Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

post #1 of 28
6/26/08 at 10:30am
Thread Starter 
Note of caution from Variety's review for those who may be planning to take their children to Hancock:
Quote:
Although valuable to the police, Hancock has a bad name with the public for his destructiveness, impudence and all-around bad attitude; an adjunct to this is his foul language, which treads the very edge of PG-13 permissiveness and will no doubt catch many July 4 weekend kid-herding parents unhappily unaware.
Reply
post #2 of 28
6/26/08 at 11:07am

Re: Hancock (Will Smith as a Superhero!)

Up until now the previews have been mostly of the comedy of the film. I've noticed the last two days that they have changed this to reflect the darker parts of the film. Up until the most recent trailers I didn't even know Theron was in the film.
Reply
post #3 of 28
6/27/08 at 7:12am

Re: Hancock (Will Smith as a Superhero!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Tk
Up until the most recent trailers I didn't even know Theron was in the film.

IIRC, that was by design. Columbia/Sony wanted to keep Theron as a "surprise." I think I might have read that in Video Business. Anyway, Jason Bateman is the one to watch. He's the best thing about the movie.
Reply
post #4 of 28
7/1/08 at 5:16am

*** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Hancock". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Hancock" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy
Reply
post #5 of 28
7/2/08 at 1:00pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shad R
Just got back from my screening. Let me say this...PG-13!?!Really?!?!How?!?! I won't ruin it, but there is an...image...of a man "stuck", that really made me go WHOA! The language is really bad, the movie has kind of a mean spirit, and the story is very adult in nature. I am guessing a lot of parents with kids will be refunding tickets, thus boosting Wall-E's gross.
Now, the review.
It is a jumbled mess of scenes and ideas. There is alot of wasted talent. Not to say I didn't laugh, I did, but their was no flow and the narrative wanders from place to place. I enjoyed act one...but that second and third act was stretching it. The funniest parts of the movie were in the first 30 minutes, then it makes a wierd turn and starts to get mean spirited. Also, it seems to not know weather it's spoof comedy, funny superhero movie, serious superhero movie with some comedy or an action movie. The last hour or so is just a mess of a movie. And the ending seemed very strange and random. Smith gets off some great lines in the beginning, and Bateman pretty much plays it straight(and is not utilized for his comedic delivery and timing like in Arrested Developement or Juno.) But what a mess! And that shaky camera style does NOT fit a movie like this. It was distracting. You can tell it was supposed to be R rated.
Final Score: B- (almost a C+ if it weren't for some funny moments in the beginning).
Again, this is NOT standard Willie Style PG-13 humor, this is very R-rated in nature, so be warned.

Would'nt doubt it started it's development cycle as R and then was cut dowwn to PG-13 to be a "Kid Friendly" summer film, but what they don't get in Tinsel town is the spirit of the movie should earn the rating along with the language, violence and sex. It's the quest for the almighty PG-13 that destroys many a film.
Reply
post #6 of 28
7/2/08 at 8:24pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Scarpa
Would'nt doubt it started it's development cycle as R and then was cut dowwn to PG-13 to be a "Kid Friendly" summer film, but what they don't get in Tinsel town is the spirit of the movie should earn the rating along with the language, violence and sex. It's the quest for the almighty PG-13 that destroys many a film.

I've yet to see a movie ruined by making the cut from R to PG13.

HANCOCK has problems that go way beyond ratings. For starters, it's 2 separate movies and neither one of them has a clear cut antagonist.
Reply
post #7 of 28
7/2/08 at 9:22pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
I've yet to see a movie ruined by making the cut from R to PG13.

I agree. If a film works.. it's going to work regardless. If it doesn't... R, PG-13 or G won't change it.
I still don't understand why people think an R Rating suddenly makes a film better?
Reply
post #8 of 28
7/2/08 at 9:52pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

At least this film answered one question I've had for almost a decade:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
How Charlize Theron would have done in the role of Supergirl...pretty well, if she had a decent script to work with in such a film.
Reply
post #9 of 28
7/3/08 at 4:53pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidPla
I agree. If a film works.. it's going to work regardless. If it doesn't... R, PG-13 or G won't change it.
I still don't understand why people think an R Rating suddenly makes a film better?

i feel that the cash grab to garner a larger audience hurts many films that end up being pg-13. true a good film is a good film BUT the 1980's had some good R rated material that had pg-13 been available then would have ruined the movies. i.e. most 1980's action flicks....

lest you forget the pg-13 rating was made in order to increase the potential audience in the first place. thus, enabling potentially more box office receipts....
Reply
post #10 of 28
7/3/08 at 5:10pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diallo B
lest you forget the pg-13 rating was made in order to increase the potential audience in the first place. thus, enabling potentially more box office receipts....

Well, more because people were complaining that PG-Rated movies were a little too intense.
Reply
post #11 of 28
7/4/08 at 8:23pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidPla
Well, more because people were complaining that PG-Rated movies were a little too intense.

i understand where you are coming from. but lets be real. we know that without the motivation of potential additional capital that the rating change would never have taken place.

seriously.
Reply
post #12 of 28
7/6/08 at 9:40am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Here's a link to the original script. I stayed far away from this so I'll wait to check it out at home, but I'm betting this script is better than the movie.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/image...08/tonight.pdf
Reply
post #13 of 28
7/6/08 at 4:15pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
Here's a link to the original script. I stayed far away from this so I'll wait to check it out at home, but I'm betting this script is better than the movie.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/image...08/tonight.pdf

The original script is NOT better than the movie. In fact, if you read it you will likely wonder how on earth it was ever a 'hot commodity' in the first place. It is hard R, terribly dark, unfunny, gratuitous, and plain boring. It's not a good script at all. But, it does have one original idea. I guess that's all it takes.

And, reading it will hardly ruin the movie for you. They are two very different creatures.
Reply
post #14 of 28
7/7/08 at 8:02am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
Here's a link to the original script. I stayed far away from this so I'll wait to check it out at home, but I'm betting this script is better than the movie.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/image...08/tonight.pdf


Thanks for that link Zack, I was actually just about to Google it. I'm at work now, but just glancing through the first few pages, I think Quentin may be right, it's totally different, and certainly doesn't look any better. For the record, I guess I lowered my expectations enough before seeing the movie, because I really enjoyed it. It's not perfect, but I really enjoyed the unique take on the superhero mythology, and I actually liked the plot twist involving Theron.
Reply
post #15 of 28
7/8/08 at 4:58am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Well, the main bad guy, "Red" I think, may fit into it as JosephJD mentions in the Review Thread.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Mary mentions something about "they" always find us, come after us, etc. And the bad guy talks as if he knows Mary and John, saying I'm extinguishing her and this is the end for you. It's been a good run for you but now it's over, etc. Perhaps this character is a bad "immortal" against their "good". But different M.O. Since he lost the first hand and it didn't grow back, maybe he can be hurt and killed, but then comes back in another body and continues his pursuit of Mary and John.

I'm not saying I know, or this is how it is, I'm just making some guesses based on some rather small clues we're given in the movie.
Reply
post #16 of 28
7/8/08 at 7:15am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
Note of caution from Variety's review for those who may be planning to take their children to Hancock:

They hear more "foul language" among their friends than in any PG-13-rated film..

So, it this good? Funny?
Reply
post #17 of 28
7/8/08 at 7:52pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qui-Gon John
Well, the main bad guy, "Red" I think, may fit into it as JosephJD mentions in the Review Thread.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Mary mentions something about "they" always find us, come after us, etc. And the bad guy talks as if he knows Mary and John, saying I'm extinguishing her and this is the end for you. It's been a good run for you but now it's over, etc. Perhaps this character is a bad "immortal" against their "good". But different M.O. Since he lost the first hand and it didn't grow back, maybe he can be hurt and killed, but then comes back in another body and continues his pursuit of Mary and John.

I'm not saying I know, or this is how it is, I'm just making some guesses based on some rather small clues we're given in the movie.

When I think about it a little more, the main villain just wasn't written very well.....

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
sure he seems to know more about them at the film's climax but when he first encounters Hancock earlier in the film, he's introduced as a simple common thug who's just as surprised as his associates when he's taken down. How did he mentally get from that point to the climactic battle? To me he just came across as a borderline mentalcase rather than a mysterious 'they' that Mary was talking about.


Due to that plot hole, I'll have to re-adjust my rating to 7/10.....it's entertaining, but it's best not to think too much into it.
Reply
post #18 of 28
7/8/08 at 9:08pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Well, total supposition here, but maybe:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The "they" is some kind of entity that moves from person to person and moved into Red as he got closer to both John and Mary.
Reply
post #19 of 28
7/10/08 at 9:15pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Movie was very "meh". Bateman is the only real bright spot.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
were the guys who came to kill Hancock at the end supposed to be superpowered as well? They took a beating, well the henchmen at least


What a forgettable movie.
Reply
post #20 of 28
7/11/08 at 7:09am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Did anyone catch this? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When Mary and John were fighting in the street and people were running for cover there was someone or something running with them that appeared to be 10-12 foot tall, slim build, and was hunched over as it/he/she ran for cover. What the hell was that? The only thing I could think of was one of those stilt-walkers like you see at a carnival but I didn't see one earlier in the movie.
Reply
post #21 of 28
7/11/08 at 1:13pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

I noticed that too! Seriously, good catch and like you, wondered what the heck that was?!
Reply
post #22 of 28
7/11/08 at 1:54pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover
I noticed that too! Seriously, good catch and like you, wondered what the heck that was?!
Yeah, no kidding. It was weird. The background of that shot was dark and a little out of focus so all you could see was basically silhouettes.
Reply
post #23 of 28
7/11/08 at 2:29pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

I caught that too and was wondering why there was no discussion on this before. I thought they were statues coming to life or something.
Reply
post #24 of 28
11/30/08 at 5:53pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Any details on the differences between the theatrical version and the unrated version. As best as I can recall, the only differences I noticed was the trailer scene with the girl near the beginning.
Reply
post #25 of 28
11/30/08 at 7:27pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qui-Gon John
Any details on the differences between the theatrical version and the unrated version. As best as I can recall, the only differences I noticed was the trailer scene with the girl near the beginning.

That was the major addition. I also found it tough to discern any changes. From my review:

"I noticed a little more to the scene during which Hancock puts a drunk Ray to bed, but otherwise I’d be hard-pressed to spotlight any specific alterations. I guess they’re there, but I didn’t detect any other additions; one line changes a piece of profanity, but that doesn’t extend the film."
Reply
post #26 of 28
12/1/08 at 12:14pm

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Something added 10 mins, but I can't find it. One other change I think I noticed. When Hancock first shows up on the scene in the spandex uniform, I think the theatrical version made more of the whole "it's tight" thing than the unrated, which seemed to be just a real quick line. As I recall, the theatrical had a lot of quawking by the cops and Hancock talking about it more.
Reply
post #27 of 28
12/3/08 at 12:17am

Re: *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread

Just got around to watching the unrated tonight. Saw this once in the summer and now tonight and next to the trailer scene in the begining.. the only thing i know thats new is the kiss in the kitchen scene. i remember in the theatrical cut the kiss never actually happens.. nor any mention about the bruise on his hand.
Reply
post #28 of 28
9/3/09 at 8:33am
Good to know I wasn't seeing things as I caught that as well. Maybe it's one of "those" who are killing off beings like Hancock. Since he's "the one" it would make sense that they come after him.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official HANCOCK Discussion Thread