Hancock

[brettdale]

I have never in my life seen a movie so misrepresented by its own trailer.

A good movie, interesting, but boy the studio should be had up for false advertising.

[TlalocW]

1. I'm a comic book/superhero geek

And I put Hancock in my top ten list of superhero movies. I think it was misrepresented by the studio like you said, and I think the critics panning it don't get what makes a good superhero movie.

TlalocW

[jobycom]

2. Thanks. I've been wanting to see it, but the critics put me off.

Most of the negative reviews seemed upset it wasn't what they expected, and the positives said they were surprised and impressed. Glad to see some real input on the film.

[TlalocW]

3. My main worry is that...

They do a prequel to it (you'll understand where the material could come from when you see it). A lot of good movies were ruined in my opinion when they become franchises - like the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. Instead of leaving us with Neo flying off to free humans from the Matrix or Jack Sparrow escaping to new adventures and letting us imagine what happens next, they made too much money, and both of them cranked out two increasingly crappy sequels that were filmed at the same time to make as much money as possible while they were hot.

TlalocW

[jobycom]

4. Well, I loved Pirates 3, except for the hokie other side scenes. Sometimes

sequels and franchises add, sometimes they subtract. Sometimes even when they aren't as good, they are still fun. Godfather and Star Wars both had sequels better than the original, and many critics are saying The Dark Knight is better than Batman Begins (will have to judge that one for myself). Spiderman 2 was good--I haven't been able to finish watching 3, though.

Pirates 3 had such an intricate plot that it made up, to me, for the way they turned Jack into a farce, and Will into a mannequin (that may have had to do with Orlando Bloom' acting skills, though). Pirates 2 was a downer compared to the original, but not as bad as most movies I see nowadays. The stupid chase and threesome sword fights were tedious, but Cutler Beckett and Davie Jones were great introductions.

Anyway, I haven't even seen Hancock yet, so I can't say, though you may have given a spoiler with talk of a prequel instead of a sequel.

[applegrove]

5. Yup. That talk of a prequel gave it away. Spoiler Alert.

[jobycom]

6. Well, saw it.

Good film. Neat premise. Had one of those rare "wait, what?" moments that so rarely actually work in a film.

[Iggo]

7. Dammit!

Now I'm going to see it.

And I blame all of you...

[ccinamon]

8. I found it disappointing...

It was like a 3-parter with all of the continuity chopped out of it and squeezed into one movie.

[via_blue]

9. I agree

I thought it would be totally different from the ads!
it was a great movie, though. Loved the crazy twist.
I totally cried:)