Hancock ist ein Superheld, dessen schlecht überlegtes Verhalten regelmäßig Millionenschäden verursacht. Er ändert sich, wenn die Person, die er rettet, ihm hilft, sein öffentliches Image zu ... Alles lesenHancock ist ein Superheld, dessen schlecht überlegtes Verhalten regelmäßig Millionenschäden verursacht. Er ändert sich, wenn die Person, die er rettet, ihm hilft, sein öffentliches Image zu verbessern.Hancock ist ein Superheld, dessen schlecht überlegtes Verhalten regelmäßig Millionenschäden verursacht. Er ändert sich, wenn die Person, die er rettet, ihm hilft, sein öffentliches Image zu verbessern.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 4 Gewinne & 14 Nominierungen insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Lots of people, including the critics, are ragging on this film. Seriously, what did they expect? It's a Hollywood blockbuster with Wil Smith in. Get over it, turn your brain off, and sit back and enjoy the ride.
For what it was, I thought it pretty good. It was entertaining, took a unique take on the superhero thing, and didn't have an overt number of huge gaping plot holes or completely blithe dialog.
If you're feeling like a Wil Smith movie, go for it. It's not as bad as they say... just don't expect any more than the typical Hollywood affair.
For what it was, I thought it pretty good. It was entertaining, took a unique take on the superhero thing, and didn't have an overt number of huge gaping plot holes or completely blithe dialog.
If you're feeling like a Wil Smith movie, go for it. It's not as bad as they say... just don't expect any more than the typical Hollywood affair.
What drew me into seeing Hancock in the first place was its idea, which I found one of the most interesting for a film in a while. I am in all honesty not a big fan of Will Smith, but he has given some solid performances so I thought why not.
I have to say that I didn't think Hancock was a bad film as such, it was somewhat underwhelming and I'm sorry to say I do understand the criticisms against it.
Hancock does have a fair number of good points. It is stylishly filmed, with some well above average special effects, the music is dynamic and the directing is solid. The best asset about Hancock is the acting of the three leads.
Will Smith is very commanding, with a lot of subtlety amongst all the wisecracks/gags that don't feel forced(ie.flying under the influence). Charlize Theron shows a glowing presence while also showing a sympathetic side, and Jason Bateman's dry humour contrasts perfectly too.
However, Hancock is a very uneven film. I loved the first half, it was well paced, the script was witty and fresh and the scene where the titular character brings a speeding train to a halt as he can't be bothered to lift the car up from its path is one of the better and relevant scenes of the film.
It is in the second half where Hancock is less than successful. Here the film starts to drag, the script becomes soapy and heavily melodramatic and the film has one of the daftest twists of any film not to have M Night Shyamalan's name on it.
The story's tone isn't the only asset to feel uneven, the script is too, it has wit and freshness in the first half, but becomes mawkish in the second. I also felt that there were only three likable characters(Smith's, Theron's and Bateman's) and the others I barely noticed, with the villain especially flat.
So all in all, an uneven film but not a necessarily bad one. 5/10 Bethany Cox
I have to say that I didn't think Hancock was a bad film as such, it was somewhat underwhelming and I'm sorry to say I do understand the criticisms against it.
Hancock does have a fair number of good points. It is stylishly filmed, with some well above average special effects, the music is dynamic and the directing is solid. The best asset about Hancock is the acting of the three leads.
Will Smith is very commanding, with a lot of subtlety amongst all the wisecracks/gags that don't feel forced(ie.flying under the influence). Charlize Theron shows a glowing presence while also showing a sympathetic side, and Jason Bateman's dry humour contrasts perfectly too.
However, Hancock is a very uneven film. I loved the first half, it was well paced, the script was witty and fresh and the scene where the titular character brings a speeding train to a halt as he can't be bothered to lift the car up from its path is one of the better and relevant scenes of the film.
It is in the second half where Hancock is less than successful. Here the film starts to drag, the script becomes soapy and heavily melodramatic and the film has one of the daftest twists of any film not to have M Night Shyamalan's name on it.
The story's tone isn't the only asset to feel uneven, the script is too, it has wit and freshness in the first half, but becomes mawkish in the second. I also felt that there were only three likable characters(Smith's, Theron's and Bateman's) and the others I barely noticed, with the villain especially flat.
So all in all, an uneven film but not a necessarily bad one. 5/10 Bethany Cox
A film I remember watching years ago, re-watched 2022, enjoyable. Obviously more than the first time as I've increased my score from 5. There have been so many superhero movies since this, it's come up in my estimations.
