Okay, so we went through something similar with Frank Darabont's unused draft of the latest Indiana Jones installment, which managed to be a bit better (read: Mutt-less) compared to the still entertaining end result. Now, it appears that the original draft for Hancock -- long titled Tonight, He Comes -- has popped up by way of Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere (read it here). Oh, and if it's authentic, it happens to be missing the next-to-last page.

I've found the behind-the-scenes hearsay -- conveniently summed up in this NY Times piece -- on this film to be fairly fascinating. First, as scripted by Vy Vincent Ngo, Tonight had made the rounds as a reportedly hard-R superhero drama that capitalized on the somewhat sexual nature of the title. However, it seems once Will Smith was brought on board, Sony saw fit to tame things down considerably.

Even as recently as April, the MPAA had twice handed them an R instead of the sought-after PG-13, and now the finished result runs a choppy 92 minutes -- distinctly shorter than indicated in AICN test screening reports which made particular mention of a subplot involving statutory rape. Of course, as Wells brings up, it's hard to ignore the involvement of producer/screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, whose recent work on Smith's last hit, I Am Legend, had a similarly slapdash second half at the compromise of the original material.

I've yet to get more than a couple of pages into this thing, but do you guys think this is the real deal, and if so, do you guys think that this is the real film compared to what's on thousands of screens this week?

Well here's something you don't see every day: A big, flashy summertime "tentpole" movie that A) takes chances, B) bucks convention, and C) takes some real risks with its subject material. Obviously the safe approach is for Will Smith to do (yet another) easily-digestible (if somewhat mindless) blockbuster like I, Robot or I Am Legend or Independence Day -- but this time the endlessly profitable Will Smith is working with a rather distinctive director who refuses to cater to formula. That director would be Peter Berg, and this guy has yet to make a bad film.

Unfortunately the production history on Hancock is not a fantastic one. There was a revolving door of directors and script polishers before Columbia finally started production -- but there were still marketing issues, last-minute reshoots, and MPAA miseries to deal with. And yet, despite all that, Hancock arrives like a breath of weirdly fresh air for moviegoers who like a little heart and soul mixed in with their hyper-kinetic action mayhem. Toss some sharp wit and an impressive display of edge into the mix, and I think you may have one of my favorite movies of the summer. (Although one can plainly tell that there was some late cutting done to the flick, all in the name of the almighty PG-13 rating, of course.)

It was a good weekend at the box office for both of last week's newbies, marking the first time in history that two films opening on the same weekend pulled in over $50 million each. Here's the top five:

1. Wall-E: $63 million
2. Wanted: $50.9 million
3. Get Smart: $20.2 million
4. Kung Fu Panda: $11.7 million
5. The Incredible Hulk: $9.6 million

Only one major release this week, but we've also got one going into wider release.

Hancock
What's It All About: Will Smith plays Hancock, a hard drinking anti-social superhero, and a PR agent played by Jason Bateman sets out to repair Hancock's public image.
Why It Might Do Well: Will Smith may not always have the Midas touch (I Am Legend left me cold) but he's got quite a few successful blockbusters under his belt, and people are loving the superhero flicks these days. I've liked Bateman's work a lot since Arrested Development, and I'm always glad to see him. Also, Cinematical's own Kim Voynar has given the film her seal of approval.
Why It Might Not Do Well: Unlike most big-budget superhero movies, this one doesn't originate from another media like comic books, so it doesn't come with the core fanbase of an Iron Man or an Incredible Hulk. Also, the 36% fresh rating at Rottentomatoes.com is not encouraging.
Number of Theaters: 3,900
Prediction: $45 million

And going into wider release this week...

I wanted to go into Hancock knowing as little as possible, so I deliberately avoided reading anything about it -- at least, as much as that was possible given the amount of movie blog reading I do on a daily basis. Nonetheless, it was hard to miss that early reviews trickling in from places like Variety and Hollywood Reporter were not, shall we say, overly positive. On the other hand, several of those reviews were written by people who often seem to have cinematic tastes directly opposite mine, so I wasn't too dissuaded.

And I'm glad I wasn't, because I'm here to tell you Hancock is both an enjoyable film and one of Will Smith's best performances ever, even if it is a bit schizophrenic in its execution. The film starts out as one thing -- all we know is we're getting a film about a grumpy, alcoholic guy with super powers who's awfully deficient in the social skills department. The film opens on a scene right out of COPS: three bad guys leading police on a chase down an LA freeway, firing away on police and other cars. In between shots of the action, we see a disheveled guy snoozing drunkenly on a park bench.

Although Will Smith plays an emotionally fragile superhero in Hancock, as a movie star he's practically invincible. By industry standards, the last genuine Smith dud was The Legend of Bagger Vance, but the actor's standing among many audiences has remained decidedly rocky. As a result, he occupies a unique corner of the Hollywood marketplace where quality and taste don't necessarily match up. Unlike, say, The Dark Knight, not many people eagerly await the latest Smith offering -- which currently has a 32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes -- but they'll see it anyway. Hancock is tracking well, thanks to a poster exclusively dominated by Smith's unshaven mug, and that pretty much seals its potent box office fate. Just as Smith's slapdash onscreen persona is bullet-proof, Smith himself is steadfastly critic-proof.

