Call me crazy, but I just don't think Will Smith is that great an actor. I mean, I like him in movies like this and Men in Black, but I don't like his dramatic roles and I think he's just trying to grub for Oscars. I hated him in the Pursuit of Happyness, I hated him in Seven Pounds, but I love him in this because this is exactly the type of movie he's good at. Hancock is a very good entertaining movie and Will Smith's second best movie (first being Men in Black). It was fairly well-acted, but it was more entertaining than it was richly compelling or dramatic.
Hancock has the benefit of a great first half, but the downfall of a lackluster second half. Seriously, pretty much everything after he leaves prison is utter crap. I personally don't find good heroes (outside superheroes) all that interesting, and Hancock was an anti-hero until he got good and turned into black superman. Hancock was flawed, but likeable. Hancock was an alcoholic with a foul mouth. However, all it took was for Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron to come in and screw him up.
Will Smith is good and all, but how's the supporting cast? The supporting cast is made up of two actors, Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron. Both of them are pretty good actors and they give good performances in the movie. Jason Bateman plays a good unlikeable asshole who speaks in a fair amount of monotone, and he's doing what he does best in this movie. Charlize Theron tried her best, even if her character was totally ridiculous and was part of a contrived plot twist in the middle. So the acting was pretty good, but it was not particularly memorable.
The movie is about John Hancock, a drunken foulmouthed superhero that causes more damage than he actually fixes, and is universally hated by all of LA. He saves Jason Bateman from a train and Jason takes on Hancock as his pet project and turns him into black superman (not meant to sound racist, but hey, it's true). The story pretty much spirals downhill from there though, twisting and turning in contrived ways. All in all, the first half is great, but when the second half starts it gets kind of ridiculous.
So I've bashed it so much you're probably wondering why I even gave it a moderately fresh rating. Well, the movie is fairly well-acted and its entertaining at best. It doesn't offer us much in terms of substance or drama, but it provides a decent amount of entertainment and humour to please mainstream audiences. Those critical types like me may find things they like or hate about it, but all in all it's a decent movie. I don't really have anything else to say so I'm going to wrap it up. Hancock was a film that was enjoyable at best, mediocre at worst. It had a promising premise that was unfortunately not used to its full potential and three talented (Will Smith in this type of movie) actors to carry it. It's not great, but it's far from horrible.
Call me crazy, but I just don't think Will Smith is that great an actor. I mean, I like him in movies like this and Men in Black, but I don't like his dramatic roles and I think he's just trying to grub for Oscars. I hated him in the Pursuit of Happyness, I hated him in Seven Pounds, but I love him in this because this is exactly the type of movie he's good at. Hancock is a very good entertaining movie and Will Smith's second best movie (first being Men in Black). It was fairly … more
The movie was a good watch and humorous in general. Will Smith was awesome as always, and the other actors were pretty great too. The plot actually felt flowed pretty well, and I really enjoyed the kick plot twist. The wholesome idea of the movie, but the coordination of scenes and progression of events was somewhat hard 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 horrible. It really was … more
I loved thhis movie and enjoyed it very much. It was very interesting, and kept me entertained 100% of the time. I liked ow it was about a bad-superhero, and it changed your view of a superhero. You dont really think of Hancock as a villian, he just doesnt save the world as someone would imagine. I like how very unexpectedly there happens to be another of his kind. And, that you find out that this "on-off" relationship between them is constant and has been going on for millions of years. … more
Hancock takes a daring approach to the Super Hero mythos. Where as most superheroes are actually quite heroic, doing what it takes to save those in danger and be all around good role models for kids... John Hancock throws all that out the window and instead opts for a surly, mean and careless superhero who has no charisma whatsoever. Did I mention he's played by The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? Yes, Will Smith plays the drunk, rude and quick to anger … more
Superman was raised by a kindly couple and taught the decent way to live and respect life. Thor is the God of thunder who was exiled from his home of eternal Asgard to live on Earth as a mortal so that he may learn humility. Spider-man required personal tragedy so he could realize the responsibility of having powers--Batman deals with his tragedy in a very different way, for him he does what he does for vengeance. All comic book "super-heroes" have their stories of the "why's", … more