I also was at the test screening in Peoria AZ. The film was spot on for the first hour. Jokes were hitting left and right, Smith and Bateman displayed good chemistry, and the special effects, though not always finished, were eye popping nonetheless.
Without giving it away, the final half hour was flat, straying from the comical nature that had preceded it and instead tried to get philosophical and introduce a week paint'by'numbers villain. I spoke with director Peter Berg after the film and he seemed fully aware of the issues relating to the final act. Hopefully the recent "re shoot" will polish up that last act, making Hancock one of the must see blockbusters of the summer. In the form I saw it; it still has a ways to go.
Without giving it away, the final half hour was flat, straying from the comical nature that had preceded it and instead tried to get philosophical and introduce a week paint'by'numbers villain. I spoke with director Peter Berg after the film and he seemed fully aware of the issues relating to the final act. Hopefully the recent "re shoot" will polish up that last act, making Hancock one of the must see blockbusters of the summer. In the form I saw it; it still has a ways to go.
Will Smith. That's all you've got to say, and you're guaranteed a big opening at the box office. Well, from the looks of it, Smith also guarantees you at least a mildly entertaining film, which is what we get in his latest movie, Hancock. In the hands of any other leading star, Hancock would probably end up being a below average film. It's Smith's charisma, charm, and unwavering likability that ultimately save the film. He can make you laugh, cheer, cry, and even root for his character (who is a total ass, as he is reminded a number of times throughout the movie) no matter what kind of shenanigans he may cause.
Hancock is not the generic superhero film and is probably one of the more ingenious ideas to come across a producer's desk in quite some time. To me, what it seems like is that the writers of the film loved the idea, started off extremely strong, and then began to realize that how hard it is to sustain a simplistic idea over the course of a full length motion picture (and it is because of this that Hancock is relatively short). The writers' plan to solve this problem is to throw in a totally unnecessary and badly handled plot twist to keep the audience guessing. The lack of a central villain also hurts the movie a lot. The character that serves as Hancock's enemy in the finale isn't even well acted. The person is laughable.
This is an action movie, so it should come as no surprise to see well done and original action in the movie. However, I felt the effects could have used a few more weeks of polishing in the editing room. The camera is also quite crampy. I also have problems with the film's score, as it does not add an epic feeling to the film like it should have. I felt like something was missing in the climax of the film (which is not the end). The action scenes, while entertaining and original, were not long enough to engage the audience like say, The Incredible Hulk, nor were they as jaw dropping as those in Wanted.
The film's strength rides on its three stars. Action veterans Will Smith and Charlize Theron both deliver winning performances as usual, and that should come as no surprise. Smith's charisma is enough to make anyone happy, and it's so easy to see why so many people love him. Theron is always a sight to behold (except in Monster, lol), and this film is no different. I enjoyed her performance the most, especially in the second act and the beginning of the third. Jason Bateman, who seems to be the bridge connecting the performances of Smith and Theron, is great as usual, and likable, marking a change from his recent turn in "Juno". There really isn't another performance to note, and part of Hancock's weakness is that there are really only three main engaging characters. It should also be noted that the kid who played Bateman's son was absolutely adorable.
Hancock is the classic case of great idea, and mediocre execution. I can see this idea being remade years from now, and pulled off even better. It's not a fault of Peter Berg, the film's director, as the real weakness is in the screenplay, which falters after an excellent and wonderful opening act. It's not a bad film by any means, nor is it great. It's in between "okay" and "good".
Hancock is not the generic superhero film and is probably one of the more ingenious ideas to come across a producer's desk in quite some time. To me, what it seems like is that the writers of the film loved the idea, started off extremely strong, and then began to realize that how hard it is to sustain a simplistic idea over the course of a full length motion picture (and it is because of this that Hancock is relatively short). The writers' plan to solve this problem is to throw in a totally unnecessary and badly handled plot twist to keep the audience guessing. The lack of a central villain also hurts the movie a lot. The character that serves as Hancock's enemy in the finale isn't even well acted. The person is laughable.
This is an action movie, so it should come as no surprise to see well done and original action in the movie. However, I felt the effects could have used a few more weeks of polishing in the editing room. The camera is also quite crampy. I also have problems with the film's score, as it does not add an epic feeling to the film like it should have. I felt like something was missing in the climax of the film (which is not the end). The action scenes, while entertaining and original, were not long enough to engage the audience like say, The Incredible Hulk, nor were they as jaw dropping as those in Wanted.
