Today’s Prayer Focus


also known as “John Hancock,” “Tonight, He Comes,” “Quanmin chaoren,” “Хэнкок,” “Quanmin chaoren Hankaoke”
MPA Rating: PG-13-Rating (MPA) for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language.

Reviewed by: Taran Gingery

Moviemaking Quality:

Primary Audience:
Teens, Adults
Fantasy, Action, Drama
1 hr. 32 min.
Year of Release:
USA Release:
July 2, 2008 (wide release)
Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Relevant Issues
Copyright, Sony Pictures Entertainment

A biblical super strength hero: Samson

A single man or woman can help change the world. Read about some who did with faith and God's help…
Jesus Christ, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David

Interracial marriage—is it biblical? Answer

Featuring Will Smith
Charlize Theron
Jason Bateman
Eddie Marsan
See all »
Director Peter Berg—“The Kingdom,” “Friday Night Lights
Producer Ian Bryce, Akiva Goldsman, James Lassiter, Michael Mann, Jonathan Mostow, Richard Saperstein, Will Smith
Distributor Sony Pictures Entertainment

“There are heroes. There are superheroes. And then there’s…”

Social outcast. Loner. Misunderstood. Drunkard? All of these you could expect to hear about any superhero, from Batman to Superman, at some point in their lives—except the last one. But that is exactly what John Hancock (Will Smith) is when we first meet him—a drunk, rude, abrasive, brash, and coarse man with superhuman strength, the ability to fly, immortality and automatic healing.

Hancock is quick to any scene of crime, yet, in spite of that, the citizens of Los Angeles hate him, and not only because he is crude and downright mean, but because his entrances and exists usually wreak more damage then the crimes themselves. But there is more to Hancock then meets the eye, and what Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) sees is a man who is lonely, insecure and who desperately needs to change his public image. As a PR specialist, Ray sees himself as just the man to do this. This proves harder than he thinks, especially with strong opposition from his own wife Mary (Charlize Theron), and soon Hancock finds himself forced to deal with his own emotional demons of the past, while trying to improve his future and take out the criminal masterminds of the present.

There is actually a lot to admire about Hancock. At first he seems to be a man beyond salvation. But he shows a yearning to be accepted by the city, to improve his own flaws, to save lives, to find true friends, and he also shows a lot of respect to Ray, simply by his earnestness and his sincere attempts to change. Sure, the change comes gradually and many mistakes are made along the way. But, the point is, he is learning. And the final messages of the movie ask us what would we be willing to sacrifice to do the truly heroic thing. Ray is, also, mostly a model of perseverance, patience, understanding and good will (his wife tells him. “You see the good in everybody—even if its not there.”)

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of negative content in this film, the strongest being the language, which mostly comes from Hancock. He calls everyone extremely crude names, insults and mocks people, makes a sexual advance on a married woman (he is strongly rebuffed), and often reacts violently when he is called a specific word (***hole), one that is thrown around by nearly everyone, including small children. He also uses the f-word once, and the s-word and God's name numerous times. He is constantly drunk. Again, this is all somewhat exaggerated to show what kind of person Hancock is before he changes, but it seemed a bit much to me. Mary also wears cleavage-revealing attire during several scenes.

There is also plenty of violence. Hancock rains havoc on buildings, cars, streets, trains, tornadoes, even whales, no matter what he is doing, intentional or not. He is shot at with all types of guns imaginable, all leaving him, but, not necessarily the shooters, unharmed. A man's hand is severed, but non-bloody. A character is smashed in the face, stabbed in the shoulder and shot, and another character is also shot repeatedly, both with somewhat bloody results. A visual gag involves one man's head being shoved up the rear end of another man, something we did NOT need to see.

It's unfortunate that all of this content had to be there, mostly to evoke laughs from the audience it seemed, and I feel a lot of it could've been toned down to be less offensive, while still utilizing Will Smith’s natural comic acting to get the effect across and not downplaying Hancock's change of heart.

