User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 419 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 65 out of 419
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MichaelH.
    Jul 6, 2008
    5
    As a satire and comedy it is hilarious, as an action movie - the special effects were awesome, but the story was pretty damn weak after the first half of the film. I can see why it got somewhat poor reviews - it's worth seeing purely for the comedy though.
  2. Jun 19, 2013
    4
    presents an interesting premise, but is disappointingly messy in its delivery. The film simply tries to be too much at once. The first half has a huge focus on humour, and while somewhat entertaining, the jokes are cheap and crude. In the second half abruptly turns into a painfully lame melodrama. I felt the romance element between Charlize Theron and Will Smiths' characters was totally presents an interesting premise, but is disappointingly messy in its delivery. The film simply tries to be too much at once. The first half has a huge focus on humour, and while somewhat entertaining, the jokes are cheap and crude. In the second half abruptly turns into a painfully lame melodrama. I felt the romance element between Charlize Theron and Will Smiths' characters was totally unnecessary. Jason Bateman steals the show and is one of the few redeeming factors in this mess of a film. Let's hope that the upcoming sequel has a better idea of what it wants to be and gets the formula right this time. Expand
  3. Sep 24, 2011
    5
    "Hancock" has a great super start with a interesting premise. However as the movie progresses, you soon know the movie's worthless.
  4. KidA
    Jul 15, 2008
    6
    Smith's self affliction gets old pretty soon. as does the plot, mired in its own indecisiveness. was this really the spawn of the watchmen chronicles? its either a weak morally charged story that forces introspection, or its one of those weak summer action pseudo cutesy comedy with a vintage penchant for tepid plot structure. pick one and you may be marginally satisfied. trying to Smith's self affliction gets old pretty soon. as does the plot, mired in its own indecisiveness. was this really the spawn of the watchmen chronicles? its either a weak morally charged story that forces introspection, or its one of those weak summer action pseudo cutesy comedy with a vintage penchant for tepid plot structure. pick one and you may be marginally satisfied. trying to squeeze both in doesn't fit and makes for a luridly awkward story. Expand
  5. JoeR
    Jul 6, 2008
    6
    What the hell was Peter Berg thinking? The first 50-55 minutes of this film was brilliance. Pure brilliance. Not soon after, Berg lost his mind. It's as if they brought in M. Knight Shyamalan to write and direct the final half hour of the film. The first hour was memorizing. The script was extremely amusing and tight. The last half hour was a piece of cow dung. As a movie that had What the hell was Peter Berg thinking? The first 50-55 minutes of this film was brilliance. Pure brilliance. Not soon after, Berg lost his mind. It's as if they brought in M. Knight Shyamalan to write and direct the final half hour of the film. The first hour was memorizing. The script was extremely amusing and tight. The last half hour was a piece of cow dung. As a movie that had forest fire potential, it faded to nothing more than an also ran. Expand
  6. ShawnD.
    Jul 6, 2008
    5
    David Denby compares the chemist of Smith and Theron to Bogart and Bacall...Is he on crack? The abrupt plot shift is a wtf moment that did not ring true, almost like it was two plots combined in one movie...multiple writers? Iron Man and Hulk are much better.
  7. EddieB.
    Jul 6, 2008
    6
    I didn't care much for Hancock. Here's a guy with abilities normal people can only dream about and he spends 80 years moping around and acting like a jerk. It's not fully explained why he acted like a jerk for so long or how he acquired his super powers in the first place, but no matter. Things get destroyed, and it's fun to watch. We even get several chuckles along I didn't care much for Hancock. Here's a guy with abilities normal people can only dream about and he spends 80 years moping around and acting like a jerk. It's not fully explained why he acted like a jerk for so long or how he acquired his super powers in the first place, but no matter. Things get destroyed, and it's fun to watch. We even get several chuckles along the way courtesy of Hancock and his PR specialist (Bateman). Late in the story, we finally learn of the interesting history between Smith and Theron's respective characters--a dynamic which should have been explored and explained a bit more. Instead, we're taken straight to a final underwhelming showdown (one where Smith makes his super-emotional, pursed lipped Oscar face) and a somewhat predictable resolution. In other words, Hancock moves too quickly from climax to conclusion. (That's what she said. Ha. Ha.) It was good for me, though. Expand
  8. JustinB.
    Jul 7, 2008
    4
    First 1/2 is pretty good, (otherwise this movie would get a 2). The twist has to rank as one of the most pointless and unnecessary in all of history. Second half is one of the sappiest, poorly written, focus group tested films in recent memory. Blech.
