Hancock's one-and-a-half-hour is an hour of formula done well and then a disappointing conclusion.

Rating: 6/10 (24 July 2008)

Here is a superhero film that has its superhero inhabit a world in which the inhabitants themselves demonise the superhero rather than glorify him. If we look at the film poster for Hancock, we can see him in all his 'ugly' glory, an immediately unflattering appearance; thrust into our faces with large sunglasses and an illogical for-the-genre hat which, in my opinion, makes him look more daft than anything else. But this is part of the pull for the film Hancock; the gimmick being that he does not need a mask or a costume (at first) to hide his true identity like Spider Man or Batman do but indeed almost welcomes criticism and exposure by turning up in the most unruly of manners and 'saving the day' in the most unorthodox of manners. The scene in which he stops a car from being hit by a train and a whale from dying on a beach could easily have been handled in a better and more logical manner, but it's almost as if Hancock deliberately hits the train and the boat in these scenes to create problems.
But Hancock is really two different sorts of beast. You can envisage the pitch and the idea for the film revolving around a superhero of everyday 'quality' who goes on his own minute journey of discovery and re-image but I think that's as far as the film goes in terms of good ideas. That is to say, when a certain element does make itself known the resulting plot point is both disorientating and disappointing. But mercifully, rather than give us a great point of attack before lambasting us with a daft resolution, the film creates a jovial atmosphere for the first two-thirds and generally keeps us interested rather than merely entertained for this period  it is the final third that needed more care and attention with that sole plot point the reason for the film coming off the rails a tad.
The first thing you do notice about the film, and you don't have to be in a multiplex to identify it, is its hero is African-American. It's good but somewhat interesting to see a superhero of the non-white variety to perhaps rival the character of Blade, comic books of course being written decades ago at times of, shall we say, 'racial indifference' and thus; the majority of comic book heroes are of course white. But the film is still needlessly racist towards certain groups: the French boy named Michael (Faerch) who doubles up as a neighbourhood bully towards Aaron Embrey (Head) of the Embrey family that takes Hancock in, is in particularly poor taste as is Hancock's stereotypical view on Norwegians and what they typically look like. Additionally, did any one else notice the ridiculous subtitles during the beginning chase as said by the Vietnamese gangsters? Some of the subtitles were not even grammatically correct suggesting the Vietnamese speak in that fashion anyway. From memory, I think one of the lines were "What you doing here!?"
But other than this the film is a textbook, and I mean textbook, example of how to establish a down and out character before rebuilding him and having him accomplish his goals. The film runs at 92 minutes according to IMDb, 62 minutes of those are the good stuff in which Hancock (Smith) will begin as a down and out guy; meet and be motivated by a mentor of some sort; go through a training montage (which are the prison scenes); overcome some fears and doubts before getting his opportunity to put ideas into practice and win through in the end. Some scenes that are in the textbook in this case are the ones in which Hancock begins to miss the basketball hoop and begins to speak out during the rehab seminars. He is then given the chance to redeem himself one day after receiving a phone call whilst in his cell  what will await him, him having learnt these new social skills and ability to channel energy?
And so I can pinpoint the exact moment in which the film ends for me. It is when, during said test, the protagonist overcomes doubts and, in reference to cheesy superheroes of the past, gives a salute; wishes everyone luck in a booming 'Captain America' voice and probably should remind everyone to recycle or something, that he flies off having passed. From here the film hits a wall, a wall that even Hancock cannot recover from so God knows what it must've been made of. Certain coincidental revelations occur and I was disappointed since the film decides it needs a villain to round things off. Hancock is no longer a villain to himself so a third party needs to enter the fray and that was rather sad. Still, while it lasts Hancock is an entertaining and somewhat amusing ride although a lot of the jokes either miss the mark (such as the repeating 'pass' at the rehab) or are just not that funny for anyone aged over twenty.
While the themes of religion feel out of place and the fact a certain group of individuals lay siege to a certain location for the finale to produce one of an explosive nature, Hancock is alright for what it is but what gripe I did have involved where Hancock was during most of the Twentieth Century  surely he could've helped out during the Pearl Harbour attack or the Munich Olympics hostage situation; I guess he, the slacker that he is, took those days off.