Hancock (2008) Poster

(2008)

User Reviews

Review this title
606 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Not your typical "superhero" movie, but still good
KoondoggSaints1 July 2008
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.
344 out of 478 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
Classic case of great idea, mediocre execution. Strong performances are marred by weak CGI and a lack of a central villain.
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".
381 out of 550 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
I guess some people just can't take a switch in tone.
The_Dead_See5 July 2008
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.
253 out of 377 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
Not bad!
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.
269 out of 412 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
About a superhuman who is just very human
kathleen-pangan5 July 2008
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.
157 out of 246 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
Go see it - it's not that bad
canadell5 July 2008
*** 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.
159 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Solid popcorn flick
BlackHawk8478 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the movie tonight and enjoyed it a lot so here's my take:

Pro's:

Good special effects (even though there not all done)

Excellent hour and fifteen minutes (the movie is probably 100 minutes in length if I had to estimate the pacing in that time period was spot on)

Good combination of humor and action (I'd say more humor though say in the vein of Beverely Hills Cop, which had a good mix of humor and action) Will Smith nails the character (even if the character goes through a number of sudden changes out of nowhere)

Even though there weren't as many action sequences as expected they all were pretty memorable especially a fight between Hancock and another superhero (I won't spoil it)

A really good twist that I didn't see coming at all (when you see it you'll understand)

Cons: The villain wasn't fleshed out at all in any way (they really didn't need to have one in the first place and could have changed a few of the last scenes)

The last 25 minutes shifted more into a drama and didn't totally fit the character of Hacock of the first hour of the movie

Charleze Theron didn't have much to work on for the first forty-five minutes besides not liking Hancock

The relationship of Jason Bateman's character, Ray and his wife Mary isn't fully fleshed out and the chemistry isn't all there (towards the end Will Smith has better chemistry with her and there scenes together are juicy and easily the best parts of the last twenty five minutes)

Overall I'd give the film an 8.5/10 because it was an innovative look at a superhero other then all the Batman's and Supermen we're given a truly conflicted character who isn't fully invincible. There are many quotable scenes, funny moments, and good special effects that you haven't seen in other movies before. I expect this film to make a lot of money at the box office this summer and please many Will Smith fans along with action fans or people who are looking for a solid popcorn flick.
177 out of 298 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
Fix the final Act PLEASE!!!
cmcmanus608 June 2008
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.
327 out of 597 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
Surprisingly Good
Eric Idol1 July 2008
The latest Will Smith effort is much different from the average big budget flashy superhero movies that have dominated the box office the last few years. Don't go to Hancock thinking you are seeing another Superman, Fantastic 4, Ironman or Hulk. The superhero angle is treated much differently here. I think part of the perception problem with this film is from the silly trailers we have seen for the last 6 months. Those trailers represent a small part a movie that is so much more to than a drunken superhero throwing a whale at a boat, swearing at a kid or wrecking the city. Sure, there are laughs in this movie, but it's Will Smith! He's FUNNY! Go see Hancock because it's DIFFERENT from the mega-budget movies that come straight from the comic book pages complete with a witty Stan Lee cameo. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ironman and The Hulk. But Hancock is not a movie that will have comic book geeks arguing on message boards about how the movie left so much out and the character was nothing like the comic. It is a film with a story that happens to be about a guy with super powers. Besides, it's got Will Smith and Charlize Theron in it! How can you go wrong?
193 out of 345 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
Will Smith Delivers another Summertime Movie Treat
nolarobert30 June 2008
I caught a preview showing of Hancock tonight. I enjoyed it for what it was which is a fun, mostly fast-paced popcorn flick. The writers of the film also tossed in a nice plot twist that I didn't see coming but it turned out to work just fine. This isn't Shakespeare so I don't demand a lot of deep thought just some escapist fun. Will Smith does an excellent job of playing the disinterested superhero with an existential crisis. It was good to see Jason Bateman again but a bummer as well seeing how he has aged. This means I am not so young myself anymore. Jae Head didn't overact nor did the script writers push the "cute" button to the point of being saccharine. It will be interesting to see how this movie performs to see if Smith wants to do a sequel. So I am more than happy to recommend Hancock to fans of the "Summer Blockbuster" and those who enjoy Will Smith.
155 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
lolwut?
Andariel Halo7 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
...was the reaction I had by the time I finished watching the movie. As much as I have a distaste for using stupid internet acronyms seriously, that's quite literally how I felt.