  9. TravisS.
    Jul 8, 2008
    5
    Over all this movie was ok. The flying could have been done a lot better every time will smith jumped off something is looked like he is 100% CG.
  10. MarkB.
    Aug 1, 2008
    6
    Don't get me wrong. as Debbie (Leslie Mann) in Knocked Up plaintively put it, "I LIKE Spider-Man"...and Iron Man, and Hellboy...given that every third summer action movie of the last few years seems to have been a superhero flick, what choice do I have? But as enjoyable as many of the big screen Big Two adaptations (DC and Marvel) have been, I mostly prefer my zap-pow-crunches to be Don't get me wrong. as Debbie (Leslie Mann) in Knocked Up plaintively put it, "I LIKE Spider-Man"...and Iron Man, and Hellboy...given that every third summer action movie of the last few years seems to have been a superhero flick, what choice do I have? But as enjoyable as many of the big screen Big Two adaptations (DC and Marvel) have been, I mostly prefer my zap-pow-crunches to be delivered from outside the box, because lesser-known adaptations and original screen creations can devise their own mythologies and ask questions that fanboy pressure can bar the established brand names from doing. I loved Pixar's The Incredibles, which examined the life of a superhero family whose powers were not only unappreciated but outlawed, M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable, which demonstrated how painful the life of a man who doesn't experience serious injuries can be, and the vastly underrated Dark Horse adaptation Mystery Men, an often hysterically funny and surprisingly rather sweet treat dealing with folks who have no superpowers whatsoever but conduct themselves as though they do. And I WANTED to love Hancock, but here's an example of a movie that would actually have done well to have been a bit LESS ambitious. The title character (Will Smith) is a drunken, self-loathing misanthrope who raises curmudgeonliness to the level of near-psychosis, and whose superhuman acts are roughly equivalent to a Boy Scout who not only drags a little old lady across the street who doesn't want to go, but gets her hit by a car in the process. Clearly a public relations makeover is in order, and the nicest PR man in film history (Jason Bateman) is up to the task. We know most of this from the trailers, and it's mostly amusing; had Hancock stuck to this simple but sturdy premise, we all would have fared the better for it. Unfortunately, there is the matter of the much-whispered-about Big Twist, which is not only notably jarring but seems like a cheat because the moviemakers provide too few script clues ahead of time to let the moviegoers have the joy of doing the math. (I sort of halfway figured it out in advance, but only by realizing that one big-name cast member was suspiciously not being given enough to do, looking at my watch, and saying to myself, "I'll bet THAT changes soon!") Moreover, the shakeup leads to a series of climactic, big-scale action set pieces that director Peter Berg (The Kingdom; the agony-of-defeat anti-sports flick Friday Night Lights) is incapable of staging or shooting. Robert Wilonsky accurately described Berg's directing style as angry; his first behind-the-camera effort was his best by far--1998's uncompromising, bracingly offensive and very, very funny Very Bad Things, but Berg's problem is that he films every subsequent movie he's made the exact same way, whether the material calls for it or not. What Hancock DOES prove, however, is Will Smith's unassailable charisma even when playing a totally unlikable character; small wonder he's known as The Man Who Owns July 4th. Smith is great at taking mass audiences to places that maybe they'd rather not go without him; he made 2006's punishing and depressing The Pursuit of Happyness that Christmas season's second biggest hit. As unsatisfying as Hancock's third act is, Smith still deserves credit for roping in $200 million for a movie that by all rights should've had shorter legs than the director of Iron Man ended up with at the end of Very Bad Things. Hey, did I mention that that one is STILL Peter Berg's best movie? Expand
  11. BartM.
    Jul 10, 2008
    4
    Started out as an enjoyable action-comedy, then completely falls apart at the plot twist, becoming dismal and plodding. The jerky hand-held camera work grows old quickly, and is a gimmicky contrived annoyance, making some shots annoying to simply watch. One of the worst endings ever.
  12. ElaineJ.
    Jul 25, 2008
    5
    I am a Will Smith Fan and the first half of the movie was fun. But the rest of the movie makes no sense and makes the whole film a bummer.
