Hancock DVD Will Have Second Version Of Film

HancockHancock will be coming to DVD soon and will be bringing an unrated cut along for the ride. We get the following scoop thanks to our friends at cinematical:

Hancock comes out on DVD next week, and guess what? Two different versions! (Three if you count the Blu-Ray, which offers both versions in the same package.) OK, so according to this DVD cover, the theatrical cut runs 92 minutes, while this DVD cover clearly illustrates that the Unrated Cut goes about 102 minutes.

Hancock is a film I never want to see. I think the premise is lame and the general consensus isn’t helping its chances. I have a pile of films to catch up on, and there is a good chance this will always be near the bottom of the list.

For those of you that have seen Hancock and enjoyed it, does the inclusion of an unrated cut excite you? Would you sit through another telling of this tale or is this a film where once is enough?

Comment with Facebook

26 thoughts on “Hancock DVD Will Have Second Version Of Film

  1. it was better than i expected, i didnt really mind the twist but at the same time it was kinda stupid. I will never except Hancock as a true hero movie, it takes itself too seriously, but i still liked it

  2. The first 30 mins of Hancock are possibly the best superhero movie opening I have seen. It starts perfectly, sets everything up, and then screws everything it has achieved. DO NOT WATCH THE SECOND HALF! Stop, take out the DVD.

    Oh, and I have read ‘Tonight, He Comes’, and Hancock has almost nothing in common with that script.

    I will probably buy the DVD and never watch past the Bank scene. EVER.

  3. I thought it was boring. It was just like I expected, a vehicle for Will Smith to play the same damn character he plays in every film, except this time he’s a drunk and a superhero. Same delivery, and same attitude as practically every other Will Smith character. Smith is given way too much credit as an actor. He never plays “characters”, he just acts the same in different outlandish situations. No different from how Will Ferrel or Adam Sandler do that in virtually all their films. But while I largely enjoy Ferrel and Sandler, I’d never call them great actors either.

    Hancock sucked. It was a way for Smith to cash in on the Superhero film craze, but without him having to play second fiddle to a pre-existing character. It was boring, predictable, and couldn’t decide if it was a comedy or a drama and ended up failing at both as a result.

    Sadly, I expected all of this before I saw it, but went against my better judgment. I wish I had your resolve Doug. Stick with your gut instinct, and don’t waste your time.

  4. Doug, Thanks for the reply. At least you responded to my post with respect when answering my critisms. Rodney, deletes posts that critisize him. Not cool. Anyway, watch the fucking film, its not half bad.

  5. well i know that the film was originaly rated R so releasing it with an unrated version makes since because the director would want people to see what he wanted the movie to be in the first place

  6. ***Spoiler***
    The DVD and Blu-Ray is already out in Australia. I watched the Blu-Ray “Unrated” version the other day and it’s exactly the same as the theatrical version, except for one LONG scene that’s been added about 15 mins in, where our hero(?) takes a groupie back to his trailer. It’s an overlong scene that was cut for obvious reasons. It doesn’t add anything to the movie, so don’t get your hopes up that there is some wonderful, hardcore, dark and brooding version of this film out there that is dramatically different to the theatrical cut. It’s just another marking ploy to milk more money for DVD sales. Sorry if this disappoints any of you out there :-(

  7. It would be impossible for me to see every film and work m-f flapping my gums about movie news. Campea reviewed this film for the site, that is good enough yes/no?

    As far as press credentials, I have none. Nadda. Zilch.

    Blogging can include amateurs all the way up to and including professionals. I would never hold myself in the same regard as seasoned, educated Journalists. I am a dude that gives his opinion on films that he has seen, and on occasion (like in this instance) feelings or perceptions about those I have not.

    This is an opinion site, so if I have seen the film or not I must add some color commentary. If it were up to me, I would only post about films that I have seen or was looking forward to. But this will never be.

    I certainly understand your questioning, in a perfect world I would see every film I discuss; but when I haven’t, I will at least give you the heads up. At least you know that my opinion/perceptions are baseless.

  8. Being that you are a movie critic and have press credentials, are you not obligated to see all movies, regardless if you want to or not? Seems very unprofessional to me. And before you start with this is “My Opinion” site, you threw that out the window when you got your press credentials.

  9. I love it when someone holds forth on something they’ve never seen, eaten or otherwise experience. Thanks Doug, for maintaining your usual standards of blogalism. LOL

    ‘Hancock’ was a hoot. I really enjoyed it. I’d read the script beforehand…and man, had they changed it from the original.

    Yes, I AM looking forward to seeing what kind of adjustments and additions they came up with. Probably a few good ones that were unsuitable for the cinema…just as ‘Alexander Revisited’ had some intriguing addendums.

  10. hated the twist completely…sure women can have powers but they shouldnt have mixed it up and thrown in the word gods or angels…..

  11. “Hancock” seemed like both an original film and a sequel in one. It wasn’t handled in the best way, so the “twist” halfway through the movie gets really awkward, and it’s not something you need to rush out and see if you’re not already intrigued.

    I don’t think the unrated version would be that much better. An extra 10 minutes is usually just people talking. It was cut from the theatrical version for a reason, and considering how short the movie already was, I’m guessing they didn’t cut it for time.

  12. I said it before and I’ll say it again, I have never NOT enjoyed a Will Smith film. Not that they are all great cinematic efforts, but Hancock was one of those films that I found enjoyable for a summer flick. My major complaint was that it seemed a little rushed so maybe a longer (although I can’t see how Unrated applies here) cut would fix that.

    I’d watch it again.

  13. I absolutely despised the movie and the twist in the film ruined it for me. Watching the movie again with the additional 10 minutes would just be a waste of 102 minutes in my life.

  14. Wait there are two theatrical versions?
    I’d pay for the DVD if it was the raw, uncut translation of the original gloriously bad and sex-filled Tonight, He Comes but no way will I watch it again.

  15. While Hancock is by no means a great film it was on of the better popcorn flicks of of a summer full a great movies. If you like superhero stories it’s worth seeing, though the surprise and shift from comedy to drama about half way through is a bit jarring. If the Director’s Cut sticks to either tone for the duration it’ll be a better movie for it.

  16. I actually disagree with you. I thought Hancock was very enjoyable and the character development was awesome. And since the story is basically character development, I think it makes the story very intriguing. I would def sit through another telling of the tale. If you have not watched it then I would suggest giving it a try, it was a pleasant suprise for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *