Hancock!

[xbarretx]

hi guys, i got to see it last night b/c i was a BB reward zone member. the movie was great! lots of action and humor!

anywho, just figured i would let you guys know!

[RNR]

I am glad to hear it is good as I want to see it.

[Deberg_1990]

SO you liked it? Ive read it was short and overall isnt very good.

[Sure-Oz]

Going to see it thursday afternoon, ive been seeing alot of movies lately

So far 31% on RT, OUCH

[Demonpenz]

It is funnier than the new batman

[Mr. Plow]

I pretty much like any Will Smith movie.

[Deberg_1990]

I pretty much like any Will Smith movie.


Ahhhhhhhh...HELL No!!

[Mr. Plow]

Ahhhhhhhh...HELL No!!


Uhhhhhhh.....HELL Yes!!?!?

[58-4ever]

Ahhhhhhhh...HELL No!!

you know that you were getting jiggy with it not long ago. :p

[Deberg_1990]

you know that you were getting jiggy with it not long ago. :p

Not too long ago?? That song is at least 10 years old.

[xbarretx]

SO you liked it? Ive read it was short and overall isnt very good.

i liked it b/c the story stayed true (if that makes any sense) they didnt try to shove useless and time wasting plot down your throat. the story is about what it is about and it sticks to it. i liked it. the movie if im not mistaken was roughly an hour and a half. however, as this typoe of movie i think they did quality and not quantity. BUT by saying im not meaning that its quality compares with the citizen Kane "rosebud" type... i just mean its a great movie and ill be getting it on DVD!

[xbarretx]

It is funnier than the new batman

i cant wait for batman!

but yes Hancock was fricken halarious!

[R&GHomer]

I pretty much like any Will Smith movie.

Didn't really like "The wild, wild, west"

[Deberg_1990]

Didn't really like "The wild, wild, west"

That movie is horrible. It deserves a re-do though. It has potential if done right. The old TV show was great back in the day.

[xbarretx]

That movie is horrible. It deserves a re-do though. It has potential if done right. The old TV show was great back in the day.

i concur

p.s. antifreeze my own thread :p

[bowener]

SO you liked it? Ive read it was short and overall isnt very good [Insert Generic, 'That's what she said' Joke here].

That's what she said?

[The Franchise]

It is funnier than the new batman

That's like saying that Dumb and Dumber was funnier than Glory.

[Archie F. Swin]

That's like saying that Dumb and Dumber was funnier than Glory.

rep

[Deberg_1990]

That's like saying that Dumb and Dumber was funnier than Glory.


Reminds me of that scene in "Naked Gun" where they come out of the theater after seeing "Platoon" cracking up. ROFL

[irishjayhawk]

Don't go see Hancock. Pure garbage.

I can't even put into words my disgust. So I'll keep it brief:

So much potential and it just fell face first into the pavement.

CGI is atrocious, plot is like swiss cheese, acting is mediocre and the story - while filled with potential - isn't realized. Horrible in every regard. Entertaining? Mildly. And mildly is pushing it.

[007]

Ahhhhhhhh...HELL No!!

ONe of his memorable lines.

[irishjayhawk]

i liked it b/c the story stayed true (if that makes any sense) they didnt try to shove useless and time wasting plot down your throat. the story is about what it is about and it sticks to it. i liked it. the movie if im not mistaken was roughly an hour and a half. however, as this typoe of movie i think they did quality and not quantity. BUT by saying im not meaning that its quality compares with the citizen Kane "rosebud" type... i just mean its a great movie and ill be getting it on DVD!

:LOL:

Quality over quantity? Can you name a quality part of the film?

