Well, I went done gone and fell for Hancock - - Wow!

I hadn't read anything about it, I'd see the trailer twice in the theatre, I hadn't even planned on going to see it tonight, and yet there I was, sitting agape at the gem that is the movie Hancock...

What a great deconstruction of the superhero genre.

What a freakin' great story - - I was surprised from beginning to end.

What a great job by Will Smith and Charlize Theron - - Yeah, I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but damn! - - they did an awesome job of playing their roles in this kabuki-esque timeless tale...

This movie is something really special, and I doubt there'll be a better superhero movie this year or next - - it is resonant glory incarnate.

Superb.

38 out of 5.

Well, that was a bit lame. This film is so out-of-control in its short 80 minutes. It's sometimes funny and entertaining, sometimes awkwardly dramatic, and sometimes boring as hell. I did enjoy it as some decent (but nothing special) entertainment until the incredibly horrible plot twist. Then? I lost complete interest and couldn't wait until it ended (and thankfully, I didn't have to wait long). However, Will Smith and Jason Bateman are really, really good in this. As usual, Will Smith has a lot of charisma and keeps us entertained, and Jason Bateman topped him in this, I think. Charlize Theron looked good as usual, but wasn't really that good and her character's involvement in the plot killed it. I also enjoyed the action sequences so it's not a complete bust. But yeah, Will Smith's worst film (I liked Wild Wild West, sue me).

*½

You want to be mittens or a sweater Zing?

Sweet!



(I didn't have the heart myself, but am glad that someone dropped the hammer...)

I can't pass up on highbrow comedy like that.

Can I? That is a crime, I say.

wow

when zing doens't like an action film, theres definetely an issue

As they spent more time together they slowly became mortal. It cleared that up, didn't it?

Hancock aint an action movie.

This won't make people happy.

But I liked this more than Iron Man.

That makes me very happy. I wasn't really planning to check this out, but I might now.

Everything that you say about the weird plot issues involving Charlize Theron's character are true. I don't dispute them, but I also thought that the technical issues were minimized in a way because the main thrust of the story was so interesting.

Plus, Jason Batman going apeshit with the axe was excellent.

That's because they were supposed to become mortal slowly over time as they spent more time together, but for whatever reason Will Smith and Charlize Theron were becoming mortal a lot faster than any couple that had come before them.

Maybe it's because I went into the movie with very low expectations, but I liked the movie. I may be in the minority but I rather liked the whole hospital part. A little melodramatic yes, but I thought it was executed quite well. But heh what do I know. The second half is quite choppy as expected from all the cuts to get it down to PG-13, so I'm looking forward to a director's cut. Hopefully the 20 minutes or so that were cut from the movie ads more depth. Will Smith gave another solid performance. I really do think his acting gets overlooked sometimes because of how big a star he is. But the movie did make it quite clear that Peter Berg is not comfortable directing scenes with CGI. And I do wonder what the point was of using the handheld cameras for this movie. Berg certainly is no Greengrass when it comes to knowing how to use handheld cameras.

7.0/10 (B)

I thought this was slightly better than Iron Man, too. Granted, IM was pretty disappointing for me, but both are good movies with equally charismatic leads. However, Hancock was WAY less formulaic than IM (which doesn't say that IM was generic at all) and more ballsy, and for that, I enjoyed it a bit more. Now, if Hancock was getting the raves that IM got and vice versa, I'd probably have found Hancock to be disappointing and IM to be quite underrated.

I don't really understand the reviews for Hancock, to be quite honest. I feel the movie builds up to the Charlize thing pretty well. There was something going on with her from the moment she first appeared on the screen. Looking back, there are hints leading up to the moment where she tosses him.

The movie alternates between action, comedy and drama pretty effortlessly. Berg and the writers seem to realize that in good movies, nothing really separates those things and they can be found in any situation.

Because the whole point of this forum is to be able to discuss the movie, every part of the movie, from beginning to end including the parts that might be ruined for you.

These are not professional reviews under any obligation to give you a gist without revealing things. Its a forum to discuss the movie for people who have seen it.

I haven't see Hancock, I choose to read that thread, I am not upset shit was spoiled for me. I choose to read the thread.

If people can't not spoil shit in crowed reports threads, report them for being idiots.

BY your logic, why shouldn't we wait a whole week not just the weekend, or until the movie has opened in every country in the world. There are many metrics we could use for when spoilers are ok, so just the weekend may not sound like much to you but why should people cater to you and not the foreign posters who might have to wait a month or longer for certain films to open.

It clearly states this is a spoiler allowed forum, deal with it.

I knew something was up with Charlize (I actually guessed that she was another superhero early on), but I think the backstory and details behind her and Hancock's relationship was kind of silly. It made the movie go from being really great and funny to rather average for me. I didn't hate it or anything, but once the revelation occurred, my interest went way down.

Also, I hope the filmmakers didn't expect anyone to really be surprised there was more to Charlize's character than initially let on. I mean, you can't cast an A-list actress like Charlize and expect the audience to think she's playing a housewife with no real significance to the film.

Especially when she gets tight close-ups with incredibly significant glances from the second she appears on screen.

There may have been hints that there was something more going on but I can't imagine anyone foresaw her tossing him through the kitchen window during that scene.

A-list actresses have been cast in plain roles like Gwyneth Paltrow in IM or Maggie Gyllenhall in BB but you can't imagine them suddenly deciding to join in the fight with superhuman powers. Please. Why would Charlize be a superhero in Hancock? Her role could have ended up just being a female in distress type of roll, but a superhero just because of some tight close up shots of her eyes and face.

You had to have caught on to SOMETHING!

I mean, in IM, Paltrow is directly connected with Stark. In Batman, Gylenhaal is directly connected with Batman.

Now why would an A-list actress be in a superhero movie as a complete side character, not connected with Hancock at all?

That's just stupid viewership.

I didn't say that it was obvious she was a superhero. I said the casting of Charlize made it obvious that there was something more to the character.

Maybe Gwyneth's role in Iron Man was "plain," but it was more prominent than "just a simple housewife," which is of course what Charlize's role seemed like initially.

See that's when the film really caught me. The thing with Spider-Man/X-Men/etc. is the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" rigamarole. Charlize's character speaks to that too ("choice", etc.) but the thing that I initially thought of is that the reason why Hancock is so off of his path is that there's something in him that remembers what he is and is supposed to do or choices that he has previously made. Like muscle memory.

I also like the angle that while he's taking the current guise as superhero, he's actually something significantly more.


No, but that's true of almost every movie. In fact the only movie I can think of, where the mystery suspect is some random actors and not one of the cast-draws is Mystic River.

I must admit, this was a pretty shitty movie. I really wish they would have left this rated R. I'm in complete agreement with most other posters here. The beginning started out strong, but went into the gutter fast.

C-