Which places movie in an interesting quagmire: After pulling in waves of cash, it will probably get relegated to the void of forgettable Smith fare, where spectacles offer passing amusement before scampering off forever. Hancock, however, deserves better than a fleeting moment in the limelight and a crash landing in the bargain bin. It's part of a genre that speaks directly to the modern state of blockbuster cinema: The superhero satire.

Who is Hancock, where is he from ... and does he know how to get jiggy wit it? (Also, why does Jason Bateman have sparkles on his face?) Yes, it's that time again -- Moviefone has unveiled another one of their fabulous Unscripted chats, and it's a tasty one. In support of their new film Hancock, watch Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman interview each other using your questions and some of their own. Usually these Unscripted sessions come with only two people, so when they've got the whole ménage à trois thing going on, you definitely want to watch. Additionally, above you will find a clip that was left on the cutting room floor and then somehow swiped up by us janitors here at Cinematical. Watch as Smith and Theron discuss kissing one another, while Bateman chimes in with his own quirky two cents.

I won't spoil the rest for you because I'm cool like that (and smooth like that, and dope like that, and chill like that) -- so head on over to Moviefone to see the rest. Hancock hits theaters on July 2.

It seems fairly certain that Hancock will do decent business when it hits theaters this week, if only because Will Smith rarely stars in a dud these days -- especially when it's his face selling the movie before all else. Whether or not the film has staying power after opening weekend, however, remains to be seen, but Sony Pictures clearly has a lot of faith in its potential: Last week, the studio revealed its intentions of releasing the film online sometime after its theatrical run and before its DVD release, but only to users with Sony Bravia TV sets. It's a bold maneuver, one that assumes its core base of consumers actually have an interest in Hancock -- but the movie will make a profit either way, so it's a reasonable choice for this intriguing experiment.

Left in the dust by Apple's iPod, Sony continues to struggle in its search for a piece of the digital revolution. Company head Howard Stringer recently told the New York Times that the strategy for releasing Hancock "vanishes the memory of the failures of the Sony Walkman." Well, maybe. While on-demand technology has changed the way audiences consume their media, they don't like paying more money than necessary. Asking your audiences to buy a special device in order to access what, at this point, amounts to one movie -- well, that's asking a lot. But it's still a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

Since this week finds fireworks in the sky and a new Will Smith action flick in theaters (Hancock), we thought it might be fun to take a look back at Smith's previous action films and try to decide which one we like the best. We're not including all of Smith's films here, because, well, it's kinda unfair to compare, say, The Pursuit of Happyness or Ali to Men in Black or I, Robot. Perhaps next time we'll take a look at Smith's watered down, dramatic efforts, but for now we'll stick to the rock-em-sock-em fan favorites.

And since I always give my opinion before asking for yours, I'm going to say that out of all of Smith's action-adventure films, Bad Boys is my favorite. Yes, I've gone with the Michael Bay film -- kill me now! Actually, now that Smith is a huge, mega star, we don't see him in buddy films anymore -- and watching him opposite Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys (as well as Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black) was an absolute blast. The sequel(s) ... well, how about we not go there. What say you, Will Smith fans -- which of his action films is your favorite?

With Wanted opening this week, starring rapper Common opposite Angelina Jolie (and, I'm happy to see, getting some awesome reviews, making it one of the few movies I may pay to see just for the heck of it), we thought it would be a good time to revisit seven other rappers who've attempted the treacherous transition from rap artist to movie star.

What makes film producers look to rap stars when casting for the big screen? Well, aside from the built-in audience that comes from casting a popular rap performer in a movie role, rappers have to have stage presence to perform, and that charisma and personality can come across well on a movie theater screen. Here are seven of them; let me know which of your favorite rappers I missed. (And before any of you Outkast fans get all worked up: they are hip-hop, not rap, and this post was for the rappers; Outkast is one of my absolute favorite bands, though, and Andre Benjamin in particular, I consider enormously talented. I'll do a whole column on Outkast and what they're up to movie-wise in the near future, promise.)

1. Will Smith -- Smith charmed TV audiences as a teenager in his popular TV show The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air before hitting it big on the silver screen with the triple-whammy of Bad Boys (1995), Independence Day (1996), and Men in Black (1997). Since then, more hits have followed, and Smith and his wife, actress Jada Pinkett-Smith, have become Hollywood royalty; Smith's solid marriage and commitment to his family have earned him a reputation as one of Hollywood's genuine "nice guys," to boot. Smith is one rapper who successfully made the transition from singer to big-name actor, largely due to his charm, charisma and natural talent on the screen. His latest film, Hancock, opens July 2.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... oh, my.

Look, when you change the title of your drunken superhero tentpole from Tonight, He Comes to Hancock for fear of senseless jokes, you're all but asking for the kind of trouble that we've posted after the jump (it's nothing terribly scarring, people, but for all its sophomoric glory, it's a fair bet that either you or your boss might deem it to be NSFW).

