A Review of Peter Berg’s Hancock — SPOILERS

Hancock (2008) Movie, Movie SPOILERS — By Nix on March 18, 2008 |

Tonight he comes, and it sucks donkey balls? That seems to be the opinion of a fellow in Texas (Plano, Texas, to be exact), who got sent an invitation to see the first-ever screening of “Hancock” (aka the only superhero movie this summer that isn’t based on a comic book), which is directed by Peter Berg (who was on hand at the screening) and stars Will Smith and Charlize Theron. AICN has got your scoop on the first-ever review for the film’s first-ever screening, and the word is … great first half, not so much second? Beware: There are MAJOR SPOILERS below.

More:

Here is a summary of what I’m about to say in this review for those wanting to avoid spoilers:

Hancock is a severely uneven film. The first half is an amazing action comedy with some big laughs, great set pieces, and slick production value (even in its current state of incompletion), but by the second half the damn thing falls apart. They get dramatic on you. They get teary eyed on you. And the whole thing feels like a throw away episode of Friday Night Lights. The storyline is a fucking mess to be honest…I hesitate to even call it that. The tone is inconsistent and it drags like you wouldn’t believe from the middle on out.

He goes on with the SPOILERS in great detail that you can read over at AICN. Or, to sum it up, here are the bulletpoints below:

- Will Smith is a god created thousands of years ago, but doesn’t remember because he has amnesia.

- He is fighting crime in L.A. and living in a trailer. He’s a drunk, and does more damage than he helps when he’s fighting said crime.

- One day Hancock saves Jason Bateman’s marketing agent character. The agent repays him by fixing his image — by having Hancock turn himself into the cops for having sex with a minor (!!!). When he comes out of prison, he’s reformed and beloved by the public again.

- The agent happens to be married to Charlize Theron, who, as it turns out, is also a superhero. In fact, she is Hancock’s wife, and the two of them were created as pairs a long time ago, along with many others. Except they’re the only ones still alive. (Until the sequel, probably.)

- As it turns out, whenever Theron and Hancock are close together, they lose their powers and become human.

- Bateman becomes evil upon learning about his wife and Hancock’s past.

- For the finale, escape prisoners and machine guns become involved.

Okay, that last part is pretty weird. No evil supervillains? But then again, these advance screening reviews generally are devoid of too much details, although to be sure, the reviewer really seemed baffled by a lot of what happens in the movie, as if the script skimp on the explanations.

In any case, I still have high hopes for this, if only because Peter Berg has never failed me before.

A Review of Peter Berg’s Hancock — SPOILERS

    70 Comments

  • Bronx347 says:

    I just saw it; I don’t see how Bateman becomes “evil,” he’s obviously pissed that his wife withheld this pretty vital info when they were courting, esp. the part about STILL BEING TECHNICALLY MARRIED!

    So… I dunno, husbands reacting negatively defined as “evil…” wow, quite a leap…

  • dumbF*k says:

    Suck or not..they just created at least 2 more sequels.

  • Annoyed says:

    Really? Bicker about the writing. Not each other. I haven’t seen it. Though I have an appreciation for most movies. I also have my opinions. Both of which should be the ONLY thoughts expressed. Stop making it personal. It’s passive agressive, immature, and annoying. Comment on the movie, not on someone else’s comment…it makes you look ignorant.

  • TMoney says:

    “These are not the droids you are looking for.”

  • lkj says:

    uhh none of this review is actually true… but whatever is on the internet you must beleive..

  • L says:

    Ugh Jay,

    He said he saw a screening. Now by his date he posted that reveals to me he didn’t see the sneak preview, which was released yesterday or for those who live in the “past” June 27th. I got free tickets from a drawing and I saw it yesterday, hence the “past” reference. In my opinion, It was hilarious at the beginning, but near the end it was sad and serious, not dumb and lazy. Yeah, I didn’t really like the instant turn around from funny to serious, but it was still a really good movie. When you view an advance screening, such as Ramandus, you get early edits of what was meant for the film and their continuity is based on the viewer’s reactions. Bah, why bother on such ignorance, I waste my time on you, as your father wasted his sperm.

    • T says:

      Gee, that’s a bit mean, don’t you think? And what about the mother? Sperm alone has never made a baby, while there have been recorded Virgin births. Anyway, I digress but do you have to say mean things to each other over a film where the stars are going to make tons of money regardless of who says what? Why not call him a knuckle head if you don’t like what he said. But please don’t call any human being a waste. No one is a waste of sperm, ovum or life. Ok?

      T+

      • L says:

        You’re right, but I will not admit that “No one” is a waste of sperm simply based on history and my personal views.

        Any how, now that the movie is world-wide people can now fully understand that this “review” meant nothing as it was an early, rather “advanced” screening.

      • Doug Glass says:

        You’re right. Jeeeeze and all these years I was thinking how Hitler was a waste of sperm.

      • erik says:

        well spoken

      • KurtBlunt says:

        Okay it was just a way of insulting him don’t take it to personally dip shit.

  • Jay says:

    ugh Trevor,

    He SAW the movie. He has an opinion about it. It s*cks. Get over it. You however, well all I can say is the matrix has you my friend. Good luck in life and continue to take the blue pill.

  • Trevor says:

    Wow. Such narrow minded people watching films these days. No wonder the theaters are taking a dive (aside from the $100 tickets!).

    Granted, I haven’t seen this film yet so I can’t speak on its behalf, but discounting a film because it gets serious is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I actually got excited during the trailer when I saw that this was going to be more than just some random superhero film that was eye candy, like Transformers (which I also enjoyed … because I knew what I was getting into).

    If you don’t want emotion and drama then stop watching films!

    • you're an idiot says:

      you’re an idiot.

    • He's Right, You're an Idiot says:

      He’s right. You’re an idiot.

    • Jeff says:

      Did you even read why they thought the emotional parts were retarded? The fact is, the movie turned a 180, and totally lost its basis, essentially turning from an action integrated comedy that leads to a emotionally dramatic and ridiculous ending. If that doesn’t say “lost its head” then I don’t know what does! If they wanted to create an emotional movie, then fine, carry that overtone the entire movie, don’t fool the audience into making them think it’s one thing, and then totally flip-flopping on them! And of course people watch movies for emotion and drama, that’s what drives a plot, the essential human connection. Twists are fine too, as long as it doesn’t change the overall feeling. Do your math before you decide to try to call someone out.

    • J SB says:

      Why don’t you actually see the movie before critiquing it? And you’re right, theaters aren’t doing well because “narrow minded people” are watching films — not because Hollywood makes bullshit, left wing, propaganda trash that nobody is willing to see! I’d call you an idiot as well, but after hearing it a hundred times you’d probably still not believe it! Idiot.

    • Scoop says:

      ….dude, a superhero movie advertised as a comedy? Maybe you should get serious and think about what you’re defending. This movie should not have an after school special drama for a closing act…. come on!

  • Ramandus says:

    I saw this screening as well, and I totally agree. The first half is funny, but the second part has really dumb, lazy writing.

    • lichia says:

      I think you are some haters saying that the second part of the movie was dragged out. I would like to see one of you make a damn movie. The movie was great.

  • The “eternal lovers” thing is not totally dissimilar from Hawkman and Hawkgirl(woman) in D.C. Comics. Nonetheless, this does sound pretty stupid.

Leave a Reply

Latest News from our other Entertainment Sites: