Your Ad Here
Gossip BlogAds Network Bargain BlogAds Network
30
Jun
08

Will Smith Is Suddenly a Whole Lot Less Scientologist

will_smith_hancock.jpgThe reviews are coming in for superhero popcorn flick Hancock, and it’s not looking pretty.

Which would make it the first Will Smith vehicle opening for the Fourth of July weekend to not make everyone involved a zillion dollars.

Hmm. So what’s changed?

Could it be that Will has been tainted by his alleged association with Scientology? War of the Worlds wasn’t exactly a smash hit, and it came out right after Tom Cruise’s infamous couch jumping. And we all remember Battlefield: Earth (or more precisely, we remember hearing how bad it was from the dozen people who saw it).

So despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, Will has maintained that he is not a Scientologist. The latest denial (conveniently timed, no?) comes from that school he donated to in May, which now swears that they are secular.

I have to say, it’s a start. Let’s all hope Hancock bombs and Will’s soul — and not his thetans — will be saved.

The PeTA FilesGreen PhoniesLove, American Style

11 Responses to “Will Smith Is Suddenly a Whole Lot Less Scientologist”


  1. 1 Rocko Jun 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    I saw the trailer. And Hancock, which is the first problem with this project (I mean a writer, director, producer, best boy, grip, caterer, someone should’ve changed that name), looks like a Superman knock off with no weaknesses. That’s lame.

  2. 2 jlynn Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    I haven’t seen any reviews, I thought that movie looked like it could have been good.

  3. 3 Chronic Malanga Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Same here, jlynn. I’ll probably watch it at some point regardless, only because I am always intrigued by bratty kids getting thrown around.

  4. 4 Carlo Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Maybe it’s just a bad movie.

  5. 5 Pastafarian Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am

    The obvious porno knockoff title is just much too easy. They really should have tried harder. It’s no “Pocahontas” is it now.

  6. 6 Aleric Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am

    The problem with Hancock is that they wanted to make a hard edged look at a super hero that was not a nice person. So they crafted a script to showcase all the things Superman would never do and so Hancock was born, but sometime after filming they realized that with all the cussing and inappropriate actions that several things would happen. The movie would get an “R” rating, Will Smith would not be the “Good Guy”, so the cuts began. By the time they trimmed it down to a PG rating and edited it to reflect well on Will, they were left with a shell of what could have been a good movie. Most of the good parts of the movie you are seeing in the trailers.

    Seems someone has told will it is better to be liked than be a good actor, after all it has worked so well for Tom.

  7. 7 Hurricane Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Story had good potential. Cast too. Looks like an early morning, hang over from hell, can’t get off the couch or change the channel movie to watch.

  8. 8 llamasrule Jul 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    “Seems someone has told will it is better to be liked than be a good actor, after all it has worked so well for Tom.”

    I knew that Will and Tom becoming BFF would eventually bite WS on the butt. Of course, my first thought was I couldn’t believe he would buy into Scientology, but was not sure that it would really hurt him career-wise. Just in the respect department.

  9. 9 That Image. Jul 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Just like a city crew, one man “working” and a bunch of others standing around.

  10. 10 Dear Pot, Love Kettle Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    It only got 2 1/2 stars in my local paper.

  11. 11 Oh well Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:10 am

    people are obviously watching it no matter reviews say
    GO HANCOCO

Opinions expressed in these comments are those of the commenters, and probably don't represent the views of your humble Deceiver bloggers. If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient. We "moderate" comments to sift out spam, obscenities, and harassment.

All (civil) opinions are welcome. And if you can't be civil, at least be entertaining!




June 2008
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
Bookmark and Share
About Deceiver
CafePress

people like you crave deceiver

  • "When it comes to rounding up John Edwards news and links, I can’t hope to compete with Deceiver."Mickey Kaus, Slate

  • "Thank you for your awesome posts. Deceiver is by far the best new blog I discovered this year."Yeeeah!

  • "I love you. This site is like Dlisted if MK read newspapers."  – reader Nanners

  • "Thank you for having the balls to cut through the spin and hype" – reader Kim Hee

  • "OH … MY … GOD … Can I come and work for you people?" – reader Spengman

  • "There must be some hardcore vegans running this site" – reader David

  • "It is nice to get intellectual about something that really has no bearing on anyone’s life"Normality Restored

  • "Another blog filled with the angry ramblings of the jealous and envious" – reader wfc123 at Metafilter

  • "Interesting that most of the hypocrisy comes from popular and attractive women" – reader Joey at Metafilter

  • "Our new guilty pleasure blog"BigHeadDC

  • "Love your site btw, i’m so through with all that nasty perez-like gossip based on nothing…" – reader Nathalie

  • "How did I ever live without the keen insights and cutting observations of Deceiver!? And I mean that sincerely... I love your blog. " – reader Teresa

  • "Deceiver.com is our newest obsession" – reader Judi

  • "I don't visit Perez Hilton anymore. I like Deceiver for the solid content, and the lack of spelling errors. Deceiver has a head on their shoulders, whereas Perez Hilton just has head!" – reader Stella