Speaking of Will, he is excellent as Hancock, with his usual swagger and one-liners and moments of true emotion, while Bateman is fine as Ray the “straight man,” and Theron manages to make Ray's slightly schizophrenic wife sympathetic and weird at the same time. The special effects are good, nothing special, and there are surprisingly few action scenes. There are several genuine laughs in the script, and the story is original enough, with a few quite interesting twists. It's up to you to decide if Hancock is really one of “God's angels,” as they call his kind, or not, which is probably the only spiritual reference in the film.

All said, “Hancock” is sure to be another Will Smith blockbuster, and there are several positive messages that discerning audiences can find, but the excessive foul language, violence and general negative content seems too much for me to recommend it (only for older teenagers and adults).

  • Violence: Heavy
  • Language: Extreme
  • Sex/Nudity: Moderate

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

Viewer CommentsSend your comments
Positive—I would say that this movie had good action and was very funny. One of the best this year.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
Rich, age 38
Positive—Good movie, if you just want to sit back and have a good laugh. For all those who sit in a movie and count the swear words, it's not for you (as I see some have done already done so, by the comments I have read). This is NOT “The Pursuit of Happyness,” so don't go expecting to see that kind of Will Smith performance. It's just a silly, far fetched comedy made to make you smile a bit, so go and see it and remind yourself as you enter the theatre and watch it: This is the world we live in and that's how they talk, you don't like it… Don't enter!!! Sound fair???
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
Glen Maillet, age 38 (Canada)
Positive—I saw this film with my 12 year old son. If you can get past some bad words, it has a great message, and after all it's Will Smith. A very good movie.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Ken Stepp, age 52
Positive—First off I don't know what a lot of other viewers seen. Such as Ann Darby. There was no sex in this movie. Maybe some kissing or a scene of cheating but no sex (especially no ejaculation as someone she put).

“Hancock” was a good movie. For once we get a good movie about a hero who is a anti-hero at first and turns around. The story actually takes some turns that I can't talk about really but there is definitely a good plot line later in.

Sadly the beginning of the movie when Hancock is the “anti-hero” probably scares a lot of people off. You kinda like him but your repulsed at the same time by some of the things, more so if your easily offended by stuff. But I guarantee it does get better if your into superhero movies.

Is it a bad movie if your more sensitive to things? Well, that’s a tough one. There is a low to medium amount of swearing. Compared to most PG-13 movies this really doesn't have much, not compared to a lot of PG-13 movies I've seen. But the A-H word is used a lot, not extremely a lot but often enough you might be uncomfortable if your not to use to swearing.

Is it violent? Well, there's not really that much fighting since there's no real villains. Just bad guys. And they do get thrown around and it does look kinda violent but you don't really see anything like bones breaking, guts …etc. Although on one scene you see a hand come off and another someone get stabbed. But its pretty quick and not real bloody. At least not compared to most PG-13 movies. Hancock does fight someone near the end but I can't say much about it, its not really violent because of this persons… well I can't say. But its not violent when they fight.

Offensive material? Well, Hancock is a drunk man, at first. And kinda cocky. That probably is offensive to some people. But it is needed I guess for a to start the story. There is a scene as someone mentioned where he shoves a mans head up another mans butt. You don't see the act itself but you see the result from the side. There's also a scene where he punches a kid into the air then catches him. Some people may find these two scenes offensive some may not.

Right at the beginning there is a very quick second where Hancock does try and grab a girls butt as she walks by. Lastly…

(big spoiler)

There is mentioned that the gods created Hancock and the other woman in the movie, like they are angels and so on to protect the Earth. Its complicated. Anyway's this might offend some people to. But like any hero there's usually some explanation that’s going to not be likable to us so it’s hard if your going to like superheroes and expect them just to be born super.

(end spoiler)

Overall, I liked the movie. A lot of reviews said it got bad after the directors seem to add a “Second Section” to the movie. It had humor, decent graphics, some nice sad moments… it was all around good. Is it a kids movie? Not sure about little kids, probably a little to scary. Is it for teens? Well, that’s up to you. I don't see why not. But we all have our own standards!

