Hancock (film) - Reception

Reception

Hancock received mixed reviews from film critics. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 40% of critics gave the film positive reviews based upon a sample of 209, with an average score of 5.4 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews. Some critics reported that the film was a jumble of ideas that, despite starting well, did not fully deliver the edgy satire the subject matter promised, with a consensus forming that it suffered from a weak story and poor execution. Todd McCarthy of Variety felt that the film's premise was undermined by the execution. McCarthy believed the concept ensured the film was "amusing and plausible" for its first half, but that the second half was full of illogical story developments and missed opportunities. Stephen Farber of The Hollywood Reporter said that the opening established the premise well, but that the film came undone when it began to alternate between comedy and tragedy, and introduced a backstory for Hancock that did not make sense. He said it rewrote its own internal logic in order to pander to its audience. Stephen Hunter in The Washington Post said it had begun with promise, but that the change in tone partway through was so abrupt that the film did not recover. Jim Schembri of The Age called the change in direction "an absolute killer story twist", and David Denby of The New Yorker said it lifted the film to a new level by supplementing the jokes with sexual tension and emotional power.

Jim Schembri reported that Berg's direction helped to sell Hancock's "well-drawn" backstory, Todd McCarthy said the gritty visual approach adopted by Berg did not mesh well with the "vulgar goofiness" of certain scenes, and Stephen Farber said that Berg's frantic direction compounded the storytelling errors. Stephen Hunter said that Berg had not understood that the shifting tone and plot twists were meant to be humorous, and that he had played straight what was supposed to be a dark comedy and subversive satire. David Denby said Berg's style—especially his use of close-ups—was intended to showcase "genuine actors at work", while Manohla Dargis of The New York Times insisted Berg had taken Hancock to heart and brought gravity to the film.

David Denby described Smith's performance as contrasting with his performances in his other films. He said, "For the first time in his life, Will Smith doesn’t flirt with the audience... he stays in character as a self-hating lonely guy." Stephen Hunter argued that Smith and his co-stars had misunderstood the material in the same manner as Berg. He added that the examination of Smith's character came across at first as an examination of "phenomenally gifted" black sporting superstars who were "marginalized", "dehumanized" and exploited as a product by society. Manohla Dargis was struck by Theron's performance, saying that she enabled Smith to deepen the film's emotional complexity. Todd McCarthy said that Smith's "attitude-laden quips" helped to carry the film's superior first half, and that all three leads performed capably, but he said no opportunity was offered for the supporting characters to register. Roger Ebert writing in the Chicago Sun Times praised the three leads, saying that Smith avoided playing Hancock "as a goofball" and instead portrayed him as a more subtle and serious character. Stephen Farber said that Hancock was a good showcase for the leads, affirming that Smith shone in a film that was only sporadically worthy of his performance.

Jim Schembri concluded that the film was "refreshing, savvy, fun and fast". He said it managed to mix comedy and action successfully, and that the drama came across as surprisingly genuine. Stephen Farber believed that the extended development of the film had reduced its quality, but that the visual effects were "stellar" and showed wit. McCarthy praised the effects, but said the film was "both overwrought and severely undernourished." Roger Ebert observed the film was "a lot of fun", and Manohla Dargis admitted that it was "unexpectedly satisfying". She said that while it faltered and felt rushed towards its end, it had an emotional complexity and "raggedness" that spoke with sincerity about essential human vulnerabilities. Stephen Hunter concluded that Hancock was ultimately "indigestible".

Hancock won the award for "Best Summer Action/Adventure Movie" at the 2008 Teen Choice Awards. Smith's performance won him the award for "Favorite Movie Actor" at the 2009 Kids' Choice Awards.