The film's strength rides on its three stars. Action veterans Will Smith and Charlize Theron both deliver winning performances as usual, and that should come as no surprise. Smith's charisma is enough to make anyone happy, and it's so easy to see why so many people love him. Theron is always a sight to behold (except in Monster, lol), and this film is no different. I enjoyed her performance the most, especially in the second act and the beginning of the third. Jason Bateman, who seems to be the bridge connecting the performances of Smith and Theron, is great as usual, and likable, marking a change from his recent turn in "Juno". There really isn't another performance to note, and part of Hancock's weakness is that there are really only three main engaging characters. It should also be noted that the kid who played Bateman's son was absolutely adorable.
Hancock is the classic case of great idea, and mediocre execution. I can see this idea being remade years from now, and pulled off even better. It's not a fault of Peter Berg, the film's director, as the real weakness is in the screenplay, which falters after an excellent and wonderful opening act. It's not a bad film by any means, nor is it great. It's in between "okay" and "good".
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe original screenplay was much darker. Apart from being a low-life, Hancock was supposed to be sexually frustrated because he couldn't have sex with a woman without killing her. The MPAA actually cleared a scene involving Hancock's explosive orgasm, but it was removed from the final cut because a test audience didn't find it funny. The tone was lightened considerably for a summer release aimed at a wide audience, but the MPAA gave the film an R twice before language and violence cuts resulted in a PG-13.
- PatzerWhen the people are running away from the tornadoes, suddenly a strange character runs from the left to the right of the screen. The character is twice as tall as everyone else, and looks like a robot or an alien. It may be a street performer, on stilts and in costume.
- Zitate
John Hancock: All of you people, blocking the intersection, you're all idiots.
Rail Crossing Crowd #1: You're the one that threw the dude's car at her. And what's with the train?
Rail Crossing Crowd #2: Why didn't you just go straight up in the air with the car? You've obviously injured that poor woman.
Rail Crossing Crowd #3: She's right. She should sue you.
John Hancock: Okay. Well, you should sue McDonald's, 'cause they fucked you up.
- Crazy CreditsA scene after the credits start to roll.
- Alternative VersionenThe Unrated Cut of Hancock features roughly ten minutes of additional material. In this cut,
- After Hancock (Will Smith) apprehends the three thugs in the opening scene, the scene in the bar is longer. In the Theatrical Cut, the scene is made up of Hancock watching the police chief (Gregg Daniel) on TV, then telling an elderly lady (Dorothy Cecchi) at the bar, "I will break my foot off in your ass woman", before going back to watching the TV, with the chief becoming increasingly hysterical about Hancock's actions. In the Unrated Cut, however, there is less footage of the police chief. Instead, we see Hancock doodling, before he is approached by a young woman (Hayley Marie Norman) who tells him she's been looking for him and asks him what it's like when he flies. She then tells him that he saved her cousin. The scene where Hancock speaks to the elderly lady then happens. Hancock then leaves with the young woman and they go to his trailer. She makes small talk with him and climbs on top of him. He then tells her, "When I get to the...moment, when I start climbing the mountain top, you're gonna need to be as far away from that as possible." She doesn't pay much attention to what he's saying, and they start to have sex. When he ejaculates, the force throws her across the trailer and punctures several holes in the ceiling. She is terrified and he is embarrassed. He apologizes and tries to make small talk, telling her he will bring her flying if she wants. She asks to use the bathroom, and after a moment, Hancock realizes she has climbed out the window and fled (04:37).
- When Hancock goes to Ray's (Jason Bateman) house for the second time, he has a verbal altercation with Michel (Daeg Faerch), during which Michel calls him an asshole six times. In the Unrated Cut, their conversation is longer, with Michel telling Hancock that his father thinks he's an asshole as well, and he behaves like an asshole. Hancock tries to explain that that isn't a nice word to use to describe someone, but Michel is indifferent and continues to say the word (00:21).
- The scene of Hancock arriving in jail is longer, with a montage of him having his picture taken and dragging along a line of prisoners to whom he is chained (00:22).
- During the bank robbery, when Hancock approaches the trapped police officer (Liz Wicker), she yells at him, "Get me the f#*k out of here." In the Theatrical Cut, she yells, "Get me the hell out of here" (no time differentiation).
