Comments on: Peter Berg Talks Hancock Sequel

By: Vick Lover

Vick Lover — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:28:44 +0000

Hancock was the of the Black Superman. LOL

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:18:37 +0000

I actually liked the Gods makin each other mortal part. I thought it was an interesting little thing to include.

By: tasouli

tasouli — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:14:53 +0000

Movie was fair, I mean I enjoyed it but I do not think that story wise it shoudl warrant a sequel. I am sure that if they come out with one it will genereate a hefty profit though and have a few cool tricks in the bag. But overall I dont think that the first film’s storyline was strong enough to spawn a sequel…just my opinion

By: Matt Keith

Matt Keith — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:54:02 +0000

“Hancock” was good for me because I thought it was nice to see a drunk superhero, but after the bank robbery seen the film went downhill from there. I think the idea of doing this sequel if they are gonna use this concept is a bad idea to me. One of the things I didn’t like was the whole plot twist where the “Gods render each other mortal” idea, and this is gonne go even more into that.

By: jeff

jeff — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:24:22 +0000

As with everyone else, the first half was pretty well crafted, then once the girl shows up, it all goes downhill. I always thought it was strange how he’s an immortal god, yet alcohol affects him, that might deserve a nice explanation as it just blew my mind.

By: Longshanks

Longshanks — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:42:00 +0000

Oddly enough,I was just wondering,kinda out of the blue,when they were going to do another Hancock movie.

Personally,I liked it for what it was and what it tried to do.

By: RastaZen

RastaZen — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:50:01 +0000

I loved Hancock , I thought it was a lot of fun .
I think its wide open for a sequel

By: Ken J

Ken J — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:45:07 +0000

Yah, I agree the beginnig of the movie was pretty funny and entertaining, then when it tried to turn serious with it’s “twist” it just got dumb…

By: DiZZy

DiZZy — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:00:05 +0000

The first half was worth watching, then it crashed after that. Now to be thinking about a sequel and continue the story about his(Jason Bateman’s character) charity campaign? Eh, eh, eh.

By: Tim "Cloverfield"

Tim "Cloverfield" — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:57:07 +0000

790 speaks the truth….I really tried to like it…..but ( please read 790′s post for rest of comment)ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

By: Rhaemye

Rhaemye — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:22:27 +0000

Reboot.

By: Gunther Heinrich

Gunther Heinrich — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:05:02 +0000

Another sequel? Everything in my body screams in pain to read about this but it’s really inevitable. Money rules. And money always overrides everything else.

By: Giraffehead

Giraffehead — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:04:56 +0000

I thought the first half of the movie was ingenius… the rest I could have done without.

I don’t see how they could bring the magic back for a sequel.

By: 790

790 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:46:26 +0000

I didn’t like Hancock,,,
I found it predictable and boring.

Fool me once Smith!

By: Andy S

Andy S — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:36:22 +0000

I think a Hancock sequel COULD work. I don’t see how the story is told. Yes, that particular story is told, but should Superman have stopped after the first film? This is an opportunity for a whole new superhero story to be told. While the first film wasn’t fantastic, it was still very entertaining and I like Will Smith in a superhero role. I really don’t think they would make the main focus of the film Bateman’s story, but use it as an ancillary part of the plot. IF they can create hundreds of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man stories, etc., I am SURE they can create a new story for Hancock.