Comments on: Hancock is a Ssssmash: So What Did You Think?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:38:37 +0000

Will Smith is a great actor, but this turkey stunk on ice

By: Samantha Pruitt

Samantha Pruitt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:33 +0000

i could have done with some flashbacks, and maybe him starting to remember his past.

By: HappyJ

HappyJ — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:15:59 +0000

the anti-hero concept is awesome, but it was ruined by the corny plot twist and ending. will smith and jason bateman were great though

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:55:56 +0000

QFT Capt

By: 05a88

05a88 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:27:01 +0000

McLovin is right. if you ave few days to think about the movie, you will see that is was a good movie. 7/10

By: Captain Awesome

Captain Awesome — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:11:19 +0000

lol @ Zbert’s comments

By: 790

790 — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:33:04 +0000

Finally saw this today. I didn’t have a problem with the twist at all.

I had a problem with the way Mary wouldn’t tell Hancock the truth because she didn’t want anyone to find out. Then after Hancock persists she’s doing the “Storm” thing on his ass on Hollywood bvld. right in front of her husbands office. Ghessh that time of the month or what?

By: Zbert

Zbert — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:58:29 +0000

I had the good fortune to see an advanced screening of The Dark Knight. I didn’t bother seeing Hancock in advance due to poor buzz.

Anyhow, I saw Hancock this weekend and I can say without hesitation that Hancock blows The Dark Knight out of the water.

Hancock owns summer 2008.

By: Captain Awesome

Captain Awesome — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:46:52 +0000

PJ,

They’re going to milk this like the last tit on Earth.

By: Robspartan

Robspartan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:13:23 +0000

Peter Berg’s shaky cam made my date nauseous and the plot made me nauseous.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:06:10 +0000

Not a bad movie at all. Anyone who can go to a movie and enjoy the experience without thinking it has to be great or it sucks should come out with a smile.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:28:48 +0000

@evan

That’s unfortunate but at least you had your cherry popped on a mediocre movie. Just be more cautious of these threads in the future until you’ve seen the movie. It’s here for people to discuss the film, after all.

By: evan

evan — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:24:20 +0000

@matt
It’s a simple forum courtesy for people to put *SPOILER* alerts. I don’t think that’s asking too much. Everyone else here is following that etiquette - and that’s what I’ve come to expect from this site. I’m a long-time reader of /film and never had a movie spoiled before - until now.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:13:36 +0000

Will Smith carried the movie. If it had starred someone else I don’t know. Im in agreement with alot of people that the movie was too short and not enough character development. The story was too rushed and I got lost in the gods part of the movie. *SPOLIER* If they are suppose to be together and attracted to each other and have been together before, how come they kept on losing each other for long periods of time? I didn’t think about this question till after the movie. Now I did feel the movie was fun but I will wait till the movie comes out on DVD till I watch it again. I just hope when it comes out on DVD there is a longer cut of the movie.

By: PJ

PJ — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:41:43 +0000

I don’t feel that any sequel should be made in the Hancock series because the movie basically solved its own problem in this first movie. Will Smith’s Hancock appears to be reformed and more acceptable to society, Charlize Theron stayed a happy home wife, and Jason Bateman is happy she’s still hanging around. With the exception of his hilariously unapologetic attitude in the beginning, Smith’s character was just another Superman knockoff. He and Charlize should have battled it out and that whole were the last two of our kind thing is quite cliche. Maybe Men in Black 3 isn’t a bad idea?

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:37:25 +0000

While I do agree with you evan, I also agree with Prog. You should’ve known there’d be a chance you’d have the movie spoiled for you by coming into this thread. Don’t blame anyone but yourself for your ignorance. Hancock moves away because the closer they are, the more they make themselves mortal. No one dies but the ‘bad guys.’

By: evan

evan — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:01:32 +0000

Why do people read reviews at all? You can talk about the movie and what you thought about it without giving away key points of the plot. That’s pretty standard fare. Since you’re the only one here giving away the twist at the end - and everyone else intentionally avoids doing that - can you not see that you’re in the wrong? And when you do give away spoilers, it’s standard forum etiquette to simply telegraph that with ***SPOILER ALERT*** tags! I hope next time you will take this into consideration. Thanks.

By: ProgGrrl

ProgGrrl — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:17:16 +0000

@evan…I’m a bit confused: if you are avoiding spoilers, why in godsname would you come into the comment section of a post meant for people who already saw the film? Wha? Not a good plan, son.

By: evan

evan — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:14:34 +0000

@ProgGrl

Thanks! I’m glad the ending wasn’ spoiled for you, but you just spoiled it for me. You ever hear of *spoiler alert*? Biatch.

By: Donkey Punch

Donkey Punch — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:22:16 +0000

No thanks. Not going to support Scientologists by seeing this movie.