  13. JudyT
    Jul 3, 2008
    5
    Hancock suffers from really bad writing. What a ridiculous and unnecessary relationship and back story for a superhero. Couldn't they think of anything better than that.
  14. EvanR.
    Jul 3, 2008
    4
    after "I Am Legend", I was all set for another Smith blockbuster, but this was a huge disappointment. it was so bad...they totally threw the plot out the window for no reason and the dialogue was so, so hokey. it's like they stopped filming the original movie and started on the sequel, ultimately finishing neither. there's more; I could go on and on, but why bother? just after "I Am Legend", I was all set for another Smith blockbuster, but this was a huge disappointment. it was so bad...they totally threw the plot out the window for no reason and the dialogue was so, so hokey. it's like they stopped filming the original movie and started on the sequel, ultimately finishing neither. there's more; I could go on and on, but why bother? just DON'T SEE IT, no matter how cool the previews make it look Expand
  15. JosephA
    Jul 3, 2008
    5
    Not very good. Disjointed and confused. Doesn't really seem to know what the hell it wants to be.
  16. JohnD
    Jul 5, 2008
    4
    For how much hype this movie had and from the great previews I was actually pretty excited to see this movie especially since I love Will Smith. To find out it was barely an average movie was disappointing. Sometimes you see previews and worry that all they did was just show you the total number of good scenes in a movie and with Hancock pretty much all of the interesting scenes For how much hype this movie had and from the great previews I was actually pretty excited to see this movie especially since I love Will Smith. To find out it was barely an average movie was disappointing. Sometimes you see previews and worry that all they did was just show you the total number of good scenes in a movie and with Hancock pretty much all of the interesting scenes 'were' shown in the preview. Not a good summer movie. A good rent. Maybe. Expand
  17. RobertT.
    Jul 5, 2008
    6
    Started off well. The first third or so had a gritty feel that I liked, and (in my opinion) is something that more superheroes need. Then the whole plot twist involving Charlize Theron halfway through killed that for me. It's a good idea to start with, but in the end, turns Hancock as a character seems like just another spandex-wearing-invincible-super-strong-Superman-type character Started off well. The first third or so had a gritty feel that I liked, and (in my opinion) is something that more superheroes need. Then the whole plot twist involving Charlize Theron halfway through killed that for me. It's a good idea to start with, but in the end, turns Hancock as a character seems like just another spandex-wearing-invincible-super-strong-Superman-type character come to save the day. Expand
  18. JamesB
    Jul 7, 2008
    6
    Would have been much better if the jiggling camera had stopped long enough to see what was on the screen. Horribly directed. The worst directing I've seen in years. Jiggling for no purpose is not "artistic"...just annoying. Berg should stick with acting. If you go--sit as far away from the screen as possible.
  19. ShammySham
    Jul 7, 2008
    6
    It was good enough to sit through. Started off crappy but got a lil better nearing the middle to end, but it still wasn't saying much. It was ok, I think the story was left untold, also the title didn't hold much of a candle to what the movie was about.
  20. SteveT.
    Jul 7, 2008
    6
    Hancock was alright. My wife liked it more than I did. The plot was weak, but it was a fun movie. There was one thing that really bothered me.. The only swearword people seem to know to insult Hankcock is A-whole..that is it..they say it like 50 times in the movie. Other than that I'd say Hancock is good popcorn flick..see if you are bored.
  21. DavidR.
    Jul 7, 2008
    4
    An unsatisfying action flick that lacks the intensity and humor of other "super hero" films that have been released this year. Will Smith does the best he can with this film's poor script, but even with his amazing starpower he can't save this film from mediocrity. This film just doesn't work on any level which is a big disappointment. Throughout this film I kept telling An unsatisfying action flick that lacks the intensity and humor of other "super hero" films that have been released this year. Will Smith does the best he can with this film's poor script, but even with his amazing starpower he can't save this film from mediocrity. This film just doesn't work on any level which is a big disappointment. Throughout this film I kept telling myself, "Okay, this is when it's going to start to be good...". Please do yourself a favor and save yourself some gas money, and wait until you can rent this film: it's just not worth the price of admittance. Expand
  22. DavidM.
    Jul 9, 2008
    4
    I really, Really, Really wanted to like this movie, but for the first time EVER, i was bored at the cinema and i wanted to leave. Not to say to you not see the movie... just not in cinema!!! just rent the DVD.
