Just been to see it and it was great. Wondered what everyone else thought.

Oh and for those who plan to see it. Don't leave when the credits come up - there's a bit more after about a minute of the credits:)

Bet you were in same showing as me... weird.. in a bits a family movie, in others so not a family movie... i liked it... Will Smith and Jason Bateman both good eye candy. :love:

I don't care what its like if Will is in it..:love::love:

I don't think it was as good as I expected but I still enjoyed it. I think I enjoyed my fat tub of icecream more though :hihi:

As long as it isn't as woeful as I Am Legend then it'll be worth watching.

will smith + tight leather suit =:love:

I bemoaned the lack of big bad, but was otherwise entertaining.

The 4 year old sat next to me kept asking her mum what was happening. Why on earth would you take a kid that young to see a film like Hancock? :loopy:

I want to see this,it looks great in the trailers.Will Smith always comes across as a lovely down to earth guy,very sweet.

Decent trailer though on YOUTUBE:cool:


I might take a wander down to the flicks:cool:

The film was ok. When I saw it, it had a trailer for "Quantam of Solace" before it and to be honest that was much better.

I want to see this,it looks great in the trailers.Will Smith always comes across as a lovely down to earth guy,very sweet.
I like Will Smith immensely, though I'm rather afraid that he's going to prove too good to be true. Give it a few more years of being tapped with the Tom Cruise loon stick (a metaphor, I hope) and I predict he'll be proclaiming his love for a 'Dawson's Creek' alumnus on 'Oprah' and be watching the skies for the mother ship that'll beam him up to meet Xenu. Or maybe he'll just dump Jada for a younger model and turn out to be yet another crap male. Oh hum.

'Hancock' looks great though, despite the middling reviews, though I'll probably wait for the DVD.

Going to see this saturday, it looks good.

i am not into those type of films because they are always over exadurated {cant apell lol} but this looks good and will smith was the right man for the movie:)

First half of the film was good, the second half not so good.

was ok, should have kept him as a 'i dont care' hero all the way through though....there was potential for a lot more funny lines that were missed...overall ok mindless fun ... 6/10

I enjoed it, it was funny. Nice to see J Bateman in it too, roll on AD in 09

I just came home from seeing it. Thought it was one of the best films I've seen in ages - actually made me laugh out loud in at least 6 bits, which is unusual. I'm a bit wary of films like that, usually the best bits are shown in the ads but this one had loads of otherst hat weren't!!

8/10 - loses points as there is not enough Will Smith flesh!!!! :hihi:

Really, really enjoyed it. Nice twist half way through that I didn't see coming and an ingenious plot which spanned out well. Held my full attention from start to finish. 10/10

Good stuff! Come and discuss films in the spanking brand new film group! :thumbsup:

Saw this yesterday, very poor!

Best bits are in the trailer.

Saw it yesterday, i thought it was ok, wouldnt rush to see it again though

Watched it last night thought it was great, easy to watch (no great hardship watching Will Smith :love:) thought the flying around and crashing into buildings etc was excellent. Didnt think much of the storyline bout him and Charlize going back thousands of years to be honest but still really enjoyed it :thumbsup:

I bemoaned the lack of big bad, but was otherwise entertaining.

The 4 year old sat next to me kept asking her mum what was happening. Why on earth would you take a kid that young to see a film like Hancock? :loopy:

Should've he/she been allowed in there? It was a 12

Should've he/she been allowed in there? It was a 12
12A, so children younger than that can see the film if accompanied by an adult.

According to a fairly recent Kermode podcast, the BBFC apparently decided against a more restrictive classification, deciding instead to give the parents the chance to make an informed decision as to whether their children are old/mature enough to see a given 12A film. They did so with the general - though not prescriptive - guideline that the minimum age for such a film should be around 8 (given that children vary greatly in their maturity and sensitivity to certain issues likely to feature in a 12A film).

Allowing children barely old enough to attend school to see a 12A film is a bizarre decision. I'll give the parents the benefit of the doubt and assume they hadn't investigated the nature of the film/weren't aware of the certificate before seeing it. ETA: Or the child concerned was a very small 8 year old, or mr_chris is a poor judge of children's ages :hihi: .

It's a weird one though because it does appear like it's quite a good kids film from the trailers - the kid going up in the air and stuff and the first half is fairly kid friendly but then it completely changes and goes a bit comic book and quite violent in places. It's not a kids film at all.

It was good. Not a film that's going to set the world alight by any stretch of the imagination, but served its purpose well. :thumbsup:

I really liked it! Will Smith is my favourite actor, it's not just because he's gorgeous! Charlize Theron is beautiful in it too, she completely changes when.. oh wait I don't want to spoil it for anybody...! But anyway the film was great in my opinion :)

ETA: Or the child concerned was a very small 8 year old, or mr_chris is a poor judge of children's ages :hihi: .