The movie had an interesting premise, in a superhero who is a moody, drinking misanthrope with a particular twitch-spot for being called an asshole.

Very early on Hancock's path crosses with That Guy (Jason Bateman's character, the PR guy, whose name is completely forgettable) and they start trying to change him. Maybe 20 minutes into the movie or less, Hancock goes to prison to show people he won't flaunt the law, and to have people clamoring to have him back when crime skyrockets.

The majority of the movie's fun happens within the first half, with scenes covered in the trailer (such as tossing a beached whale onto a sailboat) and some new ones not seen in the trailer (Hancock half-naked, his clothes having been burnt off from putting out a fire, cutting in front of kids in front of an ice cream truck and snatching some ice cream for himself), but these are all covered mostly in YouTube spots while That Guy shows Hancock how people don't like him.

After he's changed to be more decent, it gets touchy and warm and Hancock is a good guy after all.

Then comes the part that had been built up without subtlety... and spoilers follow.

It was rather overt that Mary (Charlize Theron) was going to be involved with Hancock, especially when the director goes out of his way to show her face in a closeup whenever he appears near her for several seconds longer than normal. Then comes a post-party scene, in which he basically corners her in a kitchen and tries to kiss her. Then she throws him into the refrigerator and send both crashing out into the street.

Oh ya, that's right. She's a superhero thing, too.

Then starts the whole "lolwut?" moment of the film,, as they try to have her trying to explain to Hancock, her husband, and all of us the whole deal, and fails quite miserably. The story she tells is some mess of them being some sort of godly creatures that were created by GOD (though it is PC never mentioned) in pairs, and that they've lived for like as long as the Bible says earth has existed.. a few thousand years.

Quite frankly, that's only my best-guess summarization of the mess of words thrown at us to see what would stick---in the end, it doesn't even matter what they are, as the point they drive home with brutal redundancy is that if the two of them are close by each other, they both lose their powers and become mortal, which is why Hancock lost his memory, because every time they get too close to each other in history, something bad happens and they have to depart, until one time in the late 20s when Hancock got amnesia (and a story of how he tried to sign out from the hospital, not knowing who he was, and a nurse asked him for his "John Hancock", as in signature).

The story doesn't seem to change, but they repeat it so many times in so many different ways that it throws people off, as they start thinking "wait, they're destined to be together", then "wait, they can't be together or they both become mortal and die", then "wait, they were built together by nameless-god", then "wait, they weren't meant to be together", then "wait, they're bound by fate to always be together" and so on and so on until you really don't care anymore and you just want someone to die just to change the pace.

The entirety of the movie's second-half plot no longer deals with any typical "good guy vs bad guy" or "hero must overcome" archetype, as a band of baddies escaping from jail try to kill Hancock become so unimportant that even Hancock doesn't spare a second glance at the TV when their breakout is announced on the news.

The entire focus is around explaining, then re-explaining, then convoluting the entire concept behind these two "godly" beings to a point where their explanations run into gaping plot-holes, the biggest one being: If Hancock's been living in LA long enough to become a household name, and staying in their house around her for several weeks before finding her out, why didn't he or Mary lose any of their powers being in the same city? Considering how she not only tells him to not see her family ever again, but to leave the entire city, and how Hancock starts losing his powers when he is very far away from her, it's completely nonsensical that he only starts to lose his powers AFTER she mentions it.