My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Matt, age 26
Positive—Definitely exceeded my expectations. “Hancock” is a very insightful, very interpretive, and very human tale of a quasi-superhero fitting in in “real life.” He struggles with depression, loneliness, alcoholism, and a world seemingly as ambivalent as he is to his existence. He is welcomed nowhere but yet needed everywhere: truly, a man with more dilemmas than even Atlas could bear. So with the convincing talent of Will Smith and an original, even thought-provoking storyline, you surprisingly have a decent flick. Now, I'm partial to superheroes. Always have been. I was 4 when I got my first Batman action figure, and I've never deviated from the world of superheroes since. Much in the way of comic book lore has hit the screen over the years: some of it great, some not so great.

Frankly, the best “comic book”/superhero adaptation to date is M. Night Shyamalan’sUnbreakable;” it's a simple story with uncompromising maturity and realism about real-life guys with extraordinary abilities who go through life unnoticed. Their glorified better halves are usually confined to the little squares in comic books where it's safe to believe such men exist. Han is sorta in the same vein as Shyamalan's masterpiece, only more lighthearted.

There are multiple uses of a******, but it's a plot device. Other common epithets include b****, d***, and even one uttering of the good ol’ f-word. Sadly, I'm pretty immune to casual usage of this ubiquitous palabra. I hear it daily, many times a day. C'est la vie. Other content includes a little ribald humor and some sensuality.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Jacob Keenum, age 22

Comment to above from non-viewer—…“Other common epithets include b****, d***, and even one uttering of the good ol’ f-word.” …“If you can get past some bad words, it has a great message, and after all it's Will Smith.” I didn't realize Will Smith was the exception that Christians should consider when raising the question “is the what God would want me to watch.” If we would step up and stand for the truth like we're supposed to (and the Bible DOES to teach us to refrain from the use of abrasive language…). America wouldn't be in the poor moral lowering situation it is. Hollywood is one of the biggest entry points of Satan into our lives, and we sit back open our wallets and pay them to bring it to our living rooms and children and family. Let's stand up for The King like He stood for us.

Adam, age 25

Neutral—“Hancock” was a fantastic idea… that being said, it was not a fantastic movie. The plot was very much a family movie plot, but the language and vulgar references were greater than any PG-13 movie I think I have ever seen. very strange, the 2 did not mix. Almost every cuss word you can think of was used at least once (including the F-word) and the lesser words (if there is such a thing) were used in most every scene. Multiple sexual and crude bodily harm references were made and in one instance, the reference and character reactions would have been enough for the laugh, but the director decided to blow the joke by actually showing the outcome.

It was a very funny movie at times, very cool movie at times, but overall the plot got very silly, like kids’ movies do (kind of like the silly plots you get with a “Spy Kids” movie or something similar). I really wanted to like it, to cheer for Hancock, but it didn't go the way we all wanted it to.

You want to see an unlikable superhuman become a likable superhero, but they kind of spread that too thin over a screwy plot with no memorable bad guys (HUGE bummer) and no real payoff. What a shame. It really could have been a huge hit.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5
Joe, age 30
Neutral—I just returned from a family outing to see “Hancock.” Being a fan of Will Smith, I expected to be entertained. I got exactly what I was looking for. I love the fact that, even when the script tries to make him get serious, he is always finding some way to make an audience laugh. The laugh factor is high in this film. The action will blow your mind. There are some fight scenes that will leave you breathless. The supporting cast, which includes Jason Bateman (Good to see him bounce back after the awful “Arrested Development”), and Charlize Theron, are all very good. The director, Peter Berg, Knows how to bring good performances out of the cast and stage a fight scene.

While I do have some very high praise for this film, it's not without it's share of objectionable content. The violence, while not graphic by any means, is still fairly strong. As far as sexual content, there are only a couple of brief kisses and snippets of dialogue. However, the worst offender was the language. This was probably the main reason for the PG-13 rating. I heard at least 1 or 2 uses of G-dd-mn, too many S-words to count, and 1 use of the F-word. If you can get past all this, I recommend “Hancock.”
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Jared, age 28
Neutral—The movie could have been very good if only they could have explained the way the characters had super powers, and if they could tone down the language. There were very small children in the audience and I felt for them. I think the movie went too far into the vulgar than it had to. I was very disappointed, Smith could be a lot better.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Loren Keiser, age 59
Neutral—Took my wife to see this movie, not really knowing what it was about. Had read previous reviews on this site, and saw them about evenly split.