If we're talking craftsmanship, the film sucks on about every level. Blurry images in a lot of shots, out of focus, spinny camera X1000000, CGI that was atrocious, the lamest "badguys" in a movie ever, the EPIC TWIST with Theron (who didn't see that coming?), the kid's dinosaur that never plays a role ever, the Storm from X-Men fight, the hospital scene - did you care for any of the characters other than Bateman? - the counseling session that they came back to 8 times and all we got was "Hancock and I drink and stuff" - I mean what the f*ck was that? Did I mention the spinny camera x1000000? Did I mention the ending? Did I mention the atrocious Superman-esque music that is a disgrace to Superman? Did I mention the amount of scenes that were dragged out to get the film to a whopping 1:30; hell they'd be lucky to have made an hour without all the extra nothingness.

If we're talking about entertainment, how were any of the disjointed fight scenes entertaining when you didn't care for anyone but Bateman?

["Bob" Dobbs]

:LOL:

Quality over quantity? Can you name a quality part of the film?

If we're talking craftsmanship, the film sucks on about every level. Blurry images in a lot of shots, out of focus, spinny camera X1000000, CGI that was atrocious, the lamest "badguys" in a movie ever, the EPIC TWIST with Theron (who didn't see that coming?), the kid's dinosaur that never plays a role ever, the Storm from X-Men fight, the hospital scene - did you care for any of the characters other than Bateman? - the counseling session that they came back to 8 times and all we got was "Hancock and I drink and stuff" - I mean what the f*ck was that? Did I mention the spinny camera x1000000? Did I mention the ending? Did I mention the atrocious Superman-esque music that is a disgrace to Superman? Did I mention the amount of scenes that were dragged out to get the film to a whopping 1:30; hell they'd be lucky to have made an hour without all the extra nothingness.

If we're talking about entertainment, how were any of the disjointed fight scenes entertaining when you didn't care for anyone but Bateman?
So... you didn't think much of it, then, huh?

[irishjayhawk]

So... you didn't think much of it, then, huh?

No. o:-)

[007]

So... you didn't think much of it, then, huh?ROFLROFLROFL
Understatement of the YEAR!!!!:thumb:

[Sure-Oz]

34% on RT, damn its not doing well at all....i am going to see it afterall tomorrow night or thursday since the gf wants to

[Sure-Oz]

Don't go see Hancock. Pure garbage.

I can't even put into words my disgust. So I'll keep it brief:

So much potential and it just fell face first into the pavement.

CGI is atrocious, plot is like swiss cheese, acting is mediocre and the story - while filled with potential - isn't realized. Horrible in every regard. Entertaining? Mildly. And mildly is pushing it.

Suprising esp since Will Smith seemed to be on a roll lately

[irishjayhawk]

Suprising esp since Will Smith seemed to be on a roll lately

If you call the garbage that was I am Legend on a roll, yes. He is.

[TinyEvel]

I enjoyed it, though I am pretty easy on most movies. I do get all that missing/weak stuff you mention in the rant, though.

[BWillie]

If you call the garbage that was I am Legend on a roll, yes. He is.

I am Legend wasn't bad, you were just pissed off about the ending. I bet you really hated the Departed or Old Country for Old Men when something unexpected happens there. Only Will Smith movies that have just thoroughly sucked were Men in Black and the Wild West. Haven't seen Hancock but it's gotten decent ratings on IMDB. Probably need to give it until the end of 4th of July weekend.

[xbarretx]

If you call the garbage that was I am Legend on a roll, yes. He is.

it's cool if you didn’t like it. Its my opinion and I am sticking to it. it served its purpose which was to entertain. if you didn’t like it then that’s cool, just means you wasted your $$.

i mentioned that the plot was simplistic and its ok b/c it was still entertaining. some movies i want to leave pondering and thinking (i.e. schindlers list(sp), searching for bobby fischer) some movies i want to go and have a good time watching it...that’s what Hancock did for me.

Next time you go see a movie like this try to go not expecting academy award material and i think you will have a better time. :shrug:

p.s. yes there were some gaping plot holes..that were on par with something(anything) from the porn industry. i mean those holes were pretty slutty. LMAO

[irishjayhawk]

I am Legend wasn't bad, you were just pissed off about the ending. I bet you really hated the Departed or Old Country for Old Men when something unexpected happens there. Only Will Smith movies that have just thoroughly sucked were Men in Black and the Wild West. Haven't seen Hancock but it's gotten decent ratings on IMDB. Probably need to give it until the end of 4th of July weekend.

Actually, I loved both those films. And I am Legend wasn't bad just because of the ending. It was bad because it took a superb story and shit on it.

[Deberg_1990]

Actually, I loved both those films. And I am Legend wasn't bad just because of the ending. It was bad because it took a superb story and shit on it.


Come on dude.. You loved Wild Wild West?? You have just lost all credibility as a movie reviewer.


I am Legend may have had some issues with the ending but overall it was a well made movie. I liked it.

[Sure-Oz]

Actually, I loved both those films. And I am Legend wasn't bad just because of the ending. It was bad because it took a superb story and shit on it.

I liked how I am legend started but then it kind've went to the crapper after a bit...the alternate ending was interesting i guess. It was a 6/10 in my book. It really could've have been tons better though, so much they could've done with it. Will Smith does have star power, and can attract alot of people to his movies on just him alone, unfortunately it makes me wonder if the studios don't get him on some really good movies.

[Sure-Oz]

Come on dude.. You loved Wild Wild West?? You have just lost all credibility as a movie reviewer.


I am Legend may have had some issues with the ending but overall it was a well made movie. I liked it.

Im lucky to say i've never even attempted to see that movie

[irishjayhawk]

Come on dude.. You loved Wild Wild West?? You have just lost all credibility as a movie reviewer.


I am Legend may have had some issues with the ending but overall it was a well made movie. I liked it.

I was talking about The Departed and No Country for Old Men.

Never would I say Wild Wild West was a good movie.

[beach tribe]

CGI KILLED I am legend.

My brain will not except that crap. George Romeo zombies look better than that garbage.

[irishjayhawk]

CGI KILLED I am legend.

My brain will not except that crap. George Romeo zombies look better than that garbage.

The funny part is that the zombies are supposed to be vampires. And even funnier is that they are supposed to be fully human, speak english, etc.

They could have used real people and been CLOSER to the book than the CGI they went with - or even good cgi.

[BWillie]

Well, Hancock was ok. I give it 6 out of 10. Ironman was much better. Definitely not as good as Batman Begins. Better than Superman Returns though. That movie just completely shit on the Superman story. I've always thought all the Spiderman's sucked. i know, i'm the only one.

[Rausch]

Will Smith does have star power, and can attract alot of people to his movies on just him alone, unfortunately it makes me wonder if the studios don't get him on some really good movies.

He should have won an academy award for Ali. He was absolutely amazing.

Instead they threw a "token" to Denzel for an average at best flick because he was overdue...

[Sure-Oz]

He should have won an academy award for Ali. He was absolutely amazing.

Instead they threw a "token" to Denzel for an average at best flick because he was overdue...

I still have yet to see that, i need to netflix it now...always forget that he did that movie.

[Rausch]

I still have yet to see that, i need to netflix it now...always forget that he did that movie.

By far the best acting of his career. I'm a huge Ali buff. I've got the old fights, 2 books, still play the 3DO videogame Foes Of Ali.

He went the extra mile. He even looked like Ali. Body tone, ring movement, punching style, all of it. You can tell it meant something to him...

[Sure-Oz]

By far the best acting of his career. I'm a huge Ali buff. I've got the old fights, 2 books, still play the 3DO videogame Foes Of Ali.

He went the extra mile. He even looked like Ali. Body tone, ring movement, punching style, all of it. You can tell it meant something to him...
3D0, haha holy crap that's awesome...

I'm sure it was hard to make a movie on such a great man. I am glad to hear he did the role justice.

[mcan]

:LOL:

Quality over quantity? Can you name a quality part of the film?

If we're talking craftsmanship, the film sucks on about every level. Blurry images in a lot of shots, out of focus, spinny camera X1000000, CGI that was atrocious, the lamest "badguys" in a movie ever, the EPIC TWIST with Theron (who didn't see that coming?), the kid's dinosaur that never plays a role ever, the Storm from X-Men fight, the hospital scene - did you care for any of the characters other than Bateman? - the counseling session that they came back to 8 times and all we got was "Hancock and I drink and stuff" - I mean what the f*ck was that? Did I mention the spinny camera x1000000? Did I mention the ending? Did I mention the atrocious Superman-esque music that is a disgrace to Superman? Did I mention the amount of scenes that were dragged out to get the film to a whopping 1:30; hell they'd be lucky to have made an hour without all the extra nothingness.

If we're talking about entertainment, how were any of the disjointed fight scenes entertaining when you didn't care for anyone but Bateman?



Wow, IJH. You and I usually see pretty eye to eye on movies, but I just have to disagree with you here. You bring up a few things that I was thinking throughout, however... So, for some common ground:

One of the first times we see Hancock flying, we hear what seems to be a reference to John Williams' "Superman" score. At first, I didn't like it, but it didn't really continue. As the movie progressed, the score and the use of music in general really helped moved the story along. The Sanford and Son music really stole the show though and got me rolling. Perfect.

Obviously, the fact that Theron's character recognizes and has had a relationship with Hancock in the past is fairly obvious. But, are you telling me that you really called out that she had super powers too. That didn't occur to me at all until it happened.


Overall though I had a really good time at Hancock. I only saw one moment of bad CGI (the very first time he took off from the park bench). Most of the time, I thought everything looked pretty good. My biggest problem with the film was that Nancy Grace made a cameo and just the site of her makes my skin crawl. It just seems that darker comedies wind up bombing at the box office and end up with a sort of cult following later. Make no mistake, Hancock is pretty dark.

[Mr. Plow]

Maybe it's just me, but I go into a movie looking to be entertained. If I'm entertained, it's a decent movie. If I'm bored, it's not a good movie. Maybe I'm just to simple and should start watching all the other crap that goes into movies.

[xbarretx]

Maybe it's just me, but I go into a movie looking to be entertained. If I'm entertained, it's a decent movie. If I'm bored, it's not a good movie. Maybe I'm just to simple and should start watching all the other crap that goes into movies.

exactily! and i was entertained. :clap:

again you cant go applebees expecting a herford house steak and then say you were disspointed. for those whining i wonder what they expected..the second comming of Ben Hur? imho the movie did its job.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Having not seen Hancock, I'll not address it.

There is a lot to be said about a movie that doesn't pretend to be something it's not. xbarretx is right - you can't go to Applebees expecting a Hereford House steak. But in irish's defense, you absolutely CAN go to Applebees and expect a good meal.

There are a ton of movies out there that aren't trying to be Citizen Kane. They're out there for the sole purpose of entertaining an audience. A good story is a good story, no matter it's audience or intent.

Tuck Everlasting is a great story, horribly executed on film. Pirates of the Caribbean is a fun movie that doesn't try to be an Oscar winner - it's a check your brain at the door and have fun flick. Maybe a better example is to take the same story - The Truth About Charlie. Gawd freakin' awful. But it's a good story. We saw it done MUCH better as Charade. Or even a better example of taking the same story... nay, the same SCRIPT and a SHOT-FOR-SHOT REMAKE in the 1960 version of Psycho, versus the 1998 abortion of the same film.

If the story is good, but the execution is bad, is the film itself not bad? I'd say yes.

That said, I'll wait a couple of weeks and probably see Hancock and make my own decision.

[TinyEvel]

moment of the week: My wife at the box office window asks "How long is Hancock?"

[mcan]

I agree that movies should be held to the standard that they set for themselves. I expect an entirely different experience when I see something like "Airplane!" and when I see something like "Juno." Sure, both are comedies, and these are two of my favorites. But the people who made "Airplane!" are not trying to make great art. They are trying to make you laugh. On the other hand, "Juno" makes me laugh and think and stirs up my emotions and my empathy for a very well drawn character. It's a work of art and CLEARLY a better film.


