Chris Hansen says he will decide whether to sue over Robert Pattinson movie about his life, if he can ever see it

Chris Hansen, the former television host of To Catch a Predator, says he will decide whether to pursue legal action over a movie that depicts his life, but only after he has a chance to see the film. Page Six reports Hansen’s position as he responds to the planned Robert Pattinson project, describing the situation as one where he may not even get access to the movie before a decision is required.

The Page Six report frames Hansen’s concern around timing and access, saying the question of a lawsuit turns on whether he “ever gets to see it.” The report presents Hansen as taking a measured approach, indicating that viewing the finished film is a key prerequisite to understanding what is portrayed and what, if anything, might warrant a legal response.

Hansen’s comments also point to the broader issue of how dramatizations of real people reach the people being depicted. While the report does not detail any specific denial or legal filing by Hansen in this particular account, it highlights the practical problem of basing legal considerations on material that may not be publicly available or accessible to the subject before release.

The Page Six story positions Hansen’s decision-making process as contingent rather than predetermined. Rather than presenting a lawsuit as already underway, it characterizes the next step as a determination he will make after reviewing the film’s portrayal, implying that the content and how it is used would be central to any claim.

The report’s focus is limited to Hansen’s stated intention and access concerns, without laying out additional factual details such as whether Hansen has sent legal notices, what specific legal theories might be considered, or which parties would be named if he moves forward. Those elements, the story suggests, depend on what the film ultimately contains and what Hansen is able to review.

As with many celebrity or real-person dramatizations, the question of legal exposure can turn on issues including depiction, consent, and accuracy, but this account centers on Hansen’s immediate procedural concern: whether he can see the movie before he decides what legal action to take.

If Hansen follows through, the next public developments would likely involve court filings and service on the involved parties, along with clearer descriptions of the disputed portrayals. If he does not sue, the matter would instead remain an example of how legal disputes over biographical stories can hinge on access to the finished product.