Having seen the movie, it is one that I will not see again. The story plot was good, and there was humor in it, but overall the acting was a bit stilted. There were unanswered questions, there were the number of obscenities uttered by all, and the story line seemed to have been a bit weak.

Yes, it did show a person that was rejected by all; However, there was one person (that was very obvious at first) who saw more to Hancock than one would see at first. Ray took the time, the effort to reach the person and show Hancock his real worth. Ray reached down to help a person who needed help. Yes, the relationship was a bit rocky at first, but the real hero is Ray who saw a need and stepped in. In some ways, this reminds me of Christ who looked at us, saw the need, and reached out to us. However, unlike Hancock, we had no socially redeeming value (or any other value for that matter) in or of ourselves. We are totally filthy rags.

The addition of another Super Hero came as a surprise, and honestly I don't know if that added or subtracted to the overall theme of this movie.

After seeing the movie, I am glad I didn't take my son to it, even thought there were a number of young kids in the audience. The humor was sporadic, even the closing scene not only showed the humor (and Will Smith’s acting ability), but also closed with an obscenity. I would advise extreme caution taking young children to this show.

Having said that, sometimes we as Christians, forget that our minds are like a tape recorder (shows my age… lol). We store in our minds everything we see and hear, whether it is wholesome or not. Words, pictures and actions are all stored in our minds. No wonder we are at war in our minds. We fight the very things we have stored in there; and then Satan pulls them out to torment us. Reminds me of that children's song many years ago, 'Be careful little ears what you hear…'
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
David, age 58
Neutral—“Hancock” was a decent comedic film for the first hour and half. There were qualities of Will Smith’s character that we haven't seen in his other pictures. The lazy alcoholic gritty super hero smashes and destroys government property and causes more ruckus than the situations before. The sudden plot and character change made the film spin in a completely different direction with pointless action scenes to fill in the gaps. It wasn't such a bad film it just didn't have anywhere to go after the twist so it felt as if the film was running on short fumes until crashing to a clumsy ending.

There is a good amount of crude humor and action violence but not enough to give this film an R rating so most of these negative reviews about the heavy material is completely inane. I'm shocked at how most of these “christians” are startled so heavily by simple films like this. If you don't like a film, don't watch it (that's what the ratings are for) but don't condemn a movie because you cannot take it. Do not take movies to the heart it's entertainment and it should be viewed in that manner. I've read a lot of reviews on this web sight and I'm sad to see a bunch of hypocritical pharisees (especially the preteens) cursing certain films that are quite good just because it's up to date with today's culture and time. I myself am a Christian but we do live in the year 2008 ladies and gentleman we don't have to conform to the world today but you do have to understand it and see for yourself what's going on.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Tc, age 23
Neutral—Just so viewers are aware, the DVD version DOES have a pretty graphic sex scene in the beginning of the movie. Maybe this was not in the version shown in the theater, but in the DVD version Hancock meets a girl in a bar, near the beginning of the movie, who clearly wants to have sex with him. In the next scene they are in his trailor and she is making overt advances. Though the sex is not actually shown, the language, rocking trailer, and the fact that part of the roof is blown off when he “finishes” is quite graphic and crude. The only point in this whole scene is to show that he is lonely and misunderstood when the girl runs away frightened at the end of it, so if you rent the movie, you will miss nothing plotwise by simply fast forwarding through this whole scene.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Christy, age 32
Negative—Joe hit the nail on the head, “the language and vulgar references were greater than any PG-13 movie I think I have ever seen.” In the first 15-20 minutes their was nearly 30 obscene words (maybe more) coming from the mouth of not only adults but young children. This PG-13 movie needs more than parental guidance to be viewed, it needs earplugs to be worn.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5
David, age 22
Negative—I took my 11 yr old son to go see this movie tonight. We walked out after 35 min into it. this movie is for adults only and even at that we must really ask ourselves if this is appropriate. The language was horrible, and the references were nasty, and then they even showed a scene of a man with his head literally shoved in a different mans …rear. This is disgusting, and definitely nothing a child should be seeing. It really was not done in a humorous manner just a gross disgusting manner.

