Jump to content

Hancock


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

From what I am reading online, I've shifted from being intrigued to being disgusted by this movie. The trailers had me laughing out loud and wanting to see this film, but then I started to read articles saying that this picture is vile, bloody, and horrible in ways that we've not seen in a superhero movie thus far. This article at first showing is not the article I'm thinking of, but I can't find it right now, and this contains part of it:

The original screenplay for Hancock, titled Tonight, He Comes, was a sexual and violent interpretation of an alcoholic supehero. Berg explains that although they've since modified the movie to be more appealing to wider audiences, it has "remained surprisingly sexual, violent and true in spirit to an original script that was viewed as brilliant but unmakable." As of mid-April, Hancock had been to the ratings board twice and received an R-rating both times. "We had statutory rape up until three weeks ago," Berg said. And as far as we've heard, they're still working to trim it to down to a necessary PG-13 rating or their won't be any fireworks at Sony Pictures this 4th of July.

Sony's Amy Pascal said of the film, "it's scary in that it goes farther than we've gone before." However, they're still trying to keep it edgy and similar to Ngo's original script, but must play "an epic game of chicken," as Berg has referred to it. In addition to the "statutory rape" that Berg mention previously, other areas of concern involve flying and driving drunk as well as a scene involving Hancock getting drunk with a 17-year-old, as opposed to a 12-year-old as originally scripted.

In addition to statutory rape (and proud of it!) the film also apparently included scenes of super-ejaculation (a pun on the original title of the film?) graphically ripping peoples' arms off, a celebration of adultery, and a whole assortment of vie behavior on the part of our hero.

It's back in reshoots now, even though it is coming out in a month! Maybe they are toning it down somewhat. But the ad campaign is making it out to be a movie that it's not. And the movie that it is, currently - is disgusting.

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites

The trailer looked really promising, as a sort of subversive response to all of the recent superhero movies, so that's all really disappointing.

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites
This spoiler-filled review at aintitcool outlines some of the more questionable scenes. I loved the trailer, too, but this sounds pretty gross. There's no way this movie could be PG-13 if they leave the, um, "love scene" described in this review intact.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36670

That's the report I had read, yeah. I had searched for it on AICN, and didn't find it. Thanks!

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking forward to this one too... the trailer made it look like a hoot. Bummer. Sounds like they really did not know what to do with this one, during production.

Look, if you are going to make a gross-out comedy/actioner (ala Scary Movie or Hot Fuzz) then go for the hard R rating and be done with it. Have all the ejaculation humor and decapitation gore you want. Advertise as such. There's a market for it.

But if you advertise your movie as a fun superhero comedy featuring the lovable Mr. Smith, then be sure to deliver that product.

Ah well... on to other things....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're doing a great job making the film appealing to young kids, too. All of the middle school boys in the Sunday school class I teach were talking about how interesting the trailer was, and how much they want to see it. Thankfully, most of their parents are pretty discerning with what movies they see with their children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, looks like Peter Berg hasn't lost the pitch-black comedy touch that he had on Very Bad Things.

As for the "lovable Mr. Smith", don't forget Bad Boys II.

Statutory rape? Is that with the 17-year-old? She'd be legal in some states (as I recently learned while discussing Barack Obama's parents with some people; the dad got the mom pregnant when he was 24 and she was 17, but they were in Hawaii, where the legal age of consent was 14), and certainly in Canada (which just raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 a few weeks ago), though perhaps not in all states.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Moore wrote:

: Though, I just saw the latest trailer again on television last night, and it's clear they are marketing this as the more-or-less family-friendly Will Smith ala Independence Day and Men in Black.

I'm guessing that's not the trailer where a woman says to Hancock, "I can smell the alcohol on your breath!" and he replies, "That's because I've been drinking, bitch!" (I have a vague recollection that it was the European trailer that had that scene.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
The Guardian's Pete Cashmore lists reasons that moviegoers might get over their blind love for Will Smith.

From the article:

In his movie I Am Legend, in one of the scenes in which Will visits his local DVD store and converses with showroom dummies dressed as customers, Will can be clearly seen browsing a copy of Flashpoint, a hardcore porn film in which Jenna Jameson plays an erotic arson suspect.

There are two scenes in the DVD store in I Am Legend, correct? I just checked my copy, and in the two scenes I noticed Will actually picking up a DVD once, but I couldn't tell what it was.

