|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Viewing
1-10 of 26 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
|
 |
swordz81
on Dec 6 2008, 3:51:19 PM writes:
GET GABRIEL UNION
I don't know why Charlize Theron's dull ass was in this movie. They should have gotten GABRIEL UNION in place of Theron, then it would have been a better movie. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
Minacious
on Dec 5 2008, 3:33:43 PM writes:
The movie was entertaining when its focus followed Hancock being the only Superhero alive who just didn't give a damn about society, became a drunk, and saved people (without a care for the collateral damage he caused) simply because he had nothing better to do.
When Theron's big reveal came to the surface, the movie fell on its face. It lost focus and direction. Like a straight man in a gay bar; it didn't belong there.
A sequel will more than likely continue where the first left off. That isn't a good place to be. Bring back those beginning elements of Hancock and a sequel could be fun. Continue with all of the nonsense that Theron intruded and well....well let's just say it will be that straight man in the gay bar again.
|
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|
ShattertheNight
on Dec 5 2008, 2:05:40 PM writes:
I just saw it the other day and it was pretty good. It didn't really have a true villain in it cause I don't think that was what the story was about won't say anymore. But the commercials and the dvd cover do give things away but I'd guess that their thinking was "hey everyone who saw this in theaters, remember this part you liked so much, doesn't want to make you go buy it on DVD?" |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|
critic_h8er
on Dec 5 2008, 9:09:29 AM writes:
F*CK YEAH!
After all the atrocities of ARTHUR and ROMANCING THE STONE remake news, this is the first GOOD movie news I've heard all morning. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
Taldaran
on Dec 5 2008, 12:25:44 AM writes:
I liked Hancock. The only real downside to the film was that it did not have a real villian for him to fight against. Hopefully the second film will have some real conflict. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|
UrbanLenny
on Dec 4 2008, 11:43:15 PM writes:
Wow lets freak out because some one has a different opinion than the majority? have you learned nothing from x-men? and of course i mean the best one in the trilogy x3 xmen united... im against hancock 2 for the fact that ratner isnt doing it. the first one sucked and only he can (from past exambles) revive a franchise or bad original. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|
 SkyNet
on Dec 4 2008, 11:39:14 PM writes:
i loved Hancock, it had great comedy in the beginning and i liked the story for the whole flick. And i would say i was in the minority, but, the flick made a shit load of cash!
as for your extra tidbit... i 100% agree, i never understood why, in all the press for the flick, they made sure to keep tight lipped on the twist, yet the DVD cover AND the description on the back of the box straight up tell you the big plot twist?! Made no sense! |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
CWM21186
on Dec 4 2008, 11:08:25 PM writes:
WHY NOT?
Here's my biggest argument in agreement with this decision. If they can make a sequel to Hellboy (which sucked the devil's balls), and have it be relatively decent. Then they can totally make a sequel to Hancock and have it rock. Besides, um... Will Smith, hello? |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
scarp
on Dec 4 2008, 8:32:16 PM writes:
The trailer made me think it would at least be worth watxhing it at the dvd release and that the movie would bring some fun and entertainment. i really adore arrested dev and jason bateman and smith always makes at least ok film-. How suprised i got when hancock really was maybe the worst film i've seen this year. baaaad baaaaad movie. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|
 Shaggy89
on Dec 4 2008, 8:17:27 PM writes:
OK
I'd like to see a sequel because I like the whole concept and it could be done better. BUT if Jason Bateman isn't in it...no thank you. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|
|
Viewing 1-10 of 26 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