I am extremely disappointed not only that I spent $17.00 to walk out of a movie 35 min. into it, but the fact this superhero marketing lead me to believe this is a family safe movie… not!!!… I would recommend not seeing this movie not only for the crudeness of it, but the special effects were “c-” at best. Just a lame crude movie.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Jeff Broderick, age 35
Negative—This movie had a few funny parts, but you hardly noticed them because there was so much cursing. It was overwhelming how offensive the language was. Also, there were some parts that were so inappropriate, I was going to walk out of the movie. One of which, Hancock places a man's head in another man's backside. They don't just let you think that's what happened—they show you unfortunately. I would hope you would read this before you subject yourself or your family to this movie. I strongly regret ever going to see this at all.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Sandie, age 32
Negative—There's nothing good about this movie. the language was horrible. I walked out of the movie probably a little later than I should have. I was terribly disappointed at seeing little children under the age of 10 even attending this movie with their parents. But then again, that's why the world is in the state it is in. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. Stay away, don't take your children to see this movie. “Wall-e” would be a safe choice. Thank you and god bless.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1
Rev. Dominick Malchiodi, age 46
Negative—I watched “Hancock” last week with my wife and neither of us were crazy about it. I liked the first half of it but then the movie took a weird and unexpected turn that failed to satisfy. One of the things I found sickening about the movie was the fact that Hancock kissed Ray's wife after everything Ray had done for him. The implication was that they were going to sleep with one another (Ray had passed out, it was just the two of them and the music took a an edgy turn) but then she throws him out the window and nothing actually happens. This is where the movie gets weird. I won't spoil it, but definitely a waste of money. It's too bad because the movie could have been something great.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2
Jared White, age 27
Negative—I just saw that someone said they were disappointed that they spent $17.00 on this movie to walk out on it 35 minutes later. Just so that people are aware if you walk out of a movie you can go to the box office and get your money back for the ticket(s). I have done this on a few occasions where the movie was terrible or if it was a kids movie and my toddler could not sit through it. I have been in a movie that was 30-40 min. in and have gotten my money back. So if you don't like a movie don't feel you have to sit through it just because you bought a ticket. You can leave and get your money back and maybe that would send a message back to Hollywood as well.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Christina, age 32
Negative—Trashy. A waste of money and bad morality.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Steve, age 49
Negative—My husband and I went to see Hancock with a great deal of expectation of watching a humorous, super-hero type movie. However, we were a great deal disappointed. I think they could have had a real good story line with their concept of the unlikely super hero, which Hancock was playing. Hancock's character was also played so well, with the various emotions displayed on his face. Other viewers noted the language as an issue, and as much as this is an issue for some, the main issue for my husband and I was the blurred marriage lines that we saw. I don't want to ruin the story line, so I won't say anymore, but there is a definite issue there. If only that portion of the story wasn't included, we would have walked away with a much better feeling. We went with a group of friends, and we all walked out of the movie feeling pretty deflated, instead of feeling excited over watching a good movie. We should have seen something else.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Nicole Hansen, age 30
Negative—PG-13??? Very trashy movie that is absolutely NOT kid-friendly. I’ve seen R rated movies that weren’t half as offensive as Hancock. Like an idiot I went to see it July 4 because I like Will Smith—or did. I've told my son to keep his kids away. Cursing, extreme violence, sex (including an ejaculation scene), drunkenness, crude and rotten behavior, extreme property damage, no plot, not at all funny, weirdness. Plus, there are references to the two main characters as being “gods or angels,” and they have healing powers. I've only walked out on two movies my entire life but Hancock was #3. Will Smith and Sony should be ashamed. I hope it bombs.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1
Ann Darby, age 54
Negative—Although I've never seen this movie, Hancock. I'd have to say that the previews were enough to cause me not to want to see it. Common sense, and the Word of God tells me that the Lord Jesus Christ would not be please if I did. it's bad enough that I have to hear and see the same things on TV. Why would I pay money and find pleasure in watching something that even Christ would find offensive to look at?
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Brian, age 42
Negative—My mother wanted to see this movie as she likes Will Smith so my husband and I took her to it. All of us hated it. Where do I start? Most has already been mentioned but just a re-cap:

1) Horrible language and some of it spoken from children—why do people now think it is cute to see a child swear???