Basically, a half-assembled London billboard for the Will Smith blockbuster-to-be was snapped in a state short of a few critical characters, and it's thusly made the rounds on these magical interwebs of ours. We got our glimpse over at award prognosticator Kristopher Tapley's In Contention site, and Tapley goes on to provide no less than three other links from whence this picture came.

Anyway, make your way past the jump to get your giggles on, and expect Hancock to land in theaters everywhere a week from tomorrow night.

I caught a screening of Hancock last night. We still have a couple weeks to go before we get to that film, but I am very curious to hear what you folks think of this flick. It's certainly ballsy (especially for a Fourth of July weekend), and I loved that about it -- so we'll see. My mouth shall remain shut for now. That said, this weekend is a peculiar one because we have two comedies competing against one another. Sure, one (Get Smart) could probably pass itself off as an action-comedy, but it will be fascinating to watch the old school (Mike Myers) go up against the new school (Steve Carell).

On paper (and from what I've been hearing), Get Smart seems like the better all-around choice if you only have cash for one film and want a taste of typical, popcorn summer entertainment. Then again, Mike Myers hasn't starred in a live-action film since 2003's The Cat and the Hat, and so fans might be itching for that familiar Myers absurdity (with a twist of Mini Me thrown in for extra punch). If you choose your films based on the female factor, well, Get Smart gives us the beautiful Anne Hathaway, while The Love Guru features the equally-as-beautiful Jessica Alba. My opinion: Hathaway's the better actress, but Alba's the fan favorite. As far as directors go, Love Guru gives us a first-timer, and Get Smart is brought to us by the guy behind films like Tommy Boy, Anger Management and 50 First Dates.

So, based on my shoddy analysis, which film will you be seeing this weekend?

I really, really love movie trailers, yet for some reason I can't stand movie commercials on television. Maybe it's because they're repeated over and over and over again, like the current spot for The Love Guru, which has been driving me nuts all week. I hardly even watch TV (with no more Lost til 2009, there's nothing good on) and yet I believe I've seen it about a thousand times over the past few days.

Apparently I'm in the minority, however, because TiVo has just released data showing that ads for movies are one of the few kinds of commercials that its subscribers actually watch rather than fast-forward through. The DVR company also revealed the movie that had the least-fast-forwarded spot: Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A single FSM ad that ran during an episode of The Office was the single-most popular (or, at least most-viewed) for the month of April. Second least-fast-forwarded in that month was a spot for Hancock. Also considered "DVR-resistant" are those amusing Mac vs. PC commercials, while an ad for Ford that ran during an episode of American Idol placed high for April, as well.

The rumor mill has been awfully quiet on Hancock recently, despite everybody and their mother predicting megabucks upon its July 4th weekend release. But there's at least this: in an apparent attempt to take after Iron Man, which did the same thing back in May, Hancock will be hitting some US theaters a few hours early.

If you'd like, you'll be able to see the Will Smith superhero comedy -- which, by the way, finally got its PG-13 rating from the MPAA after wrestling with the dreaded R for a little while -- starting at 7 pm on July 1st, rather than the previously scheduled July 2nd.

James Rocchi and I got into Cannes this afternoon, checked into our flat, and then promptly headed out to the Croisette to get our press badges and take a slew of pics. Movie posters abound on the Croisette. They're draped on luxury hotels and adorning the sidewalks; pretty much everywhere you look, it's movie marketing central around here. I'll have a Live from Cannes post up later with some other pics of the Cannes scene and the lovely Croisette, but in the meantime, here's a bunch of movie poster pics for your viewing pleasure.

We'll be up bright and early tomorrow to catch the opening film, Blindness, and we'll be posting regularly throughout the fest, so keep checking back for more. Let us know what you're most interested in hearing about from the fest, and we'll do our best to oblige.

%Gallery-22782%

Warning: This post contains excessive grasping at straws.

Most knowledgeable folks seem to think that the upcoming Wanted looks like a piece of junk. I can understand their position: the trailer was kind of a sensory assault, and didn't exactly make the film seem original. For my part, I'm not ready to write it off. I like James McAvoy, director Timur Bekmambetov is a fellow Russian, and I tend to enjoy the wildly implausible brand of action that the film seems to be going for. So I'm happy to report a piece of news that kind of surprised me: Wanted has been rated R by the MPAA for "strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality." That elaboration makes it seem like they won't be trying to trim the bad parts to earn a PG-13.

Now, okay: obviously that doesn't mean much. I mean, the similarly (identically?) themed Hitman was rated R too, and look how that turned out. But for me, the R rating speaks not directly to quality, but to the kind of film Wanted is likely to be. Seeing the trailer (and not knowing the source material), I thought that while it looked kind of cool, it also looked like a broad, inoffensive, second-rate action romp -- my first association, probably due to the presence of Angelina Jolie, was with Lara Croft Tomb Raider. But maybe it won't be. Maybe it'll turn out to be harsh, and sexy, and over-the-top in ways that are actually interesting. Maybe it'll be more like Running Scared or Shoot 'Em Up than like Ghost Rider. You might think that those comparisons don't help and that it still looks like crap, but it seems to me that an R rating for a movie like this increases the odds of it being worthwhile. Or am I off my gourd?