I must say I’m not eager to see where the Hancock story goes next, even though I’m on board with pretty much every move Will Smith has made in recent years. He’s a fine actor who brings those skills to films which don’t necessarily need them. I remember watching the terrific “I, Robot” and thinking, “why is Smith working so hard to flesh out his character? It’s a big budget movie, the action and effects are what people came to see.” But he doesn’t work that way … he tries his hardest to make every performance special.

For me, that spirit still couldn’t lift “Hancock.” But you clearly aren’t alone in your thoughts. The film dropped only 45 percent or so this weekend, which is a pretty modest drop for a major film.

I mean, it’s no Ironman or Batman (the first ones with Tim Burton and “Batman Begins”), but it wasn’t a complete disaster. Does anybody remember “Batman & Robin”? COMPLETE disaster, with no possibility of enjoyment.

Not one of Will Smith’s best movies, but definitely far from his worst (and I use the term “worst” very loosely when talking about Will, because I don’t think he’s disappointed me once in a movie so far).

Perhaps a second viewing will help me appreciate it more … the tonal shift jarred me too much the first time.

This was an origin story unlike anything we’ve seen and so to compare it to any other approach seems unfair. It felt like a very personal story and, if anything, I wish they would have spent more time delving into Hancock’s motivations before entering the home stretch. At ninety minutes, it felt that there was about thirty minutes missing. I almost never think it’s a bad thing when I am clamoring for more of a film unless I feel the film fell short. Hancock doesn’t fall short. If anything, it exceeded my expectations and was a better film than I had expected it to be. Plus, it was flat-out entertaining.

I’d like to see them take another risk and give us another look at the character.

Oh, and I love the conversation had at the carnival at the end. Those who have seen it know to what I’m referring.

Well said … I still disagree, but that’s why we’re online, right? I do think it took guts to go in the direction it did — I just thought it clashed with the first half of the film and didn’t make me eager to see a “Hancock 2.”

Yes, after a while it can be boring to see a superhero save the day again and again … but that could speak to our collective superhero burnout – there are a lot of them around these days.

Thanks for writing!

I actually liked the shift. For me it was a breakdown between two acts. Act I – redemption. Act II – the why. Honestly, how long does he have to go into the movie to be redeemed into a superhero. Redeemed, lets move on to Act II.

I honestly do not know what people wanted to happen after the bank scene? What keep fighting regular bad guys?? CCCMMMOOONNNNN!!!

I liked Act II, it established a mythos and good idea for possible sequels. Also, if you are seriously going to use Stan Lee or others to bash this superhero thing, then you have obviously NEVER seen/read other comic hero’s origins.

Watch it, avoid the critics, I think they all got it wrong this time and when you watch it STOP comparing it to other superhero stuff. The comparisons are being made using the wrong factors.