2) The whole marriage/adultery issue—like someone else mentioned I don't want to give away the storyline but I found it offensive.

3) Charlize Theron starts out dressed but a couple of the later outfits I was wondering if they had to re-take a few scenes due to “spillage” her top was cut so low.

4) I do not like movies that the camera is two inches away from the people's faces in talking scenes. Between that and the focusing in on an object then pulling away very fast to a person—zoom in then switch to object zoom in… it wasn't adding to the drama it was just annoying.

5) Where was the humor??? The funniest thing was the whale scene, if you saw the trailer then save your money—you already saw the best of the movie.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2
Victoria, age 33
Negative—I went with my brother to see Hancock several nights ago. Based on what the Hancock trailers showed I thought it would be a funny and relatively decent superhero movie; especially with all the new superhero movies coming out like Iron Man and the Hulk. Also, with Will Smith as the lead, I figured, out of the one or two movies I'd seen with him in it, and his praised performance in I Am Legend, I'd be in for a real treat in acting and overall quality of film. I was wrong.

This film was rated PG-13 but it was borderline in some areas. There was an immense amount of profanity, several scenes of nudity or partial nudity, and overall some pretty crude and obscene content throughout that most could have gone without. The movie doesn't take itself seriously, but even joking around, this isn't the kind of things kids, teens… alright, this isn't even really beneficial or all that entertaining for adults.

Not only was the movie offensive, but the overall quality wasn't that great. The computer graphics seemed choppy and a little cheap compared to a lot of the other recent superhero movies. The storyline changed about halfway through with a pretty bad transition, and even trying to overlook the crude content, it just wasn't a very well made film.

Hancock had some neat action sequences, several scenes that were moving if you'd let them be, tolerable visual effects, and it did have some pretty humorous parts. Nevertheless, the overall content wasn't really worth the money spent on the ticket. If you must see this movie rent it. If you're going to see a new superhero movie, see Iron Man. If you go see this movie (and if you stay all the way through like we did) you'll most likely walk out somewhat disgusted and with an overall “Ok…” feeling.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Stephan, age 17
Negative—I don't recommend this movie at all; especially to Christians. I believe that this film could have had the makings of a very good film had all the vulgarity and bad language been left out. I agree with the critic's comments about the film's excessive use of bad language, disrespectful use of God and Christ's name, and the vulgar content from what my family and I viewed until we finally had to leave.

I really wanted to stay and see how the movie was going to play out, because it had an interesting plot, and Will Smith is an excellent actor, but the negative aspects of the film made it impossible for us to sit there a minute longer. My kids were yelling that they couldn't take the language anymore. My daughter was highly upset at the lack of morals in this film, and disappointing to find Will Smith as the star actor of such crude character as Hancock. I had to agree. This is causing us to resort to staying at home and watching old movies and classics due to having a very small choice of good, moral movies to watch. I am also very disappointed at the growing lack of respect for the name of God and Jesus Christ, the Savior, and Christianity in the film-making industry.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Tracie Hall, age 38
Negative—I expected a fun movie starring Will Smith, but I was greatly disappointed. I went to this movie with my nephew and my dad. If I had been by myself, I would have walked out. The profanity and vulgarity were extremely offensive. It is hard to believe that his movie is PG-13. It should be R because of the language and graphic vulgarity, even from children. My nephew is 14, and I told him of my disapproval of the behavior in the movie.

Will Smith has made some good movies. Hancock could have been one of them, but too bad he sank to such a low level.

