1 of 2 < >

MiceChat Rules

A list of MiceChat's rules can be found at the top of the Disneyland forum.
2 of 2 < >

Ad Blockers

Please do not use ad blocking software when visiting MiceChat. It costs money to keep MiceChat online, and ad revenue offsets this. Thank you.
See more
See less



Ad Widget

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hancock

    So, I just saw Hancock last night, and I liked it. A word of warning to those who haven't seen it yet who have small children. It is rated PG-13 for a reason, and that reason is (mostly) strong language. There's also violence, but I noticed the strong language more so. The reason I did was because I was sitting next to a dad and his son, who I'm guessing was about four. While the previews were airing (and there were a lot of them) the father and son were having a blast! This was dad's moment to take his son to a superhero movie. Once the movie started, the language just started to pour in. Each time a bad word was said, the dad leaned over to the little boy (who was right next to me) and said, "you're not allowed to say that", "don't ever say that" or, "you can't say that, either". Dad gave up after about the first ten minutes of the show and just kind of sank back in his seat, probably imagining his four year old telling mommy to shut up before he puts his boot in her *censored*.
    Anywho, it is a good movie. Very funny. I'm not sure how I feel about the message of the movie. When I first said that, the friend I went with said, "There was a message?" To which I said yes, it was near the end. There are a few messages in the movie, like overcome your demons, treat people with respect, do what you were born to do. I'm not sure how I felt about the last message, though. I'm probably blowing it too out of proportion. I'll put it in a spoilerbox, so you can see if you agree with me or not.

    You'll be stronger if you stay away from the one you were meant to be with.

    I wonder if they'll make a sequel? It's certainly good as a stand-alone movie. I would worry that a sequel would mess it up and over-complicate things the way the PotC sequels kind of did. Oh, and the little person who was in the PotC sequels is in Hancock! He's a prisoner.

  • #2
    Re: Hancock

    July 2, 2008
    Able to Leap Tall Buildings, Even if Hung Over


    Soon into the superhero spectacular before the machinery has fully kicked in, and the story is still wreathed in blissful ambiguity, you see the star Will SmithPeter BergJason BatemanCharlize Theron), decides to rescue Hancock in turn by giving him a superhero makeover, one that follows a course blazed by many a fallen star (contrition, redemption, fabulousness).

    Mr. Berg, who explored heroism of a different stripe in his poignant high school football movie, and showed off terrific action chops in the underrated flick Peter Berg; written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan; director of photography, Tobias Schliessler; edited by Paul Rubell and Colby Parker Jr.; music by John Powell; production designer, Neil Spisak; visual effects designer, John Dykstra; produced by Akiva Goldsman, Michael Mann, Will Smith and James Lassiter; released by Columbia Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 32 minutes.

    WITH: Will Smith (John Hancock), Charlize Theron (Mary), Jason Bateman (Ray), Eddie Marsan (Red), Johnny Galecki (Jeremy), Thomas Lennon (Mike) and Atticus Shaffer (Boy at Bus Bench).

    The Current Cinema

    Desperate Men

    by David Denby July 7, 2008,508312.story



    The Will Smith vehicle is as self-destructive as its superhero.
    By Kenneth Turan
    Times Movie Critic

    July 1, 2008

    WHERE IS it written that superheroes have to be selfless? What would happen if an individual with supernatural powers was surly, self-absorbed and acid-tongued? Would he still be a hero? Would people still want him around?

    the new Will Smith vehicle, asks those smart questions, but after initial moments of success its answers get dumb and dumber. It's a strange feeling to see the summer's most promising premise self-destruct into something bizarre and unsatisfying, but that is the "Hancock" experience.

    Probably no one but Smith, possibly the most likable actor in the world, could have breathed the right kind of life into this unusual character, first met sleeping off a monumental binge on a bench in Los Angeles.

    Being hung over, we soon learn, is business as usual for Hancock, a superhero who hangs out in dive bars, drinks from the bottle and wears ragged clothes and a wool cap that has seen better days.

    Yes, Hancock has all of Superman's talents -- he is ridiculously strong, invulnerable and able to to leap tall buildings in a single bound -- but because he is often drunk and/or hung over when the call to action comes, he causes as much trouble as he prevents.

    When Hancock stops a car full of gun-toting gangbangers, he destroys assorted vehicles and a freeway sign and defaces a local monument in the process. When he tosses a beached whale back into the ocean, he capsizes a boat. Hancock is clearly the guy the term "collateral damage" was invented for.

    Worse than that, Hancock has a blistering tongue, something the film's trailers have taken care to avoid revealing. That a film with dauntingly profane diatribes that would make a stevedore blush got a PG-13 rating, while the much sweeter "Election" was saddled with an R a few years back, will be catnip to those who think the MPAA ratings board (which reportedly twice gave "Hancock" an R before further cuts changed its mind) invariably gives away the store to major studio releases.