The ending is also nonsensical, as Hancock had earlier in the movie ended up losing his powers when he is shot in a liquor-store hold-up, who knows how far away from Mary's house, and when he and Mary are in the hospital, he starts immediately regaining his powers when he exits the hospital and starts putting a few meters' distance between them.

Ultimately, the entire second half of the movie resembled a nonsensical mess of a plot-hole big enough to fit the moon through and a complete lack of actual plot to drive the story other than Hancock's whole "should I leave the city so I can be a superhero or should I stay for... some reason never explained in the movie" Because the movie never really does explain why he should/would stay in LA after learning all this... it's not like he fell in love with Mary after his amnesia, and despite all of this revelation, Mary stays married to That Guy and Hancock leaves anyway for their own good. So what the hell?
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
This deserves some credit
The_Defiant16 July 2008
Perhaps I'm being generous, but I think this movie deserves some credit. It's a serious take on a dysfunctional superhero that isn't based upon a Marvel Comics or DC Comics character. The special effects aren't as good as a movie like Transformers, but at least you aren't getting an animated CGI character hopping around like you do in Hulk and Spiderman. It appears that several elements of this movie may be inspired by the now defunct Broadway Comics. The classic scene of a car being skewered on a spire was depicted in the "Powers That Be" comic and the dysfunctional marriage relationship in the movie is not unlike the "Shadow State" comic by Broadway. Perhaps seeing similar depictions hit the big screen made me appreciate the movie more.

Will Smith and Charlize Theron do a great job. The hero is flawed, but he's not a wimp. The movie's biggest weakness is the pacing. Some of the special effects go by so fast that you don't get to appreciate them. Some of the drama plays out so slowly that you might be wondering why they don't rush it along. The movie is faithful to the trailer. It's tough writing a spoiler-free review of this since there are some great twists in the plot.
125 out of 228 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
nice idea, but disappointing movie
Brato_Useba15 July 2008
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.
26 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
4/10
A good idea... poorly executed!
Luke Bone5 July 2008
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.
41 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Undercooked
M. J Arocena7 July 2008
A very good idea sadly undercooked. Rushed and thoughtless but with hints at what it might have been. All of that makes the experience a rather frustrating one. Will Smith is, without question, one of the best actors around and as Hancock, he uses every tiny opportunity to make the whole ludicrous thing almost palatable. When the camera is on him we feel the potential. There is a human being there in an impossible situation. Peter Berg, the director, lets his eye move around as if under the effect of a very powerful drug. Massive, nervous close ups in a story that tries to be missing the point at almost every corner. The actors are photographed harshly showing every skin imperfection even on the wonderful Charlize Theron. I wonder if that was on purpose. In fact that's what I wonder about the whole enterprise. Was it on purpose? Was the thoughtlessness part of the plan? If so, I don't get it.
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Excellent summer movie ride!
8512229 July 2008
Greetings from Lithuania.

I just came back from a cinema and i can tell you people, this is a hell of a summer movie fun! It's even better than i expected!

Will Smith is great as usual. SGI are breathtaking. Jokes are great! And - what a surprise, it's a nice quality drama at a moments. Don't get my wrong - it won't going to win an Oscar for directing, neither for script. But as a summer blockbuster - it's excellent, fun, great ride.

Buy the way, it's not your typical "superhero" movie, where the good guy is "pure" and "beautifule" like a Superman.

Enjoy!