  23. LaurenS
    Jan 20, 2009
    5
    I tried to give the movie a chance; like i do with all movies if it lacks humor, or even just a back bone to the story. Hancock failed on that account and it also had no structure to the CGI, or even the plot in particular. Movies usually have their own structure, and their own meaning but seriously, the only thing i can say is Hancock is an average movie. I have absolutely no feelings I tried to give the movie a chance; like i do with all movies if it lacks humor, or even just a back bone to the story. Hancock failed on that account and it also had no structure to the CGI, or even the plot in particular. Movies usually have their own structure, and their own meaning but seriously, the only thing i can say is Hancock is an average movie. I have absolutely no feelings for it. It's one of the "seen films" it's not good or bad. It's just there sitting on the DVD shelf. Positives: If it truly is bad, i'm glad i had no interest in it at all, it's it good, it's bad because you don't know if you like it or not. Average movie, not horrible but not even memorable. Expand
  24. ChanceR.
    Jul 1, 2008
    6
    CT is beautiful and Bateman is funny. Smith makes too many faces. The kid actor is charming. Would be a better tv series.
  25. JessE.
    Jul 2, 2008
    4
    Truly Disappointing film. Everything misfires. The only thing thing good in the film is Jason Bateman's performance otherwise chalk this up as a misfire that will probably do $200m plus. 4 outof 10.
  26. DylanA.
    Jul 22, 2008
    6
    The movie was satisfying and funny in general. Will Smith was sweet, and the other actors were pretty cool too. The plot actually felt flowed pretty well, and I really enjoyed the kick plot twist. The whole idea of the movie was awesome, but the coordination of scenes and progression of events was somewhat difficult to follow. Also, the plot about the guys trying to kill hancock was The movie was satisfying and funny in general. Will Smith was sweet, and the other actors were pretty cool too. The plot actually felt flowed pretty well, and I really enjoyed the kick plot twist. The whole idea of the movie was awesome, but the coordination of scenes and progression of events was somewhat difficult to follow. Also, the plot about the guys trying to kill hancock was undercut way to much for its significance in the final scene. The camerawork was the worst. It really was terrible, and detracted a ton from what could have been a great movie. The camera seemed to always be at least half zoomed in, giving everything an unrealistic and undramatic visual distortion. This also enhanced the shakiness of all the handheld scenes, which got me sighing with relief whenever a tripod was briefly put into use. The overall feeling was drunken, which is not fun at all, and several COMPLETELY unnecessary camera zooms were like shouts of "you're watching a movie! it's not real!". A good chunk of the money that went to the special effects should have gone to getting a half-decent cinematographer, because the camerawork flat out sucked. If it hadn't, I think hancock could have been much better. Expand
  27. Meh
    Jul 4, 2008
    5
    Pros: First half was great. Slightly funny. Great soundtrack. Cons: Second half was disastrous. Blatant product placement. Backstory needs further explanation. Overall: It's just a very plain movie that had the potential of being a lot better.
  28. RickW.
    Jul 4, 2008
    6
    The Good...1st hour is creative, funny, and with excellent special effects. The Bad...the Second hour is weird, disjointed, dark, and ultimalely boring. The whole thing would have been much better without the incessant crude language.
  29. JamesP.
    Jul 9, 2008
    4
    It starts out well with a promising character that will crush the stereotypical superhero, but towards the end the plot seems half-baked and cheesy. Basically there is a character twist that is completely unnecessary and the movie goes downhill from there. It literally is like watching a player miss a free throw because you see the flaw and feel disappointed from there on.
  30. BrianH.
    Aug 17, 2008
    4
    This movie was good up until a point. The secret "twist" everyone is talking about singly ruined the film. After the twist the plot became convoluted and messy. You should never get the feeling while watching a movie that the people who made the film just started to make things up half-way through. This could have been a far better movie, but wasn't.
  31. Johnh
    Jan 19, 2009
    6
    So-so. This movie is pretty weak. I watched this and Iron man over the weekend. I would say that this movie is one you can skip.
  32. GerrickC.
    Nov 25, 2008
    4
    A pointless plot coupled with a pointless theme makes this movie-- everyone say it at once, "Pointless."
