Constantine.

skywalker · 14-03-2005 1:05pm #1

Saw this yesterday, wouldnt reccommend it to anyone. Its only saving grace is the effects which are quite impressive, other than that its a complete waste.

koneko · 14-03-2005 1:08pm

Absolute style over substance, but I enjoyed some of it. Overall it wasn't actually any good though. Keanu Reeves just really can't act (but we knew that already).

If you like that sort of thing and have nothing else to watch, go see it, you might enjoy it, I really liked some parts but overall I wouldn't really recommend it.

Placebo · 14-03-2005 1:11pm

ive been waiting for this quite a bit, havent seen it yet.

NewFrockTuesday · 14-03-2005 1:42pm

i saw it on saturday night in coolock. i thought it was really good! is this based on a book or was there another similar film out where the ending is he same....dont want to give anything away and i dont know how to do spoilers! you know who im talking about? it njust seemed really farmilar and i cant remember was it a book or another film...which would be a bit cheeky!

Hugh Hefner · 14-03-2005 2:44pm

It's based on a comic book called Hellblazer.

I liked it. Of course it has no real merit (apart from effects) but it's a freakin' fantasy/action movie so I don't really mind. Tis a good laugh

skywalker · 14-03-2005 3:10pm

Also, what was the story with the devil being so camp?

Retr0gamer · 14-03-2005 4:30pm

Thought it was only 'meh'. Not a complete waste of time like boogeyman but not great. A switch your brain off film with some good special effects in places and nothing more.

ObeyGiant · 14-03-2005 4:34pm

Takes the "fun" out of "Dumb fun".

At least there was a trailer for Episode III before it.

koneko · 14-03-2005 4:40pm

ObeyGiant wrote:

At least there was a trailer for Episode III before it.

I didn't get that!
Just the usual trailers (War of the Worlds, and some other crap I can't remember about Irish boys)

LOL @ the "tense" torturing-Balthazar scene. That bit was just woeful

("You're gonna go to heaven, sucka!")

Retr0gamer · 14-03-2005 5:27pm

I'm going to kill my friend! I missed the trailers cos he sent me out to get popcorn :mad:

Bacchus · 14-03-2005 5:35pm

Saw this on Saturday. I found it to be enjoyable but there are a couple of scenes that you just have grit your teeth and sit through. The special effects are pretty cool and there is some very nice cinematography(wierd angles, cool landscapes) which made the film more interesting for me anyway.
Reeves is his usual wooden self but after a while he does grow into the character and is a real bastard.

Had to stiffle a cheer when he gave the finger to the devil, cocky ****er

He actually has a few good dead pan moments where you just have to laugh

sitting on a chair with his feet in a bucket of water while holding a cat being an example

Rachael Weis (sp?) is adequate. Doesn't steal any scenes or anything. She just plays the part and does a decent job.
As for the story. Die hard fans of the comic will most likely be pissed off but I found the plot interesting (little bit muddled towards the end). It started out like some sort X-files episode but soon dives into a Blade/Batman/Exorsist kinda thing.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Good movie with some very good action and some funny moments but it also has a good few 'huh?' and 'come on, kill something already!!' moments.
I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a decent action/fantasy flick that won't require great deal of brain power.

Fysh · 14-03-2005 6:05pm

Goddamnit, so it's just me who sees this for the total and utter unmitigated crap that it is?

1. It's based on a comic; a good comic, with some damn fine stories and actual characters as opposed to clichés. And yet it manages to be the worst - without exception, not even the abominable captain america movie or even those horribly crap Spiderman movies from the 70s that I saw as a kid - comic-inspired movie I've ever seen.

2. The best action bit was a straight rip from the original Blade movie, and was inferior.

3. Ridiculous alterations to the characters, cast, and original story that it was based on aside; Keanu Reeves was an atrocious choice of lead actor. Instead of looking troubled, he looks autistic. And he doesn't even match the look of the character he's based on in any way whatsoever (well, apart from being roughly the same species).

4. I wanted to enjoy this just as a dumb action film, I really did - I'm a big fan of the comics and knew it would disappoint in that respect, but I still thought it might be a bit of entertaining fun. But it was crap. The plot was far too simple for the apparent contrivances, and various bits didn't even make sense (

we find out at the beginning that committing suicide will damn you to hell, but later in the film Keanu redeems himself by...uh....committing suicide. Quite aside the fact that someone acting in the name of Almighty God manages to sneakily prevent God from noticing that he is in fact working to help the Other Side. And the ending....oh, jesus christ, the ending made me want to vomit into Keanu's throat until he died. The character he was playing would never, ever come out with something so pathetic. Neither would he quit smoking after managing to manipulate the devil in such a way, although that's made more clear in the books that the plot was lifted straight from.

).

5. Worst film I've seen in the last year. By far. And that includes Faust, previous holder of the "crappest horror/fantasy comic adaptation" award.

6. No doubt this will impress many for the effects and spawn numerous dire sequels to torment me with.

If you like doing anything more intelligent in the cinema than sitting down, drooling into your lap for two hours as you watch finely rendered SFX that contribute nothing to the story, and then leaving, avoid this film. Even by the standards of explosions 'n car chases action movies, this is crap.