My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Karen, age 47
Negative—I took my two boys, ages 10 and six, along with my wife to view this latest “superhero” flick. The comic book hero genre is our family favorite due to a house with 2 boys and a kid like Dad (me). My wife likes these movies as well.

We were so utterly disappointed because of a couple of things. First I must point out that all 3 spiderman movies were PG-13 as is most superhero movies because of violence and maybe an S-word. Hancock was PG-13 but we did not know it had “R” rated language!!!…

G-D was said several times-The F-Bomb was thrown around-and the usual S-word, D-word, and A-hole words were there to compliment this “R” rated movie disguised as a PG-13!!! I know for sure it was rated PG-13 because if it had been R rated, the younger moviegoer's money would have spent elsewhere. Will Smith isn't a saint but he has publicly denounced other entertainers for filthy language that influences our young. Mr. Smith is hard not to like… his swagger, good looks, and dripping wet with coolness is what I call the modern day “Fonz” but multiplied ten fold with popularity. So WHY WHY WHY Will Smith? Why not keep out the language that you so passionately denounced? I had to leave the movie after 15-20 min. because I was afraid of what my young boys would hear next. PG-13 traditionally has been somewhat dependable but you never know nowadays! Besides the bad words, the alcoholic scenes were pretty educational… in a bad way. After only 15-20 min. of “Hancock,” my youngest son can't quit asking about what drunk means.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4
Billy, age 34
Negative—I went to this movie with my husband and his unsaved brother and his girlfriend without know anything about what it was about and without referring to this site first, and it was not a good decision to see this movie. The profanity is absolutely terrible all throughout the movie and very offensive, and the plot is absolutely ridiculous and very strange. I would not recommend this movie to anyone who is wanting a deeper walk with Christ, because it will not help you there at all! This movie should have been R for all the cussing. Not worth your money.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1
Angie, age 20
Negative—Rented the movie tonight and played it on Clearplay—a DVD player that blocks bad language. The movie is supposed to last 1 hour and 36 minutes. After Clearplay blocked all the bad language and scenes not fit for children, it barely lasted an hour. Hmmm… sounds like a really positive move. Not…
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Marshall, age 47 (USA)
Negative—Within 10 minutes, my family and I walked out. We heard the b-word, the f-word, the a-word, the d-word—and some coming from a little boys mouth. Didn't finish it, have no desire to finish it. Heard the ending was ridiculous.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1½
Chantel, age 20 (USA)
Negative—Dear viewer, I watched about 45 min. of this film. I thought “Hancock” could've been a good story. I'm only looking at the storyline. It's hero lost his credibility. Great he was, noble and heroic, and kick your butt attitude, up to one point in the film. In that split second, the character of the story was unheroic. That is also when he lost his powers. That point is when he kissed a woman knowing she was married (his friend) and had a son. Too bad, Hancock did not lose his powers because of that. Then it would be interesting.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Steven, age 24 (USA)
Comments from young people
Positive—…I just saw this movie with my dad and my brother. We had seen reviews about all the bad language and how dumb it was because of the cussing! Most reviews gave it a 3 star or less…

Well, that is NOT what I got out of this movie! First of all I rated the morale good because it was good and I would have gone excellent if it weren't for the cussing. yes there was a lot of cussing in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie and it gets “better” throughout the rest of the movie I guess. Well, the word “a-hole” is used a lot but you have to admit guys Will Smith is a huge “a-hole” in this movie at first lol! He does save people but in a mean sort of way! destroying all he can and giving the bad guys way more than they deserve! but he goes to prison knowing he can break out without anything happening to him and so do the guards! He admitted he was wrong and went to jail! even in a scene when they were playing basketball the basketball went over the gate and Will Smith broke out and got the ball and went back to jail knowing he was wrong. Then he got better and the movie was great.