Oooerrr. How to answer this....

She was 4. So there.

12A, so children younger than that can see the film if accompanied by an adult.

According to a fairly recent Kermode podcast, the BBFC apparently decided against a more restrictive classification, deciding instead to give the parents the chance to make an informed decision as to whether their children are old/mature enough to see a given 12A film. They did so with the general - though not prescriptive - guideline that the minimum age for such a film should be around 8 (given that children vary greatly in their maturity and sensitivity to certain issues likely to feature in a 12A film).

Allowing children barely old enough to attend school to see a 12A film is a bizarre decision. I'll give the parents the benefit of the doubt and assume they hadn't investigated the nature of the film/weren't aware of the certificate before seeing it. ETA: Or the child concerned was a very small 8 year old, or mr_chris is a poor judge of children's ages :hihi: .

In addition to Hecate's points there is also the PBBFC (www.pbbfc.co.uk) this website contains more in depth information regarding why a film has received the classification it has, the information here is not compiled directly by the BBFC themselves, it is information passed onto them from parents who have seen the film and feel the need to share their insights with fellow parents.

I was surprised that Hancock received a 12A the majority of the film is fine but I felt the final scenes in the hospital lost the comic element that had been present throughout the film, making the concluding act quite dark.

me and my daughter (whos 8m) went to see it this afternoon ............ and completely enjoyed it. ........... will smith, how sexy is he?

Just been to see it.

Maybe my expectations were too high, I thought it was average at best.

Good job :hihi:

As long as it isn't as woeful as I Am Legend then it'll be worth watching.

And i enjoyed that :)

Hancock was ok, enjoyable at best. I just thought the film wanted to be too different films. Firstly a comedy which switched to being a serious super-hero. Dont get me wrong a film can be a comedy-action but it didn't appear to be that.

7/10

I have just seen Hancock today and I thought maybe our cinema had received the pre-classified version of the film. I was so surprised to hear the word 'f***', 's***', 'b******' and 'asshole' every five minutes; a head up someone's arse; a knife in the back, firing guns and blood spilling in a 12A. I was left thinking either maybe we shouldn't have seen this cut or the classification board has suddenly relaxed the rules. Surely the PBBFC would have instructed the word 'f***' to be removed for a 12 certificate as it was totally unecessary? If 12A is the correct classification then surely a film such as The Matrix would've have qualified too had it been released now? I am very relaxed about swearing and violence in films that my children see because we watch films together all the time but I can't help thinking that many parents would be quite shocked that Hancock is a 12A. What does everyone else think? And is this the first 12 to have the word 'f***' in it? I can't think of that ever happening before.

PS I have just previewed my post and notice the swear words have been bleeped so it really messes with my head that you can hear then in a film that all ages can view but you can't see them in a forum.

...I was so surprised to hear the word 'f***', 's***', 'b******' and 'asshole' every five minutes...
The BBFC's extended classification information indicates that there are fewer instances of 'strong' expletives than you suggest:
A single use of strong language by the hero serves to initially characterise Hancock as an irritable, borderline-alcoholic bum. Such use is permitted under the BBFC Guidelines at '12A', which direct ' The use of strong language (eg 'f**k') must be infrequent'. More moderate language, such as ‘bitch’ and ‘asshole’ are also allowed under the BBFC Guidelines at ‘12A’, and an occasionally aggressive use of these is also a symptom of Hancock’s early, ‘bad attitude’, which he gradually learns to improve.
I'd agree with the BBFC that the 'moderate' language used is the film is appropriate for children of the age indicated by the classification.

I pointed out a few days ago that although the BBFC didn't prescribe a minimum acceptable age for admittance to a 12A film, they did suggest that 8 might be appropriate. I believe that children of that age and above are accustomed to hearing - and using - such language and as such the certificate is appropriate.

The BBFC's extended classification information indicates that there are fewer instances of 'strong' expletives than you suggest:

I'd agree with the BBFC that the 'moderate' language used is the film is appropriate for children of the age indicated by the classification.

I pointed out a few days ago that although the BBFC didn't prescribe a minimum acceptable age for admittance to a 12A film, they did suggest that 8 might be appropriate. I believe that children of that age and above are accustomed to hearing - and using - such language and as such the certificate is appropriate.

I agree with Hecate.

Initially the BBFC had intended for legally enforceable restrictions to be applied to a 12A certificated film. This being that no-one under the age of 8 would be admitted to the screening. Rightly in my opinion they chose to allow the discretion of parents to be primary.

I will say that the BBFC is very open to external comment. If you are not happy with a film's certificate, be it too high or too low, please contact them.

As someone who has regular dealings with the British Board of Film Classification (NOT CENSORSHIP) I can assure you they are very receptive to external criticism. I would also remind everyone that a film has to undergo re-classification when it is released for home exhibition. It is not unusual for a film to receive a different classification when it comes to home distribution.