    Things might have gone on like this forever for Hancock -- who knows how long a superhero's liver can hold out -- if he hadn't one day saved the life of a man named Ray Embrey (an agreeable Jason Bateman), whose car was trapped on railroad tracks with a train bearing down. Embrey turns out to be a good-natured public relations man who believes in making the world a better place and specializes in image consulting. Though his wife Mary (an initially underutilized Charlize Theron) takes a visceral dislike to Hancock, Embrey decides nothing will do but that he will help this reluctant superhero to clean up his act.

    Some of this stuff, like training Hancock to ask politely before rescuing someone and to say "good job" even when people are not doing one, is amusing. But when Hancock agrees to go to jail for the damage he's caused, the result is an anatomically challenging encounter with a pair of inmates that makes an even further mockery, if that's possible, of the film's puny rating.

    As written by Vy Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan and directed by Peter Berg, "Hancock" up to this point takes misanthropic glee in its deconstruction of the conventions of superheroism. It's abrasive as all get out, but Smith's charisma and the cleverness of the concept keep us in the picture.

    But then, just about without warning, "Hancock" makes a completely unexpected and head-shaking plot turn that derails the film in a way that it never recovers from. This second part of "Hancock" has the further disadvantage of coming up with its convoluted rules as it goes along, making it especially hard to understand what is happening to its characters or the reasons for its events.

    Theron has more prominence as things progress, and, also out of nowhere, gives one of her strongest performances. But this part of the film also reveals a weakness for standard-issue violence and savagery that comes from a much more conventional place than the film's initial concept.

    The creators of "Hancock" truly had a tiger by the tail with their primary idea, and once they let go, the beast turned around and swallowed them whole. This is Hollywood, after all, a town without pity. Or, for that matter, anything resembling good common sense.

    "Hancock." MPAA rating: PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language. Running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes. In general release.

    Muddled 'Hancock' can't save the day, even with Will Smith

    By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

    Hancock (* * out of four) might have been more appropriately titled Hodgepodge.

    What starts out with a sense of quirky fun loses direction and devolves into a mishmash of story lines. The finished product is so poorly conceived and misguided that even Will Smith, with all his charm, can't save it.

    It's a shame, because the antics of a slovenly, snide and misunderstood superhero might have made for a fun summer movie. But Hancock
    A superhero with a super-hangover
    Release Date: 2008
    Ebert Rating: ***
    / / / Jun 30, 2008

    By Roger Ebert

    Cast & Credits
    John Hancock Will Smith
    Mary Embrey Charlize Theron
    Ray Embrey Jason Bateman
    Aaron Embrey Jae Head
    Red Eddie Marsan
    Man Mountain David Mattey

    Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Peter Berg. Written by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan. Running time: 92 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence and language). Opening tonight at select locations and opening wide Wednesday.


    • #3
      Re: Hancock

      This has been getting really bad reviews for a Will Smith movie, but since I'm the only person in America that isn't a Will Smith fan, I wasn't excited for it anyway. I do like Men in Black though.


      • #4
        Re: Hancock

        34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.
        Critter Country's a mess ev'r since the Country Bears were kicked out. Ya can't cover pooh with honey and 'spect people ta like it.
        An Adventurers It's Time to Put the Spotlight Back on Bring Back the REAL Disney Gallery
        Life for Me! ~ ~ ~ Melvin, Buff, and Max!!! ~~~~ Dump the Dream Suite!
        Meese-ka Moose-ka Mice-Chatter!


        • #5
          Re: Hancock

          Originally posted by Aladdin View Post
          34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.
          Ecspecially considering that this is a very high profile project.


          • #6
            Re: Hancock

            I saw it last night and I enjoyed it!

            My best score ever!


            • #7
              Re: Hancock

              Originally posted by Aladdin View Post
              34% at Rotten Tomatoes. Pretty much means it's a dud.
              Eh...might be a dud as a film, but it's still going to rake in money. The bad press reviews may keep people away, but your common moviegoer probably doesn't care about Rotten Tomatoes.

              Granted, these aren't exactly critical successes, but I seem to recall them making money and being marketed about just as much:

              Shark Tale-34%...$160.8 million BO
              Bad Boys II-24%...$138.4 million BO
              Men In Black II-38%...$190.4 million BO
              Wild Wild West-21%...Box office unknown (going by RT's numbers)

              Sure, he's been around the 70s since 2005, but I'm curious if anyone can give me a cliffnotes version of the poor reviews. I mean, sometimes critics go into a summer action flick expecting some breathtaking dramatic masterpiece and then review the film as such. Sure, sometimes a film can and does capture both (See: the upcoming The Dark Knight), but I don't know why anyone thought the press reviews would come out that great.

              For those interested, out of almost 1900 votes, Hancock has a 6.4 on, which is a better pulse (IMO) of public opinion than RT.

              Whether it will open big and sustain some money making remains to be seen, but it will open big this weekend.


              • #8
                Re: Hancock

                I saw it Tuesday night and left the theater almost mad.
                Firstly because of the preview for Day the Earth Stood Still with F'in Keanu Reeves!! (WTH Hollywood!!! WTFH!!)

                If there are spoilers here, I'm sorry. I'm warning you now just in case but I'm trying not to have them

                This film was just okkay.
                The first like 20 minutes were hilarious. Watching this jerk of a superhero go around saving people and causing general mayhem. I mean honestly there's no reason to like this guy but for some reason you sypathise with him.
                At the same time he got a little annoying. the whole joke (that was repeated like 8 times) about "Call me an A' hole one more time" just became annoying to me after the like 2nd time. It was funny once but so overdone. I felt like a lot of the movie was overdone
                Then we have Charlize Theron who I don't hate but if she gave him one more "OMG I know you" look that was I guess just suppose to be a subtle "OMG I don't like you" look I was going to smack her.
                They didn't spend enough time setting up the big bad guy and why he was so evil. (Yes he tried to kill people and broke out of prison but they didn't give him enough motivation IMHO)
                Then there's the "twist" that honestly I don't understand how people didn't see it coming. Like yes, I'm pretty good at guessing movie twists.. it's just something I do, but come on. It was so obvious we were going there, there was like no hiding it.
                Then we get bogged down in this "origin" story that never gets fully explained and is just kind of there to further complicate things and it's like what the heck?!

                Yeah, so I went into the film with no expectations and it basically met that. I was hoping that I'd go in like "meh it'll be okkay" and then maybe be blown away by how good it turned out.. but not the case.

                So in summary: First act pretty freaking hilarious. I laughed out loud a lot! Second act what the? where'd that come from? Who the? Nevermind I'm just mad now!


                • #9
                  Re: Hancock

                  BREAKING news:THIS JUST IN!!!

                  Critics don't know crap and basing whther or not you see a movie based on reviews from newspapers is a bad idea.


                  • #10
                    Re: Hancock

                    It was barely okay, it never really felt like it went anywhere.


                    • #11
                      Re: Hancock

                      I'm starting to get the feeling, hearing what people think, that the studios made a very, VERY poor decision to get this cut down in rating. It sounds like it's suffering from what some of this summer's other comedic movies have suffered from: Good first parts that fade away into bad second parts.


                      • #12
                        Re: Hancock

                        Originally posted by draybook View Post
                        BREAKING news:THIS JUST IN!!!

                        Critics don't know crap and basing whther or not you see a movie based on reviews from newspapers is a bad idea.
                        So's basing it on


                        • #13
                          Re: Hancock

                          Originally posted by Retrocool View Post
                          So's basing it on
                          Which is essentially a compendium of critics' opinions all rolled into one percentage rating...


                          • #14
                            Re: Hancock

                            The trailers I've seen look beyond stupid, so I have no interest in seeing this movie.


                            • #15
                              Re: Hancock

                              Originally posted by Twist_of_Fate View Post
                              Which is essentially a compendium of critics' opinions all rolled into one percentage rating...
                              Along with site members.

                              Face it, movie critics are just people who are paid for their opinions. The only reason some of them have slightly more sophisticated opinions than the average film viewer are because they've seen (in many cases) a LOT more movies than the average viewer, and/or have studied film as an art form to some degree. So their opinions are somewhat better informed, but they're still just opinions, and those are so variable and depend so much on personal taste and preferences that it's literally impossible for anyone to rely on critics en toto for advice on which movies to see, because, obviously, one man's trash is another man's treasure. While there are certainly films that are critically acclaimed that I enjoy (regardless of whether audiences did or not), there are also films critics hated that I enjoyed, and films critics adored that I either despised or had no interest in at all.

                              So the opinions of film critics are like the opinions of educated, informed friends - valuable to a certain degree, and they might or might not influence me as a viewer, but ultimately, just another opinion. And it's foolish to live one's life based solely on the opinions of others. Am I interested in seeing this particular film? Yes. Am I going to rush right out to see it? Well, if I had the spare change to go see it this weekend or next, I probably would, but I don't, so I'll likely just wait for the DVD. Do the various critiques of the film influence me one way or the other? Not really, but I will keep them in mind when I see the film, to see if I agree with them or not.

                              I'm not one of those people who wrings his hands ruefully over having wasted two hours of his life seeing a movie that wasn't that great. I usually can spot a movie I'm not going to like a mile away, and I might confirm that hunch years later once it shows for free on TV (today the local MyNetworkTV station showed Robots


                              Ad Widget