P.S. "Say as...e one more time!!!"
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Well, the first half was good...
baba4471310 July 2008
  • 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?
34 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
A good premise ruined by bad direction.
robinhoodfilms18 July 2008
How do weak directors land $100+ budgets? The audiences are too stupid to know what weak film-making is. Berg's shaky, hand-held (and shifting focus) style is emblematic of a director walking on to the set with no idea what he's going to shoot. Just keep the cameras moving and try to pass it off as a "style". This technique is (over)used in the last few years, especially in action scenes to the point where now, it doesn't seem to matter if you can tell what's happening in a scene as long as you know a lot of 'stuff' is going on. To use this same technique in a boardroom where people are sitting around talking, just pulls you out of the films and asking yourself "what the hell is THAT about?" The same lazy, sloppy style was used in "Constand Gardner", another film that suffered from for the ignornance of not realizing that this technique can sometimes work in scenes of intense energy, angst or action...but doesn't play in others. If you're thinking about the direction, the director has failed...and Berg failed through most of the movie on this one.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
"It's you! Handjob!"
Kristine11 July 2008
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
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Not Loved Enough
Christian Hannah25 September 2017
Hancock I feel was unjustly criticized because the trailers marketed it as a goofy superhero comedy when in reality, it takes dramatic turns to show the dark side of being the only being with superpowers. However, I feel like it balances tones very evenly. The dramatic parts are very well done, and the comedic parts are hilarious. Hancock is a prime example of why you shouldn't judge a movie based on the marketing.

9/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
Refreshing superhero movie
mistoppi16 June 2017
Hancock has been on my watchlist since I really started liking Will Smith, which was about a year ago. When I finally managed to watch it, I didn't know much about it, apart from it being hopefully a different kind of superhero movie.

At first the movie feels refreshingly simpler compared to the epic superhero movies we keep getting. It felt like most of the idea came from how in those epic superhero movies the heroes cause a lot of damage to the city and its people. But as the story goes forward the story does become richer and, even if I hate the word, more epic.

It's refreshing to see a character like Hancock. He is like an asshole, clearly an antihero (it's already refreshing not to see a brooding white man antihero, mind you), but there's more to him. And what's important we actually can see how he feels about the people kind of hating him, even if he tries to save them. It's not just superficially shrugged off.

I also love how the music is used so well with the story. When the movie becomes more like a superhero movie the soundtrack feels more like a classic score for that type of movies.

Hancock is an entertaining and a surprisingly good superhero movie. I think I would've preferred something simpler, something more refreshing, but Hancock is good for what it is. Of course it's a bit typical, but it has several new elements, and it has great cast. And while the story is not great, there are a lot of things I like about it. Hancock definitely is worth seeing whether or not you are tired with the typical Marvel or DC movies we get.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Brilliant idea and great idea, but a classic example of the first half being much better than the second
TheLittleSongbird17 December 2011
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
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
A super hero that turns out not to be so super after all.
ltlacey25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
When you need special F/X to make money on a movie, why bother with actors? Wait, they tried that with WALL-E and that movie pretty much failed as well. Hancock is yet another movie in, what I fear, will be a longer and longer line of disappointments. Smith is okay, not one of our greatest actors, but for the most part entertaining in most of what he does. I read that the part was first offered to Chappelle, which probably would not have made this movie any worse, or maybe better, since no one expects much out of him. Audiences do expect more from Smith and when he fails, as they all do, we seem to be more harsh, myself included. Theron, an award winner no less, well, I wonder what she was thinking when she considered this role. What we have is a down-and-out super hero who no one likes since whenever he saves someone he seems to cause more damage than if he did not. He's a depressed and lonely guy, but we only know this because another character tells us so. Otherwise, the audience figures he's just a drunk, but does not know why. In the first scene with Smith and Theron we all figure out that something is going on, and know that she probably has the same powers he does. The scene where they kiss then she slams him out of the house with a fridge made no sense. Of course we do not find out the why to all of this GO AWAY! from Mary until the end of the movie, so you have to sit around until then, or do what a lot of people do lately, and fast forward. But what really ruined this movie, other than a bad script, robotic-like performances with monotone dialogue, and over-done F/X, was the jittery camera work. Talk about needing some Dramamine before watching.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
gack
k_mckearn17 July 2008
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The plot is threadbare and totally predictable, and it's really only a minimalist vehicle for the special effects, which are also predictable (and violent and repetitive).

Will Smith is smug and 2-dimensional at best. Jason Bateman's character is pretty much the guy he played in Arrested Development. Charlize Theron is also 2D.

The closeups were all done with a jiggly hand-held camera look, which was mostly just really irritating. I resorted to just keeping my eyes closed after awhile.

