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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

*** 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

Last summer a superhero film stormed the box offices both sides of the Atlantic. It was called Hancock, a film about an alcoholic superhero played by Will Smith. A bundle of laughs? NO

The film follows the path of a rude, disgusting, irritating superhero called John Hancock (Will Smith). The public hate him; he causes millions of "dollars" worth of damage, is a drunk and makes constantly obscene comments about people. But one day he happens to save the life of a PR Guru (Jason Bateman) and is offered a chance to save his image. This starts of his avid career as a superhero. Until a chance encounter causes the film to dive bomb into the realms of beyond crap.

It slots perfectly into the genre of comedy, action, superhero, adventure, romance, sci-fi, fantasy and crime. Though this great mixture of genres usually benefits films, with Hancock it just doesn't work. The film jumps between the various genres so quickly that you never have the actual time to register what's happening and whether the scene is meant to be sarcastic or sentimental. The style changes drastically too; between sad violin music and the latest chart hip-hop; between big set action pieces and amusing family dinners. This attempt at appealing to everybody fails miserably.

Personally I would recommend this film to people who have nothing better to do with their time then watch Will Smith throw cars around and make obscenely offensive comments about people. This is not a family film due to the crude remarks, excessive language and unnecessary violence; basically if you showed it to your grandma she would have a heart attack and spend the rest of her life in hospital only able to move the big toe of her left foot.

The acting in it is frankly amateur (or should I say appalling). None of the actors seam to like what they are doing- they don't even seam to be trying- they're just acting normally. The producers have obviously tried very hard to get people to hate Will Smith and it works- he is possibly the most unlikeable character in the whole film. British actor Eddie Marsan plays the "bad guy" Red, he is acceptable apart the slightly dodgy attempt at an American accent. Not Good. If I was being nice I would say that Will Smith shows quite a good performance as the disgusting superhero, then I look through his previous films and realise that all his characters are basically the same. Only for really die-hard fans.

The special effects are disappointing especially when he attempts to land on a pavement in front of some guys house. You feel as if you are watching a 1963 Batman film before they had discovered the wonders of CGI. In fact the CGI is so disappointing it's actually hilarious especially at the end, when you just really want somebody to die, but they just carry on throwing tea urns and hospital beds around while a giant CGI'd thunderstorm rages outside the window- not a good look.

In comparison to other films in the genre of Superhero/Comedy it looks terrible. Take Hellboy for instance; the tongue in cheek humour of Guillermo Del Toro combined with the great fantasy creatures in the style of Pans Labyrinth and sarcastic superhero, the film does a really great job. However next to Hellboy the film Hancock just looks more annoyingly, terribly, irritatingly amateur. If you're looking for a decent superhero film with laughs see Hellboy, if you're looking for a dark, chilling superhero film see The Dark Knight and if you're looking for a boring, arrogant, overdone superhero film see Hancock.

Overall this film is possibly the worst superhero film of the summer. Only see it if you have to.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This movie was awful!

The performance of Will Smith and the rest of the cats were beyond bad.

But that wasn't the worst thing about this stupid and worthless movie, the worst thing about this stupid and ugly mess, it's that the plot is so boring, stupid and irritating, that I couldn't watch the whole thing. Also it was poorly filmed. The visuals were ugly and unoriginal.

This movie was simply unwatchable...It is easily the worst superhero movie ever made. If you want to see one good superhero movie, see "Watchmen" or "The Dark Knight" which are much better this pathetic movie.

"Hancock" it's a complete waste of time, and it is one of the worst movies ever made.

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.

Well now I think someone should stop giving money that let's Will Smith make any movie he damn pleases.

It was OK for Bad Boys, that ain't so bad action flick, Independence day we survived somehow but with consequences worse than alien in a movie put up with.

But this?! What in the name is this all about?! Why did anyone gave money for this to be made? It is supposed to bring sort of fresh look at superhero movies. Maybe on a paper it all makes sense but choosing Will as main actor, that is where things went wrong. Heck Will acts same in every movie. That separates good actors from bad ones in a first place. If you wish to explore new concept in a movie you have to bring in actor that can carry that concept damn excellent, otherwise it will just ruin it like in this movie.

To be fair Will is not only thing wrong here. Jason Bateman is also so irritating beyond description.

Only thing fairly good are CGI effects.

Rest is utter crap.

I felt he was an emotionless character again like the movie with the undead people. I was unimpressed with his performance in this film. the sudden plot twist was just not believable. I give this film a 3 and a ##Boring## !! on the fun meter. Come on Will Smith! You can do better.

Will smith needs to focus on making films that do not put the watcher or the audience to sleep. I did not like this film. I thought they really hyped it up as an amazing idea and film.. and it fell short and fizzled out. I enjoyed I robot. An inventive awesome idea and plot but this film fell flat and was a major let down and disappointment to me. I expected more from a man such as this that has such a good following and billing. Maybe next time he will come up with a better plot for us.

• 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?

...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?

OK, I must admit I'm not a fan of the Super Hero movie type. Generally I don't use to watch it and I don't use to appreciate it, but even so I can distinct when it is a good Super Hero movie, or a bad one, full of clichés and "Hollywood garbage"! That said, I just can tell you my opinion about this movie: it sucks! But it sucks so badly! Aside from some nice jokes and some cool special effects, this movie has nothing interesting to offer! The plot is pathetic and gets even worse when it starts being melodramatic. The characters are laughable and absurd, even for a Super Hero movie, and if it's true that a Super Hero film can be entertaining, at least for the action or the jokes, this one completely spoils these two positive features with a completely absurd and melodramatic plot! And that ending, Oh my God, that was definitely too bad! To sum up: Bad job… asshole (I can call you that how many times I want!)…

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!!!"

I had a high expectation for the movie after seeing the trailers. With the premise of a drunken superhero who found much difficulty trying to fit in a society that hated him, which was mainly due to the damages he had caused during his "grateful" assistance.

Sadly, the movie failed to live up to the expectation. It did started off well, with it's portrayal of a troubled alcoholic superhero which was pretty interesting and funny at times. The cast, Will Smit and Jason Bateman, did an excellent job for their performance as i pretty much enjoyed it. However, as the film continues, the substance somehow gets a little too repetitive.

**** Spoiler Alert******

However, the film main weakness was the sudden twist during the second act. It was totally unbelievable and felt rather rushed. It was from this points onwards, that the film starts to deviate from its original idea. There was not much explanation for the twist and it felt that the audience should just believe what the film had stated. Worst still was the ending, where it was kind of stupid. The action sequence were not the standard we expect from a superhero movie. It was not stylish enough like Spiderman or Iron Man and were rather short and very quickly paced. The camera shots were rather weird too, it was too quick, shaky and overall pretty hard to view.

I won't say that this film was not totally awful, as it did have some pretty good moment such as the jail scene and the change in the character of Hancock from a bad-attitude, alcoholic superhero whom everybody hates to much better attitude superhero, whom everyone likes. Jason Bateman did an excellent job as a PR executive trying to improve Hancock image.

But the movie was not very good as well. Its a US$150 million dollars production and what we get was simply a mediocre movie experience. It did had an excellent formula but it was poorly executed and failed to deliver the substance it promised.

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.