Screenit.com says:

We see what appear to be very out of focus porno video covers in a video store behind Robert (they appear to show scantly clad women, but no details can be seen, and he isn't getting one of them).
Edited by MrZoom

Edward Curtis

Morgantown, WV

Hold the physician in honor, for he is essential to you, and God it was who created his profession. Sirach 38:1 NAB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Todd McCarthy, Variety:

An intriguing high concept is undermined by low-grade dramaturgy in

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colbert had Will Smith on the show tonight. He asked him whether the film was a metaphor about America, because both are super powers who use their power and when they do they make people mad at them. I don't know if it was scripted, but Will Smith just sat there, sorta speechless.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Todd wrote:

: Colbert had Will Smith on the show tonight. He asked him whether the film was a metaphor about America, because both are super powers who use their power and when they do they make people mad at them. I don't know if it was scripted, but Will Smith just sat there, sorta speechless.

Oh, that's brilliant!

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: The Guardian's Pete Cashmore lists reasons that moviegoers might get over their blind love for Will Smith.

Okay, now I KNOW that guy is full of it. Cashmore is only half-wrong when he says that Will Smith "is playing an alcoholic superhero who throws Frenchmen into space" -- it's more of a FrenchBOY than a FrenchMAN, and he gets tossed in the air but not as far as space -- but Cashmore is COMPLETELY wrong when he says that Smith's character, "in one jaw-dropping scene, fires an innocent woman across his motor-home through the sheer force of his super-ejaculation." Where the hell did THAT come from? It certainly wasn't in the movie *I* saw tonight.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I read back through the thread and came across the AICN "review", and it would appear that Cashmore was getting his information from that review, or perhaps from some similar source (though how he can call the scene "jaw-dropping" if his own jaw personally never dropped is beyond me. But anyhoo...).

Anyway, most of what I read in that review does resemble what I saw in the film tonight. A few things are completely absent from the film in its current form, though. Like the scene I just referred to above. Also, no flashbacks. And no reference to

Isis... though the bit about "gods and angels" is definitely in there

. And I don't think the film has the prologue that the "review" describes, or at least not quite in that form.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they're just making a joke. (I laughed, at least.)

I think so as well...and I certainly hope so, because if they are serious, outside of the Scientology thing? None of those would be valid criticisms. :)

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Todd wrote:

: Colbert had Will Smith on the show tonight. He asked him whether the film was a metaphor about America, because both are super powers who use their power and when they do they make people mad at them. I don't know if it was scripted, but Will Smith just sat there, sorta speechless.

Well, now, I wonder what Smith would make of THIS:

- - -

"America! F@#K Yeah!"

Why is the above line, from the classic

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie has been chopped, chopped, and chopped some more due to studio interference and bad test screenings. Luckily I wasn't really keen on the premise from the start, as I have no desire to add money to the Church of Scientology's coffers.

Colbert's all about being ironic, right? But I get the feeling Smith kind of MEANS this. Fascinating.

Oh, he means it. Personally, I can't read a Kyle Smith review without having something sitting nearby that I can vomit into. He's almost as bad as Scott Holleran, and maybe worse since nobody takes Holleran's fascistic rants seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger Ebert likes it (3 Stars) and seems to take the whole thing a lot more seriously than I would have thought.

So this movie is still a "hard" PG-13, right? The original cut was supposedly a hard R, and I have read stories about various degrees of editing to the point that I thought they had made it more "family friendly" in keeping with the Will Smith/July 4th tradition. Did the infamous "love scene" survive at all? I don't see any way that could fit in a PG-13 film, at least not if the, ahem, "punch line" is left intact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

morgan1098 wrote:

: Did the infamous "love scene" survive at all? I don't see any way that could fit in a PG-13 film, at least not if the, ahem, "punch line" is left intact.

As per my post a few days ago, that scene is not in the version I saw last week, and indeed there is no one in the film for Smith to even HAVE such a love scene with. (At least no one who is ever in a situation with him that would have permitted such a scene -- we never see him pick anyone up at a bar, etc., etc.)

But FWIW, I have read elsewhere that the "punchline" followed a scene of masturbation, not actual sex. So there seem to be some conflicting reports there.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
morgan1098 wrote:

: Did the infamous "love scene" survive at all? I don't see any way that could fit in a PG-13 film, at least not if the, ahem, "punch line" is left intact.

As per my post a few days ago, that scene is not in the version I saw last week, and indeed there is no one in the film for Smith to even HAVE such a love scene with. (At least no one who is ever in a situation with him that would have permitted such a scene -- we never see him pick anyone up at a bar, etc., etc.)

But FWIW, I have read elsewhere that the "punchline" followed a scene of masturbation, not actual sex. So there seem to be some conflicting reports there.

Aha, I just re-read your posts. I somehow missed that the first time. Thanks for the clarification. I guess that scene will have to wait for the inevitable unrated DVD release. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...