A single use of strong language (f***) has been permitted since the inception of the 12 certificate with the film Splitting Heirs in 1993 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108207/). As long as the word adds context or character to the piece and is not used in a gratuitous or senseless fashion and is used only on a single occasion then it will be passed as a 12A.

With regards to the head up someones arse I draw your attention to the specific note that is on PBBFC.co.uk.

"Hancock's final threat, when someone is rude to him, is that of sticking the offender's head up the 'ass' of his cohorts – an act he carries out on two aggressive thugs in prison. This is a comic scene, with Hancock's actions not shown on screen – just in the exaggerated facial reactions of the onlookers, and some comedy sound effects and music. There is finally a brief and farcical sight of one man with his head supposedly buried in the other's backside, which looks completely unrealistic." (http://pbbfc.co.uk/filmDetail.asp?filmID=987).

Hancock http://pbbfc.co.uk/filmDetail.asp?filmID=987

This again brings attention to the presupposition that parents will have viewed the film before allowing those under twelve to view it which is what the 12A certificate is all about. It requires a responsible adult to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether a film is suitable.

When a film is submitted to the BBFC the producers will say what certificate they hope th film will receive. The BBFC aim to pass every piece at as low a certificate as possible thus enabling as many as possible to see it. Having viewed the piece the BBFC will return to the producers its rating decision. If for example the producers were hoping for a PG certificate and receive an initial classification of 12A they will be supplied with the necessary information as to how to get the certificate they desire.


Rich

With regards to the final third of Hancock I made a post earlier in this thread saying that with regards to the final third of this film and the way it abandoned it's previous comic violence in favour of darker and more realistic portrayals of violence I was surprised it received only a 12A certificate.

I would urge all parents to study VERY carefully the advice given for the specific film they intend to watch and if in any doubt to WATCH THE FILM before allowing their children to view it.

Excellent film specific advice can be found at http://pbbfc.co.uk/. This information is provided by people outside of the BBFC and is specifically for people who are unsure as to whether a film will be suitable for whom they intend to show it too.



Is this the most serious post I have ever made on SF ? :hihi:

Decent trailer though on YOUTUBE:cool:


I might take a wander down to the flicks:cool:

If you've seen the trailer then you've seen all the good bits.

Totally lame.

I liked it :) Didn't think the trailer was very good at all and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would!

I finally watched this last night and really enjoyed it! the storyline was different from what i had gathered from the trailer. Loved the twist near the end, i hadn't seen that coming!

Will Smith was muscly and hunky and moody and just bloody brilliant! :love:

I would give an easy watching 8 out of 10

:)

I have just seen Hancock today and I thought maybe our cinema had received the pre-classified version of the film. I was so surprised to hear the word 'f***', 's***', 'b******' and 'asshole' every five minutes; a head up someone's arse; a knife in the back, firing guns and blood spilling in a 12A. I was left thinking either maybe we shouldn't have seen this cut or the classification board has suddenly relaxed the rules. Surely the PBBFC would have instructed the word 'f***' to be removed for a 12 certificate as it was totally unecessary? If 12A is the correct classification then surely a film such as The Matrix would've have qualified too had it been released now? I am very relaxed about swearing and violence in films that my children see because we watch films together all the time but I can't help thinking that many parents would be quite shocked that Hancock is a 12A. What does everyone else think? And is this the first 12 to have the word 'f***' in it? I can't think of that ever happening before.

Yesterday I sat down with my 2 kids (4 & 11) to watch the Tom Hanks classic BIG!!! It's a PG!!! I was amazed how much swearing was in this!!!! I can see why Hancock had the kind of dialogue it did. But I was amazed on how much was in BIG!!!! I can see why Hancock was rated as a 12a but would you really take a 8 year old to see it??? I don't think I would have taken my 2 to see the Incredible Hulk!! either!!!

Yesterday I sat down with my 2 kids (4 & 11) to watch the Tom Hanks classic BIG!!! It's a PG!!! I was amazed how much swearing was in this!!!! I can see why Hancock had the kind of dialogue it did. But I was amazed on how much was in BIG!!!! I can see why Hancock was rated as a 12a but would you really take a 8 year old to see it??? I don't think I would have taken my 2 to see the Incredible Hulk!! either!!!

When Big was resubmitted to the BBFC for re-classification in 2007 so as to enable a DVD release the film had it's certificate up-rated to a 12.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094737/

I'll try not to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it....but didn't anyone think it was a bit irresponsible of Charlize Theron's character to not 'live up to her responsibilities', considering who she is?

Why should it all be on Hancock's shoulders?

i thought it was ok, but would have been much better if they'd had more from Sid James and Hattie Jacques...