I was really tempted to ask for a refund of the ticket price. It was that bad.
27 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Here comes the Hancock!
himaank5 August 2008
He is alcoholic, least bothered about your concerns and doesn't even give a damn about huge property loses the city faces with his heroic stunts. Thats Hancock for all of you!. This is a brand new super hero with a twisted mind and weird lifestyle. Its really good to see some one not coming out of a comic book as an adaptation. So, all you other super heroes get aside...here comes the Hancock.

What is interesting about this movie is that none of the promotions were focused on highlighting any of his heroic side. A hero is some one who fights for justice and his people but here, nothing like that. That triggered lot of excitement and a new set of fan-following for this super hero. Well, I'm also one of them! I admit I am a big fan of Will Smith as an actor and as a person but this is primarily because he is a real hard working, dedicated and confident individual. A hero in reality. The best part about Willie is that you really see and feel the efforts he is putting into his work.

Like any other super hero movie, this is not about fighting with a super villain and his mission to conquer the world but self exploring of an individual with extra powers. And thats why I like this movie. Something different. The director and script writer has done a good job narrating it. Movie is technically very advanced with some amazing special effects like Willie throwing the whale back in to the water, catching some junkies who have stolen money from a bank, all his flying scenes, stopping the train and fighting with Charlize Theron.

The story starts with scenes about how Willie's boozing all day, catching some freaks, and how people of the city hate him. He is least bothered about any one, not even him self. Story takes a twist when he saved life of a PR guy. This PR guy has nothing exciting in his professional life and trying hard to make a good life with his wife (Charlize Theron) and son. This whole incident of Hancock saving his life hits him with an idea to do a makeover of Hancock. From bad to good, from stubborn to be humble and kind to others, from 'who cares' to 'I care'. Watching this whole shift is the most interesting part of the movie. How he convinces Willie to go for a surrender to police and Willie's inner fight to stay in the custody with out using his powers and how he eventually takes on the role of Hancock- the savior. It's sheer fun watching it all that happening in front of you.

Well, there are some instances where I feel Hancock, as a movie, lacks that 100% punch. You think of Superman, Spiderman, Batman or any other super hero and what comes first to your mind is the image of that hero with a unique background score. In case of Hancock, there is no such theme song and that's something the producers could've have done it. Hancock is a new super hero, never thought of, never ever imagined. He has a different style with unexpected attitude and a theme song or a special background music would have helped in establishing a strong image of Hancock in to audiences mind. As I said earlier, its not about fighting with a super villain but still I wanted to see more actions and stunts. Sorry, I can't help it! But its a super hero anyways and everybody likes to see his or her super hero doing loads of action scenes. The movie is brilliantly executed till the climax comes. The reason and explanation of who is Hancock and what relates him with Charlize Theron is just too fast for the audience. Director could have taken little more time in explaining all this by providing more meat and content. Especially when you know that its all about exploring the inner you and what are you made of. This thing is very tricky and how you handle it and explain all this to audience is a real challenge. The name-Hancock, is also bit strange and totally unwanted. I couldn't believe it when I heard this name for the first time! Why Hancock? try something more edgy with more substance loaded with some punch.

It's a sheer excitement watching Willie as a super hero and joining the league of Batman and Superman. You will always get appreciation on doing new things with lot of hard work and ideas put into your work. Same with Hancock. Audience have liked Hancock and his fan-following will grow day by day to give much needed hype for his second stint on 70mm silver screen. Just to add, Willie almost looks like Paresh Rawal (One of India's greatest character artists) in the poster where they are showing a close-up of Hancock's face wearing dark sun-glasses. Its like Babu Bhai of Hera-Pheri wearing shades instead of his typical glasses!! For those who do not know who is Babu Bhai, suggest you should watch a movie called 'Hera-Pheri' with subtitles.

In the end, here's a big round of applause on behalf of all Willie fans waiting arms wide open to give him one tight hug! Welcome on board Hancock.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed