[KeyLimePi]

The early Hancock trailer made the movie seem like it was a whacky superhero comedy. Now, the newest trailer looks like it's mainly a heavy drama. I really hope that they haven't re-tooled this movie already.

[MacosNerd]

I saw the same thing, but after going to the movie's official site, it does seem to be an offbeat movie about a superhero doing more damage to the city then saving it.

[Jens Peter]

They make damn good beer!

[64stang06]

Man, I thought it was about:

[ghporter]

I just watched the trailer on Quicktime. It doesn't look "serious" or "dramatic" at all. It looks like the "hook" of the story is how Hancock changes his bad attitude and why. It looks like fun and I'm going to see it for that reason.

[jokell82]

I think it looks pretty interesting/funny, and definitely a different take on the superhero movie. I'll probably see it.

[OwlBoy]

Nope it was not re-tooled. They are just showing you the real movie now. From what I have read it has always been a darker seriousish character study thing.

They prolly saw how Ironman and The Hulk are doing and decided to start thowing out some ads that showed it to be a more serious "real" movie.

Looks like it could be great. Or a great concept they totally botched. I am eager to see what one.

-Owl

[Cold Warrior]

It looks good. I tend to like his roles and his movies.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy 

Nope it was not re-tooled. They are just showing you the real movie now. From what I have read it has always been a darker seriousish character study thing.

So Hancock is Striptease in reverse?

That's unfortunate. I was looking forward to Hancock when I thought that it was a pure comedy.

[phantomdragonz]

it is one of the few movies this summer that I am actually excited to see...

I like will smith in most of his movies so I can't wait...

-Zach

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi 

The early Hancock trailer made the movie seem like it was a whacky superhero comedy. Now, the newest trailer looks like it's mainly a heavy drama. I really hope that they haven't re-tooled this movie already.

Yeah I noticed it too. That's OK, it will be a better movie if it isn't totally one-dimensional.

[Randman]

As long as they don't ruin the good bits like they did in I Am Legend.

[Wiskedjak]

Some of the spoilers suggest there's a twist to it that people might not appreciate if they're expecting a typical super hero movie.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Some of the spoilers suggest there's a twist to it that people might not appreciate if they're expecting a typical super hero movie.

The trailer gives the twist away. It's ridiculous how much movies reveal in the trailers these day.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

The trailer gives the twist away. It's ridiculous how much movies reveal in the trailers these day.

Wildly Popular 'Iron Man' Trailer To Be Adapted Into Full-Length Film | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[red rocket]

I’m sick and tired of Will Smith films. Not that he’s essentially bad, there are just too many of his films coming out, one after the other, after the other. It’s like every time I turn around, there’s another Will Smith movie.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by phantomdragonz 

it is one of the few movies this summer that I am actually excited to see...

I like will smith in most of his movies so I can't wait...

-Zach

He's one of my favorites, as well. Although Independence Day and that western movie sucked major balls. The rest of his movies I give a to.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I’m sick and tired of Will Smith films. Not that he’s essentially bad, there are just too many of his films coming out, one after the other, after the other. It’s like every time I turn around, there’s another Will Smith movie.

Well, maybe he likes to act...

[KeyLimePi]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I just watched the trailer on Quicktime. It doesn't look "serious" or "dramatic" at all. It looks like the "hook" of the story is how Hancock changes his bad attitude and why. It looks like fun and I'm going to see it for that reason.

If you look at my post you can see that the original trailer made it seem much more screwball compared to the new trailer that is currently airing on TV. They haven't put that 'serious' trailer on the site yet, so maybe that trailer is just for the TV audience (which I suppose is more adult).

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I’m sick and tired of Will Smith films. Not that he’s essentially bad, there are just too many of his films coming out, one after the other, after the other. It’s like every time I turn around, there’s another Will Smith movie.

You're right. The one movie he's done each year for the past 5 years is just way too much.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Well, maybe he likes to act...

Nah, he just likes money. He doesn't even like the genre he typically acts in. He's stated that one day he sat down with his agent and they figured out where he could make the most money, landing on sci-fi/action as a genre waiting for a next big star.

[ctt1wbw]

Which is why my agent just laughed at me and told me to stick with the forums.

[voodoo]

No way I'm giving my hard earned money to a person dumb enough to become a scientologist!

[BasketofPuppies]

You mean smart enough.

For wealthy celebrities, the Church of Scientology is a tax shelter.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

You mean smart enough.

For wealthy celebrities, the Church of Scientology is a tax shelter.

If dumb is the new smart then yeah

[design219]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

For wealthy celebrities, the Church of Scientology is a tax shelter.

That may be, but I don't think that's a good enough reason, even if it is all for pretend. You look like an idiot, so the only reason to be a Scientologist is because you want to be. (or maybe you were coerced). There are other, easier ways for the wealthy to skirt taxes besides going off the deep end.

[Cold Warrior]

Has anyone seen this yet? I think I'm going in a couple hours.

[Eug]

I'm avoiding this movie for sure. I dunno, but I'm not optimistic about this one.

[Randman]

Reviews are uniformly negative. I'll get it on netflix some day just to check but meh.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Reviews are uniformly negative. I'll get it on netflix some day just to check but meh.

Dammit. And I was hoping for something as awesome as Wild Wild West.

[Rumor]

Roger Ebert gave it three stars out of four. I often have similar taste with his, so will probably end up seeing it this weekend.

[Peter]

9 ways hancock could have been decent
I'd give it 6.5/10

[analogue SPRINKLES]

For me watching a Super Hero be depressed and not wanting to be a superhero is like watching a celebrity commit suicide.

Pathetic.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Roger Ebert gave it three stars out of four. I often have similar taste with his, so will probably end up seeing it this weekend.

He is the same guy that loved Phantom Menace right?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

He is the same guy that loved Phantom Menace right?

Everyone makes mistakes.

[Cold Warrior]

Back from the flick. I enjoyed it. The ending isn't bad like people are making it out to be. It's not sad, depressing, or bad. What happens is the plot takes a weird turn about halfway through, then it continues on that track but still ends fine. Not a great superhero movie, but good enough to walk away positive.

Critics are being critics, going at this with way too much analysis and trying to pick it apart like an English literature professor finding ways to tell you Shakespeare was a hermaphrodite tri-sexual with 11 fingers based off of three lines in a draft copy of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Here's how it plays out if you're the kind of person who can read a spoiler but still enjoy the movie. WARNING: complete spoilers.

 

The movie starts out as seen in the previews, with Hancock being a down-and-out, drunken anti-hero. He flies around trying to be a hero, but also trying to act like he doesn't care what people think. In the process he destroys a lot of property and citizens don't like him. That attitude starts to change a bit with Bateman's character. He guides Hancock to a successful PR change. After that, the plot turns sharply.

Hancock finds out that Bateman's wife is like him: a being with super powers. She tells him, after some fighting in the streets, that they had been together for 3000 years. The other beings like them have died out; they are the only two left. Their kind had been made in pairs -- pairs drawn together by unknown physics -- and when they're together (in proximity, not "together together"), they slowly become mortal. When apart, they regain their powers.

By this time Hancock is approaching mortality and is vulnerable. Some criminals he's put away bust out and chew up him and the super girl for revenge. She dies from a gunshot wound and Hancock kind of does for a minute. Then he gets up and starts putting distance between himself and the girl. First throwing himself out of the building, then leaping and bounding down the road. As he moves farther and farther away, the girl regains a heartbeat. With enough distance, he can eventually fly again, and he flies far away. When he does we see that the girl is going to be ok.

There's some more stuff at the end to close out the ending. Also a short scene about a minute after the credits roll.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Reviews are uniformly negative. I'll get it on netflix some day just to check but meh.

That's what I like.

Poster makes up something and provides no links.

[Randman]

Are you calling me a liar?

Or just sore still from the other post?

[jokell82]

If he's actually questioning the uniformly negative reviews:
Hancock Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes

[turtle777]

-t

[Tiresias]

Speaking of films, Kung Fu Panda is unexpectedly hilarious

[mdc]

I watched this last night, found it to be better than I was expecting, and thus really enjoyed it.

 

A few weeks ago I was watching the trailer from Apple's site and I noticed something which made me frame through certain scenes. It's very quick, but from what I saw in the trailer, I figured out the big twist.

After figuring out said twist I was a little nervous but I feel that they made it work very well. The movie didn't turn out to be a boring non-Marvel/DC superhero movie.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If he's actually questioning the uniformly negative reviews:
Hancock Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes

Looking at their "top critics" page, it seems to me more like 50/50 among reviewers people actually pay attention to.

[cwosigns]

Saw it last night; it wasn't terrible. Will Smith is hot; Charlize Theron is hot. Plot was so-so, but entertaining. One big twist.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Looking at their "top critics" page, it seems to me more like 50/50 among reviewers people actually pay attention to.

How does 36% = 50/50???

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

How does 36% = 50/50???

I mean the subset of the "top critics" page that are reviewers people actually pay attention to (sorry Arizona Republic).

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Looking at their "top critics" page, it seems to me more like 50/50 among reviewers people actually pay attention to.

People pay attention to reviewers?

Oh yeah, I do. I see what they say, and then I go see movies I want to see anyway. The reviewer here in San Antonio has a track record of hating just about any movie I've liked, and liking most that I either don't have any interest in or that just bore me to tears. Sort of like with Ebert, only without the background to really have an opinion...

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

People pay attention to reviewers?

Only in extreme cases.

Over at RT, if a movie is unanimously panned, I won't bother to see it. If a movie is unanimously extolled, I'll try to see it if I like the look of it. But if reviews are mixed, I'll make up my own mind.

That's just going from experience.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Only in extreme cases.

Over at RT, if a movie is unanimously panned, I won't bother to see it. If a movie is unanimously extolled, I'll try to see it if I like the look of it. But if reviews are mixed, I'll make up my own mind.

That's just going from experience.

I take a different approach. If the reviewers hate it or love it, I consider seeing it, especially if I was already interested in it. If they're "meh" about it, I seriously reconsider, and go look for other sources to base my decision on.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

People pay attention to reviewers?

Oh yeah, I do. I see what they say, and then I go see movies I want to see anyway. The reviewer here in San Antonio has a track record of hating just about any movie I've liked, and liking most that I either don't have any interest in or that just bore me to tears. Sort of like with Ebert, only without the background to really have an opinion...

If you find a reviewer with similar tastes it really helps. I know that I agree with Roeper's reviews 95% of the time, so I typically look at his reviews before I consider going to a movie.