervillain to fight and smash things up fighting but it does make you feel for Hancock, you feel sympathy for him.

    The other characters, such as Ray who is saved by Hancock and is the only one to thank him for his efforts despite demolishing a whole train doing it then trys to change his public image and his wife, who resents Hancock (for good reason, as explained in the film later) and is largely redundant for the first half the film (for definant good reason, as explained later in the film) are very minor when compared to Hancock, their history isn't as explored. Now, i know most people want the characters they are watching to be explored and to have in depth knowledge about them but this isn't about them, as the title of the movie suggests.

    There are some nice ideas, such as why Hancock is who he is and how todays world would probably react to a superhero and the damage he/she causes and yes, the ideas arn't used as effectively as they could have done but the rest of the film takes up the slack left by those minor faults. The twist is a well thought idea. The ending, while perhaps predictable, slightly silly, is excellent in my opinion. But it might just be me, I'm a sucker for Will Smith and superhero movies.

    I recommend this thoroughly. While not a conventional superhero movie, the special effects are amazing, a decent story with Will Smith's phenomenal acting as Hancock is worth the ticket price.

    It's a shame it's picked up so much criticism. Ignore them until you have seen it.
  • I don't know what to think of this.

    On the one hand, I watched it by myself and thought it was a surprisingly unique take on superhero tropes, and that's kind of impressive in a pre-MCU era, but on the other, I talked about it with some friends who also watched it, and I couldn't really disagree with them dunking on it.

    But let's start with the good. Firstly: Will Smith. Typically, you don't see an egotistical alcoholic and think he'd be good in that sort of role, but I have to admit he made it believable at the very least. He's certainly a little too one-note, but I do totally believe that he's completely alone, bored, and fed up with his life.

    In fact, the acting in general is better than you'd think a film like this would deserve. And - sue me I guess, but I did like the story that was given to me. Looking back on it now, I can't deny it would have been more interesting if they had stuck to their guns in the second half instead of trying to awkwardly make it about Hancock's past coming back to haunt him, because it does kind of run out of places to go at around an hour in and falls back on cliches, but while watching it, for some reason that just didn't occur to me. I wouldn't call the second half bad though.

    This is also an admittedly ugly film, for some reason it's shot like some kind of gritty action movie or war drama, and the effects are terrible, while there also aren't that many particularly memorable shots.

    But there is some great dialogue, a few honestly amazing scenes, and above all else, I don't think anyone can deny that this film is...unique.

    And even though it gets messy later on, I think a big reason I didn't notice while I was watching it is that it doesn't feel unsatisfying because of that. The sharp turn the narrative takes in its second half is more due to Hancock's character arc already being complete, rather than them just forgetting about it.

    It still could have been way better had they just...not done that, but I maintain this is still interesting enough to warrant a watch, even more so today than in 2008, probably.
  • tedg8 November 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    I viewed this unwillingly. Will Smith projects give me the willies. Like many other big budget productions the economics drive decisions of safety that suck all the novelty and risk out of a project. It isn't that I dislike Will; he's a likable product. Its just that any movie that chooses him probably would not be worth watching.

    And this isn't for the first two thirds. Its a simple joke repeated over and over and we settle in patiently looking at our watches until we can escape. Even the movie lobby would be richer we think. And then the story takes an unlikely turn. Perhaps you will know and expect it. I did not and it had its full impact on me. We learn at the same time that our bum-hero learns the truth about his situation and a whole cosmos of new — action annotated — dynamics opens up. Now, if you haven't seen this, the new dynamics aren't particularly valuable on their own terms, but coming after we have been lulled, coming after what is essentially a childish setup — it petty darn marvelous. And it isn't stupid.

    Basically the idea is that the gift of power, if held in a partnership, makes that partnership ever so much more attractive and valuable, even essential. But at the same time it pulls out the forces that drive the special power. This is not a trivial dynamic. It is not from the "good versus evil and good wins because it is the biggest badass in town" school, though the wrapper is.

    Charlise Theron's attractions actually work for her in this partnership we see, because it is not a partnership we are in. The asymmetries of all situations are amplified because of the Will-Charlise dynamic and we become more aware that we bring little else to the table other than our 9 bucks.

    I liked it. I think it works. I hope you did not read this before seeing it so that it can work for you.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
An error has occured. Please try again.