But the bottom line is BOTH movies get 4 1/2 stars for me. Same rating. Drastically different quality between the two films. But holding a movie like "Airplane!" accountable for not making me think is like holding a strawberry accountable for not getting me to work on time. It's not trying to do anything but what it does.

[Deberg_1990]

I agree that movies should be held to the standard that they set for themselves. I expect an entirely different experience when I see something like "Airplane!" and when I see something like "Juno." Sure, both are comedies, and these are two of my favorites. But the people who made "Airplane!" are not trying to make great art. They are trying to make you laugh. On the other hand, "Juno" makes me laugh and think and stirs up my emotions and my empathy for a very well drawn character. It's a work of art and CLEARLY a better film.


But the bottom line is BOTH movies get 4 1/2 stars for me. Same rating. Drastically different quality between the two films. But holding a movie like "Airplane!" accountable for not making me think is like holding a strawberry accountable for not getting me to work on time. It's not trying to do anything but what it does.

Actually the original "Airplane" is considered a classic now. First of its kind so it was a trendsetter. Plus, its still pretty damn funny.



First Jive Dude: Hey, you know what they say... See a broad, to get that booty yak 'em.
First Jive Dude, Second Jive Dude: Leg 'er down 'n smack 'em yak 'em
First Jive Dude: Cold got to be. You know? Shiiiiit.

[mcan]

Actually the original "Airplane" is considered a classic now. First of its kind so it was a trendsetter. Plus, its still pretty damn funny.



First Jive Dude: Hey, you know what they say... See a broad, to get that booty yak 'em.
First Jive Dude, Second Jive Dude: Leg 'er down 'n smack 'em yak 'em
First Jive Dude: Cold got to be. You know? Shiiiiit.

Maybe my post was unclear. It's one of my favorite films of all time and I give it 4 1/2 stars (out of 5) because it's so damned funny. But the fact remains, no matter how "classic" it is, it'll never be considered great art. It gets its high rating by doing less, but doing it well.

[Mr. Plow]

moment of the week: My wife at the box office window asks "How long is Hancock?"


Was your reply "It's free. Just meet me in the car."

[rad]

I'm gonna go see it, complain that it sucked to management, and ask for a refund. Or free passes. Just give me something dammit, I wasn't entertained.

[Sure-Oz]

I'm gonna go see it, complain that it sucked to management, and ask for a refund. Or free passes. Just give me something dammit, I wasn't entertained.


Im going to do that at Dark Knight and see what happensLMAO

[irishjayhawk]

Wow, IJH. You and I usually see pretty eye to eye on movies, but I just have to disagree with you here. You bring up a few things that I was thinking throughout, however... So, for some common ground:

One of the first times we see Hancock flying, we hear what seems to be a reference to John Williams' "Superman" score. At first, I didn't like it, but it didn't really continue.

The fact that it happened in there was really a sad, disservice to William's score, IMO.



As the movie progressed, the score and the use of music in general really helped moved the story along. The Sanford and Son music really stole the show though and got me rolling. Perfect.
I actually loved the intro music and things. One of the few bright spots. Thanks for reminding me.


Obviously, the fact that Theron's character recognizes and has had a relationship with Hancock in the past is fairly obvious. But, are you telling me that you really called out that she had super powers too. That didn't occur to me at all until it happened.

If I'm being completely honest, it was a 50/50 toss up. I knew she was one or the other. And then when both came true, I was just so unimpressed. Seemed like SpyKids or something where parents have powers.


Overall though I had a really good time at Hancock. I only saw one moment of bad CGI (the very first time he took off from the park bench). Most of the time, I thought everything looked pretty good.

Really? The time he went to get the ball? It was awful. Pretty much any of the landing and then transitions to actual Smith were horrendous. Not to mention the Storm fight scene.