  33. NickP.
    Nov 26, 2008
    5
    The first time I saw the trailers for this movie I was intrigued and the first half or 2/3rds of the movie met my expectations. But then "The Twist" as it has been termed was thrown at the audience. It was a rushed concept that requires 30 minutes to properly introduce, but instead it spans the length of 30 seconds. It seemed too contrived and it became a distraction of disbelief for the The first time I saw the trailers for this movie I was intrigued and the first half or 2/3rds of the movie met my expectations. But then "The Twist" as it has been termed was thrown at the audience. It was a rushed concept that requires 30 minutes to properly introduce, but instead it spans the length of 30 seconds. It seemed too contrived and it became a distraction of disbelief for the remainder of the movie. Looking back on it afterward if done properly it might have been an okay twist, but there are too many holes in the story as is and really the movie would have been better served keeping it simpler. All that said the movie was still intriguing to watch for what it was. Not bad. Not good. Just an average movie. Expand
  34. PaulL.
    Jul 15, 2008
    5
    This story doesn't make any sense at all. [***SPOILER***] I mean Charlize Theron character and will smith both have superpowers. But she never associated with crime. They just battle a group of lazy powerless hoodlums.
  35. hollyc
    Jul 17, 2008
    5
    As I think it was Roper who said, 'I'd really like to read the original Hancock script, thrown out in favor of what ended up on screen" seriously--you can tell there was a great concept at first and then something else happened? Like a whole 'nother angle (or three) was tacked on and you end up with this frustrating, inconsistent mess in the end. It really stinks of just As I think it was Roper who said, 'I'd really like to read the original Hancock script, thrown out in favor of what ended up on screen" seriously--you can tell there was a great concept at first and then something else happened? Like a whole 'nother angle (or three) was tacked on and you end up with this frustrating, inconsistent mess in the end. It really stinks of just way too many cooks in the kitchen. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd wait for it on DVD--especially with the caliber of other superhero flicks out there (Dark Knight, Iron Man, even Hellboy is better). Expand
  36. JayH.
    Nov 25, 2008
    6
    Very uneasy mixture of comedy, drama and fantasy. They shouldn't have complicated it so much and kept it simple. The performances are fine, the special effects are terrific. Good score. It just doesn't always work.
  37. May 11, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a strange movie, as the first half is easily a brilliantly funny superhero movie, but the second half ruins that with some tacked on plot twist. So, i'll begin by reviewing the film in two halves. First Half: John **** (Will Smith) is an alcoholic superhero who is hated by the public but doesnt give a damn. Then he saves Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) who decides to try and help **** change his image and become a better superhero. Smith plays this role very well, perfectly portraying the anti-hero, a superhero who trys and does good but ends up making things worse, like tossing a whale back in the water only to crush some boats. This character is hilariously brilliant because **** does things that a normal Superhero wouldn't, shoving an inmates head up another inmates ass and throwing a kid high in the air for calling him an **** Its these kind of things that make **** a fresh air from the clean cut superheroes. To make the public realise how much **** is needed, he gets put in prison, which is quite really ****s choice to be there, as he could fly himself out of there at anytime he chooses. With this hero, we know that he will end up rehabilitated and a better superhero. The best parts of the film is when ****s himself is far from clean cut and the unrehabilitated mess that we expected. When he's rehabilitated, he's still quite a cool character, but it feels like a little something has been lost. Second Half: Ray's wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), turns out to also possess similar powers to ****, then turning out to be ****s wife from before, as they have lived together for about 3000 years. This plot twist seems to come out of nowhere, just like the writers had drawn up the first half and then gone "we still have to fill the rest of the film", come up with a random plot twist and then taken the film from there. Then there's some guff about two "immortals" (as **** and Mary are known) being too close together, their powers negate each other? What? So how did they survive 3000 years together if they could barely survive 92 minutes together? Also, how did **** lose his memory? Attacked in an alley. Also, a random villian that **** foiled before comes back for REVENGE! **** cant beat him, so Jason Bateman saves the day! **** also has to jump away in order for him and Mary to get their powers back, and reloactes to New York. All in all, this film was fine for the first half, then devolved into a convulted mess, meshing random ideas to try and make the film "cooler". The first half could've been a movie of its own. It could've been made longer, more of **** drunk and have hints to Mary and ****s past and save the mythoology for the sequel. Also, plot hole: If the kid is Marys, what does it mean, an immortal having a son? Is the son gonna get powers, will he get immortality and stay a kid for at least a while? Untouched upon. The first half I give 60% and the second half I give 20%, so all together, I give the film 40% Expand
  38. Jan 14, 2014
    5
    Hancock has some fun to it; who doesn't like a grumpy superhero who hurtles rude kids into the sky? But both the lack of an interesting villain and general identity restrain the film from being anything else than mildly entertaining.
