Hancock, in my opinion, was a fairly decent movie. The plot itself was rather interesting and feels somewhat realistic:

John Hancock (Will Smith) is a profane drunkard that nobody likes but nobody can live without. He's a superhero who catches criminals in whatever fashion he likes, and without a care in the world over property. However, over time he's convinced to clean up his act and he does.

What makes this movie good is that it doesn't have that "superhero charm". Hancock isn't superman. He doesn't save the world while wearing tights and spewing ridiculous one-liners.

The downside to this movie, however, is its lack of a real climax. The events leading up to the ending and the ending itself are satisfactory enough for what the movie is about, but there really wasn't enough action or a suspenseful final battle.

I saw this at the drive-in movie theater, it was pretty good up until it started in on the relationship between him and Angel.

I agree. I got around to watching it, and I thought the character of Hancock was good on its own. Adding the relationship just made it cumbersome.

and the whole way they added their combined backgrounds was pretty poorly explained

It felt like the writers wrote the first half of the movie, then some execs somewhere came in and told them they needed to make the movie appeal to a wider audience, not just the big-explosions crowd.

arrrr, that sounds pretty well on.