My biggest problem with the film was that Nancy Grace made a cameo and just the site of her makes my skin crawl. It just seems that darker comedies wind up bombing at the box office and end up with a sort of cult following later. Make no mistake, Hancock is pretty dark.

I get that it was trying to be a comedy first and an action film second. However, it failed on both attempts. I laughed maybe twice.


I agree that movies should be held to the standard that they set for themselves. I expect an entirely different experience when I see something like "Airplane!" and when I see something like "Juno." Sure, both are comedies, and these are two of my favorites. But the people who made "Airplane!" are not trying to make great art. They are trying to make you laugh. On the other hand, "Juno" makes me laugh and think and stirs up my emotions and my empathy for a very well drawn character. It's a work of art and CLEARLY a better film.

Juno would be a well executed comedy and drama. I agree with what you're saying too.


But the bottom line is BOTH movies get 4 1/2 stars for me. Same rating. Drastically different quality between the two films. But holding a movie like "Airplane!" accountable for not making me think is like holding a strawberry accountable for not getting me to work on time. It's not trying to do anything but what it does.

Your implied theory (for how I see movies) would fail because there are plenty of movies I love but technically suck at basic things like plot, story, acting, etc. Transformers would be one. Narnia (first one) would be another. iRobot would be another.

However, Hancock can't even pull that off. It sucks too bad. I equate it to Pirates 2 and 3. Pirates 1 made every shot count, every story bit crucial to the next, every CGI use important and necessary. It made the humor count. Pirates 1 was a really, really well crafted and entertaining film. Pirates 2 and 3 discarded everything that made Pirates 1 what it was. And the reason was they knew they'd fill seats.

Hancock has the same issue. Smith sells seats. They knew people would flock there, especially with just giving the logline away: A drunk superhero. So, they made a film where nothing counted. No round characters. No feeling for any of them. The story was flat and disjointed. It moved at odd paces. CGI was beyond necessary and bad at that.. It failed at humor overall. Pirates 2 and 3 failed for all those reasons but it also failed for having a too complex story. Hancock fails for the same reasons but for having a too simplistic story. It's so simple, in fact, that you don't care about anything that goes on.

[Third Eye]

Maybe my post was unclear. It's one of my favorite films of all time and I give it 4 1/2 stars (out of 5) because it's so damned funny. But the fact remains, no matter how "classic" it is, it'll never be considered great art. It gets its high rating by doing less, but doing it well.

I don't know that I agree with that, but only time will tell.

[mcan]

...Hancock has the same issue. Smith sells seats. They knew people would flock there, especially with just giving the logline away: A drunk superhero. So, they made a film where nothing counted. No round characters. No feeling for any of them. The story was flat and disjointed. It moved at odd paces. CGI was beyond necessary and bad at that.. It failed at humor overall. Pirates 2 and 3 failed for all those reasons but it also failed for having a too complex story. Hancock fails for the same reasons but for having a too simplistic story. It's so simple, in fact, that you don't care about anything that goes on.



Sorry you didn't have a better time watching the film. I think it's leaps and bounds more fun than Transformers, which pretty much only had Megan Fox going for it. I also learned a long time ago not to expect anything but eye candy from Bruckheimer. The first Pirates was an anomoly. Even going back and watching Top Gun makes me cringe (and I loved that movie when I was a kid). That said, I DID have a good time watching some of the Pirates sequels and had the first one never come out, they would have garnered a much better reaction from me. But, because the first movie was so good, I had a much higher standard than I normally would for a summer blockbuster.

[xbarretx]

Sorry you didn't have a better time watching the film. I think it's leaps and bounds more fun than Transformers, which pretty much only had Megan Fox going for it. I also learned a long time ago not to expect anything but eye candy from Bruckheimer. The first Pirates was an anomoly. Even going back and watching Top Gun makes me cringe (and I loved that movie when I was a kid). That said, I DID have a good time watching some of the Pirates sequels and had the first one never come out, they would have garnered a much better reaction from me. But, because the first movie was so good, I had a much higher standard than I normally would for a summer blockbuster.

QFT i was not pleased with transformers! i had to go watch the origional cartoon movie to shake that bad mojo!

[irishjayhawk]

Now I know why it sucked more than it should have.

Akiva Goldsman got ahold of the script. Same f*cker who tore apart I Am Legend's original true-to-the-book script.

He's also behind most of the change from hard R to PG-13. Another reason I disliked it.

[Deberg_1990]

OK, just finished watching this. I have to ask:

Everyone knows Hancock is impervious to bullets, so why do the bad guys continue to try and load round after round into him???

The more you think about this flick, the more it doesnt make one lick of sense.

[Hammock Parties]

"How long is Hancock?"

Longer than Luke's.

[Sure-Oz]

Saw it thurs night, it was just another flick, reminded me of Fantastic 4 in a way....5/10 at best. Smith def. sells, they just piled any other movie with his name on it. Disappointing but i still somewhat enjoyed it. Rent Only

[Deberg_1990]

Saw it thurs night, it was just another flick, reminded me of Fantastic 4 in a way....5/10 at best. Smith def. sells, they just piled any other movie with his name on it. Disappointing but i still somewhat enjoyed it. Rent Only

Yea, Smith is good no doubt. He sells it.

It feels like a ton was cut out. Its really short. Maybe only like 80-85 minutes without credits.

[Sure-Oz]

Yea, Smith is good no doubt. He sells it.

It feels like a ton was cut out. Its really short. Maybe only like 80-85 minutes without credits.

Yeah i noticed that, went into an 8pm show and was out by 935, really short. Felt like they just crammed a bunch of stuff into it real quick, it started well enough i guess. The trailers made it look alot better than it really was. I am a Smith fan so i always give it a shot even if reviews are terrible.

[Deberg_1990]

Yeah i noticed that, went into an 8pm show and was out by 935, really short.


Yea, dont forget the obligatory 15-20 minutes of previews. I cant stand how they show so many these days.

I counted 9 movie trailers before Wall-E last week. Thats a little excessive.

[xbarretx]

Yea, dont forget the obligatory 15-20 minutes of previews. I cant stand how they show so many these days.

I counted 9 movie trailers before Wall-E last week. Thats a little excessive.

deberg, ill comment on your origional post regarding the antagonists (villians and bullets)
IMHO given the overall story for this movie there was really no need to build up any real villians. as such we the audience got to see the weird hook guy and the bald white guy and the steriotypical black guy tossed in there to create a sense of a main villian. i think that as such they were irrelivant to the story and could of been taken out all together. however, i over look that as the movie was entertaining and i enjoyed it. i went in, shut most of my "thinking" brain off and worked on having a good time and i did. had the story been more cetered around a main villian or series of antagonists then you would most liley find them to be smarter and less like a series of misfits. :shrug:

[Rausch]

Yea, dont forget the obligatory 15-20 minutes of previews. I cant stand how they show so many these days.

I counted 9 movie trailers before Wall-E last week. Thats a little excessive.

Back when I was in HS me and a buddy had a rule that one of the next videos/movies we watched had to be from the previews of the one on screen.

Yeah, we ended up with some Mystery Science Theater moments, but we also ended up with some good stuff we'd have never considered. I still enjoy the previews and hate when I mess 'em...

[007]

Yea, dont forget the obligatory 15-20 minutes of previews. I cant stand how they show so many these days.

I counted 9 movie trailers before Wall-E last week. Thats a little excessive.

I absolutely HATE the previews and commercials we get subjected to anymore. DVDs are getting horrendous as well now that they are starting to make them non-skippable.

[Deberg_1990]

I still enjoy the previews and hate when I mess 'em...

I like them too but IMO there only needs to be 2 or 3 tops.

[irishjayhawk]

I'm in the minority I think but I love the trailers. So long as their good trailers. Hamlet 2, say, is not a good one.