  39. Aug 27, 2011
    4
    This film is a misfire. It begins with a great spin on the concept of a superhero, and ends with a half-baked idea for a lame sequel, that they idiotically decided to patch into a killer film.
  40. May 11, 2013
    6
    Time and time again its saddening to see a film start of with such promise and flare, but then it begins to unravel, gradually crumbling under its own mistakes and attempts to bring a story too far than it is capable of stretching, fits all of the above.
    Will Smith finally takes on a superhero in the form of John a being from another world who doesn't quite fit into the place he's
    Time and time again its saddening to see a film start of with such promise and flare, but then it begins to unravel, gradually crumbling under its own mistakes and attempts to bring a story too far than it is capable of stretching, fits all of the above.
    Will Smith finally takes on a superhero in the form of John a being from another world who doesn't quite fit into the place he's living in now, Los Angeles. Sure he might help the police when trying to stop the bad guys, but he he has a particular knack for destroying everything in his path, and just doesn't care what the world thinks of his alcoholic and care-free attitude.
    When he saves Ray (Jason Bateman) from a train track fiasco, he unwillingly agrees to let PR man Ray to give him a new image so that people will like the infamous superhero once again, and realise how much they miss him. So when agrees to prison time until the city need his superpowers once more, he contemplates different ways of life, something which he feels whenever he is around Ray's wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), a woman is not quite certain of, in terms of her personality and tension with himself.
    Its after these events that the film starts to lose its way, it almost becomes an unwanted thriller, the comedy is gone and the fun of the plot was lost around the half hour mark. The characters can be interesting, sure, but the movie very much promotes a backstory and I think the writing took a hit on the other development of the characters when the film became a simple tit for tat.
    Will Smith, however, proves that he can personify any role that he takes, personality, wits and humour are all present, but its certainly not what we would typically see in a Will Smith film, while Jason Bateman is unfortunately quite underused throughout the film, while Charlize Theron has a bigger role as the film unfolds, but again the weak plot does these characters no justice.
    While the film does offer a more realistic approach to a lone superhero, it doesn't last very long, more time should have been spent giving freedom in the film, and maybe some points of the story could have been better utilised in a sequel.
    Certainly not a bad film, but one which had all the makings of a memorable superhero comedy, but unfortunately becomes a victim of its own undoing.
    Expand
  41. Aug 8, 2012
    6
    I enjoyed the movie, there are some memorable moments, such as when **** throws the kid into the air, that was hilarious! Overall though it didn't leave me very satisfied in the end, despite being so unique, I didn't leave the cinema with a great feeling.
  42. Jun 10, 2014
    5
    Hancock starts off really promising, Will Smith is great as the drunken anti-hero and a fun plot is set into motion with Jason Bateman's character helping him improve his image. The first half of the movie is thoroughly entertaining, but half way through it all falls apart. There's a twist that is completely unnecessary thrown in and the movie starts going nowhere.

    It is clear that the
    Hancock starts off really promising, Will Smith is great as the drunken anti-hero and a fun plot is set into motion with Jason Bateman's character helping him improve his image. The first half of the movie is thoroughly entertaining, but half way through it all falls apart. There's a twist that is completely unnecessary thrown in and the movie starts going nowhere.

    It is clear that the script for this movie was re-written several times as there is no running plot and instead it feels like 3 different ones mixed into a mess of a movie.

    Not a terrible movie, but not one that I would watch again.
    Expand
  43. Aug 5, 2013
    5
    As usual, Will Smith is game and does a fine job as the hero, but the film is ultimately too derivative and lacks the heart that a superhero film needs to be successful.
  44. Oct 13, 2013
    5
    Smith delivers no new goods to the picture, and is a jumbled mess of booze, bad acting, and shaky cinematography. Also, the script and interactions between characters feels forced and unnatural.
  45. Nov 13, 2013
    6
    is an unlikely hero.
    A movie with an extremely unlikeable character, and a very unexplained premise; miraculously succeeds with combination of comic relief and good action.