The reason I say this is an AWESOME move is because it kind of reminded me of my life some what. I have problems with anger a lot, but I need to admit its wrong and stop all that ! I would say to definitely see this movie unless your some person who is super safe about cussing. I mean its not all that bad but still they could go without it! I just absolutely loved this movie and the plot is great! its set up to make more movies and I encourage that they do make more movies with hancock being the hero! That would be GREAT! I’d definitely go see them LOVED THE MOVIE!
My Ratings: Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
Ryan, age 13
Positive—I did like this movie despite what everyone says about it. All you parents who are taking your children to the movie then complaining about having to walk out, don't take them. This movie is PG-13, but I think it should be more like PG-15. This movie was good, but a little vulgar for young ears. If your going to complain about it, don't go. That is your fault if you are aware that the movie is PG-13 and you take your 10, 11, 12 year old to see it. Don't blame it on Hollywood. The sound did go off towards the end but that problem was easily fixed. I personally like this movie but many people will feel different than I do. The use of @$$-hole was used way too much, but other than that this was a good movie.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 3
Elena Manubens, age 16
Negative—My aunt and uncle saw this movie one night, and we recently ate out with them. My uncle said it was loaded with bad language, and wasn't very good. Also, I'd like to say to parents something extremely important… Do not take your young kids to PG-13 movies without watching them yourself. It's part of being a parent, and even I know better than to take my kids to a PG-13 movie I haven't heard much about, or haven't seen before. It's too risky. Nowadays there's sex in every PG-13 movie, and some PG movies aren't even safe anymore. Movies aren't rated very strictly anymore. Personally, no 13 year old should see a movie with sex in it, so no PG-13 movie should have that kind of garbage in it. Hollywood's starting to do a much better job of making bad movies look good in the trailers. And even movies like HP just lure you in, getting darker and darker through the series until finally you're letting your kids watch the kind of thing you never would have let them watch before you'd seen Harry Potter. Hollywood's trying to put a few good things in movies just so parents won't notice the bad things in them, and parents need to start being a lot more careful with what they let their kids watch.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Jake W., age 13
Neutral—Now don't get me wrong, this was a fun movie to go and see. It was entertaining, funny, and kept you on the edge of your seat. But the end was pretty stupid. They should've had a good villain. To let adults know, this movie was made to attract high school kids. That's why they show some disgusting stuff, but that's what boys like. The swearing was not needed, which really brought this movie down. I think kids from 13 up are good to go seeing this movie
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Justin, age 16
Positive—I went to see this movie when it first came out, I was excited because Will Smith was in it!!!… So that was my reason for going. It was a really good movie, I do agree there was a lot of cursing, but still it was a pretty good movie. I hope to see it again now that its on DVD. …
My Ratings: Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 5
Tiffany Chioda, age 16
Negative—…my mom and dd saw the movie, and they liked it. They wanted me to see it, a month later, so I decided to watch it. The first 20 min. I hated it 1) so boring to watch; I like Batman better, and 2) so much cussing; I'm sorry, but it was too much.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Ashley, age 13 (USA)
Positive—I loved “Hancock,” but there were A LOT of swears! But, Hancock cleans up his act later on in the movie. He tries to act better, and he does. I recommend it to kids 10 and up.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
Lili, age 11 (Canada)
Positive—This was a really funny movie with a great story. it made me laugh so much and I thought Will Smith did an excellent job playing Hancock. Starting out, Hancock is a drunk and not really an upstanding guy at all. Later in the movie, he turns around and becomes a hero and uses his powers for good. A wonderful, captivating story with lots of action, humor, and drama.

As far as the morality of the film, its rating is suitable. Probably no one under thirteen should see this movie.

There is NO sex in this movie at all. I read a comment that said there was. There is not. He briefly kisses her before she throws him through the wall.

I don't know what the big deal is about how she dresses. Walk outside your house, to the mall, anywhere, its much worse.

The language is pretty rough. a-hole is said multiple times (meant to be funny) from beginning to end. I don't remember all of it, but I'm pretty sure they also said d*** and h***—possibly the f-word and the Lord's name maybe once or twice.

Some sexual reference, and some vulgar conversation (for laughs). I've definitely seen much more morally offensive movies. Overall, it's awesome. I highly recommend this movie for anyone thirteen and over, or for anybody who doesn't count curse words but actually enjoys the movie.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½
Lindsey, age 13 (USA)