- After Hancock foils the bank robbery, the scene of him emerging from the building is longer, with more shots of the hostages spilling out behind him and a longer shot of Red's (Eddie Marsan) severed hand (00:23).
- The restaurant scene between Hancock, Ray, and Mary (Charlize Theron) is longer. After Hancock speculates about how much of a monster he must have been for no one to claim him at the hospital, the three sit in silence for a moment. Hancock then acknowledges that anyone who did know him 80 years ago would be dead by now anyway. Ray notices that Mary is crying and she laughs and says, "too much wine. I'm a light weight." She and Hancock then look at one another, and she says, "I'm sorry" to which he says, "you didn't do nothing." He then thanks Ray for the dinner and says, "I'd almost call this fun." (00:59).
- Immediately after the restaurant scene, the scene where Hancock carries Ray to bed is longer, and features some additional dialogue, with Ray telling Hancock, "you are like a Dodger dog; it's something that people don't think they're going to like, then they try it and they love it. It hits the spot, it's good for the soul. You're like the world's Dodger dog" (00:12).
- Immediately after the above scene, the scene with Hancock and Mary in the kitchen is longer, opening with a CU of Mary subconsciously playing with her wedding ring. In the Theatrical Cut, the scene opens with a quick shot of Mary washing a glass. The conversation between Hancock and Mary is also longer, with Mary hesitantly telling Hancock, "I don't want you to think that Ray drinks like that, because this is just kind of a celebratory night." Hancock assures her he doesn't think that. There is then some additional awkward silence as Mary cleans the dishes. The moment when Hancock and Mary kiss is also longer. In the Theatrical Cut, Mary notices a bruise on Hancock's hand before telling him, "okay, good night". He then moves to kiss her, but she throws him through the wall. In the Unrated Cut, after she notes the bruise on his hand (which uses an alternate take), he mumbles, "Yeah, I don't know what that is. I've been feeling kinda funny." Mary then says, "you should go." There is a pause, some awkward silence and she says, "It's getting late." There is more awkward silence as they look at one another and then Hancock moves in to kiss her. Unlike in the Theatrical Cut, she kisses him back momentarily, before throwing him through the wall (01:10).
- The following morning, the scene where Mary suggests to Ray that they go away is slightly longer (00:08).
- The scene where Mary visits Hancock at his trailer features an alternative version of her arrival; in the Theatrical Cut, she flies to the trailer and is shown landing outside, whereas in the Unrated Cut, she simple drives there and pulls up outside. This creates significant (but different) continuity errors in both the Theatrical Cut and the Unrated Cut. At the end of the scene, Mary is shown about to get into her car; but in the Theatrical Cut, she didn't have her car when the scene began. The Unrated Cut features a different continuity error a moment later. After Mary and Hancock fly away, an aerial shot shows Hancock's trailer, with no sign of the car anywhere near it.
- In the Theatrical Cut, after she lands, Mary and Hancock simply stare at one another for a moment, and then she goes into the trailer. In the Unrated Cut, they have some dialogue - Mary says, "well, I'm here," to which he says, "yeah." She then looks around and says, "wanna do it?" He says "do what", and she walks up to him and says, "here's how this works; you ask the questions, I answer them honestly, and you leave LA." He says he isn't leaving LA and she goes to get back into the car, but he calls her back and they enter the trailer (00:33).
- After crashing into the side of Ray's building, there are some additional shots of Hancock and Mary on the ground, inter-cut with shots of Ray looking down at them and slowly realizing who it is. There is also some extra dialogue, as Hancock tries to explain to Mary he doesn't remember anything, he pauses and says, "you are the most beautiful thing I've ever seen." After they see Ray watching them, there is more footage of them on the ground, clambering to their feet, and several additional shots of a stunned Ray (00:25).
- The scene where Mary is shot in the hospital uses an alternate take, and there is more blood when she is hit (no time differentiation).
- VerbindungenEdited into Hawaii Five-0: Waiwai (2016)
- SoundtracksWhammer Jammer
Written by Stephen Bladd, J. Geils (as John Geils Jr.), Seth Justman, Daniel Klein, Magic Dick (as Richard Salwitz), and Peter Wolf
Performed by The J. Geils Band
Courtesy of Atlantic Recording Corp.
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- John Hancock
- Drehorte
- City Bank Plaza - 505 S Flower St, Los Angeles, Kalifornien, USA(Bank Robbery Scene)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 150.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 227.946.274 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 62.603.879 $
- 6. Juli 2008
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 629.443.428 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 32 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