  46. Jun 10, 2015
    6
    I watched this film as a random pick and I have to say i was pleasantly surprised... for at least the first half of the film. Will Smith is very entertaining as John Hancock and watching his character not give a fork is great. His path of redemption ends up in his antics not being as fun but you can see why they would have to have him become a 'better person'. The second half of the filmI watched this film as a random pick and I have to say i was pleasantly surprised... for at least the first half of the film. Will Smith is very entertaining as John Hancock and watching his character not give a fork is great. His path of redemption ends up in his antics not being as fun but you can see why they would have to have him become a 'better person'. The second half of the film becomes a bit more boring and not as exciting, however the introduction into that portion of the film was a nice twist and was comically quite entertaining. The action film suffers from a common fault many others like it have; they start off having fun with the writing but then tone it down and make the film become a little more serious and emotional to try add some sort of pathos and conclusion to the film. Still, if you're in your house and your mates come over and want to watch a film just stick it on, it's highly enjoyable. Expand
  47. Apr 23, 2015
    5
    It’s ironic that Hancock involves a public-relations campaign to modify the seedy truth about a down-and-out in order to sell a streamlined fable about a high-flying hero, since the movie has been seriously misrepresented by its advance publicity. The trailers, poster and ad images pull out snide gags (the whale-tossing, a remark about Hancock’s tight leather suit) and give the impressionIt’s ironic that Hancock involves a public-relations campaign to modify the seedy truth about a down-and-out in order to sell a streamlined fable about a high-flying hero, since the movie has been seriously misrepresented by its advance publicity. The trailers, poster and ad images pull out snide gags (the whale-tossing, a remark about Hancock’s tight leather suit) and give the impression that Will Smith is following a recent run of fairly serious efforts with one of the lightweight, crowd-pleasing action comedies which made his name. As Smith’s drunken-idiot superhero blunders through the apprehension of a carload of speeding crooks, this feels like a (better) male-slob answer to My Super Ex-Girlfriend, and one vaguely expects Martin Lawrence to show up as Jimmy Olsen.

    At some point in its lengthy development, Hancock was probably exactly that movie. A preview version was reportedly more knockabout, on the lines of Superhero Movie - including something in an earlier draft which addressed that age-old question of whether Lois (and the bedroom ceiling) would be in danger if Clark super-ejaculated inside her. The film also bears traces of a few more serious drafts, probably modelled on Unbreakable, and someone came in to serve the Bad Boys contingency, sprinkling crude laugh-lines throughout Smith’s dialogue - which at least raises a snicker when Hancock eyes a comic hero who isn’t quite the Mighty Thor (at least, so the lawyers would emphasise) and writes him off as “Norwegian homo”.

    The film runs through its original story by the halfway point, when Hancock voluntarily goes to prison, knowing the city will need to release him the next time there’s a crisis. Then, Eddie Marsan is perfunctorily introduced as a low-rent Luthor and a major plot development derails the comedy and the interesting relationship between Hancock and Ray to foreground a surprisingly downbeat third act. Hancock’s backstory (he’s an amnesiac who woke up in hospital 80 years ago with two tickets to see Frankenstein in his pocket, and has taken his name from the American slang for signature) is promising, but opens the story in ways the film doesn’t follow through: if the authorities give the Hulk such a bad time and want to wipe out the X-mutants, why are no government spooks trying to get Hancock’s invulnerability secrets or recruiting him to take out Iran’s nuclear labs? During a rainswept, bloody final stand in a hospital, the film becomes indistinguishable from any other super-vigilante picture.

    See-saws between straight superhero movie and parody, with layers of soap-opera fudge in between. A lot of solid scenes - but Hancock lacks the power of super-coherence.
    Expand
Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 37
  2. Negative: 7 out of 37
  1. Reviewed by: Stephen Farber
    60
    The visual effects are stellar, but the true star is Smith, who again demonstrates acting chops as well as effortless charisma in a vehicle that's only occasionally worthy of his superhuman skills.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    30
    The effects are snazzy, even if they pass by quite quickly, and there's enough going on to keep audiences watching, if not entirely happy. Smith, Theron and Bateman capably handle the main roles, but such is the skimpiness of the scenario that no further characters make any impact.
  3. 90
    Hancock suggests new visual directions and emotional tonalities for pop. It's by far the most enjoyable big movie of the summer.