Bacchus · 14-03-2005 6:21pm

As I said, Die hard dans will be pissed off and rightly so. But those who are not familiar with the comic will not be put off by grievances such as Fysh's. I would like to point out to Fysh though that

Keanu does not redeem himself by commiting suicude again. he does so by making his last request to let the suicide girl from earlier go to heaven. That is how he redeemed himself

koneko · 14-03-2005 6:27pm

Fysh wrote:

Keanu Reeves was an atrocious choice of lead actor. Instead of looking troubled, he looks autistic.

Did you choose that word consciously?

http://www.autisticsociety.org/article773.html

Tusky · 14-03-2005 6:48pm

I actually really liked it. It could have been ten times better with a different lead and the story mixed up a little. I loved the grand scale of it though.

Fysh · 14-03-2005 7:46pm

koneko wrote:

Did you choose that word consciously?

http://www.autisticsociety.org/article773.html

Yes, I did, and I also note that the link you point to is talking specifically about Asperger's syndrome, not autism in general, when it discusses high intellectual ability.

Of course, if you really want, I can pick other words to describe Reeves' performance. Blank. Uninterested. Uninvolved. Unmotivated. Un-pretty much anything indicating effort, in fact. But here I am, playing "quibble over word use", when the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not this film is any good.

Nevyn · 14-03-2005 9:08pm

I really dont think the film script/treatment and any of the comics where ever in the same building never mind the same office at any one time.

But then again the person I saw it with never read any of the comics and enjoyed it despite being slightly confused.

It was like a really bad In Nomine game session.

Fysh · 15-03-2005 1:51am

Bacchus wrote:

As I said, Die hard dans will be pissed off and rightly so. But those who are not familiar with the comic will not be put off by grievances such as Fysh's. I would like to point out to Fysh though that
Keanu does not redeem himself by commiting suicude again. he does so by making his last request to let the suicide girl from earlier go to heaven. That is how he redeemed himself

Nonetheless, he kills himself again - and what Constantine's first "suicide" showed was that, regardless of the outcome, killing yourself damns you to hell. I mean, come on - travelling around exorcising demons isn't enough to redeem him because it's "a conscious attempt at redeeming himself", but magically claiming altruistic intent after trying to kill yourself again is enough to redeem him? Whatever.

Of course, I'm actually paying attention and pointing out plot holes here, something the target audience clearly isn't expected to bother with...

Bacchus · 15-03-2005 3:37pm

Do I really have to repeat myself here.

Keanu killed himself again coz he knew he was ****ed either way. He only redeemed himself coz for the last wish that the devil granted him, he chose to let the suicide girl go to heaven instead of stay in hell. He wasn't trying buy his way into heaven at that moment. He knew he was ****ed and decided to do one good thing before he went to hell. Don't come at me with your "I'm actually paying attention" bull****. This is what happened in the movie, clear as daylight. IF he was planning it all along and it was a trick THEN you have a point about the plothole but I don't think he was. Btw, I have no idea why I'm defending this movie so much. It's a fun popcorn flick, nothing more.

NewFrockTuesday · 15-03-2005 3:43pm

wheres spacedog when you need him?!

projectmayhem · 15-03-2005 4:14pm

i haven't seen it yet but from what i've seen/heard (apart from some here, obviously), it's supposed to be quite a good film, and a fitting tribute to the comics that inspired it...

koneko · 15-03-2005 5:59pm

Fysh wrote:

Yes, I did, and I also note that the link you point to is talking specifically about Asperger's syndrome, not autism in general, when it discusses high intellectual ability.

It was a question, not an attack, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

I've heard numerous times before he may be slightly autistic, but anyone I mention it to has never heard it before so it was a question. Okay? Don't get so damn touchy.

Fysh · 15-03-2005 6:12pm

projectmayhem wrote:

i haven't seen it yet but from what i've seen/heard (apart from some here, obviously), it's supposed to be quite a good film, and a fitting tribute to the comics that inspired it...

HAH!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You must be either kidding me or have a seriously odd perception as to what makes the Hellblazer comic worth reading. Quite aside my poor opinion of it as a standalone film, the connection between this film and the comics it claims to be based on is tenuous at best. The name of the main character, the presence of angels and demons, and a few aspects of Garth Ennis's 40-issue run main run on the series.

Fitting tribute, my hairy arse. I refer you to the fact that Alan Moore, who originally created the character, has essentially refused to have anything to do with the film (much like every other film adaptation of his works, which have ranged from passably dodgy to bloody awful), and Warren Ellis has been openly critical of the film for its various failings. I can't find his exact words on the matter, but I'll check through my old mails from his mailing list and will post up if I can find them.

Edited to add :

koneko wrote:

It was a question, not an attack, so don't get your panties in a bunch.I've heard numerous times before he may be slightly autistic, but anyone I mention it to has never heard it before so it was a question. Okay? Don't get so damn touchy.

Ah. My bad, sorry - utterly misinterpreted your comment there. I wasn't aware of that story, although it would explain a few things. Any links to sources about it? I'd be interested to know more.

koneko · 15-03-2005 6:28pm

I'll see if I can dig up the other links, I'm not sure if he's confirmed it himself but afaik he's hinted at it.

For the record, I don't think he was a good choice for the part either. Keanu Reeves is an odd person. He looks the part for a lot of things, he genuinely LOOKS cool imo, but only when he isn't talking. Once he starts "acting", you can tell there's something wrong. Even simple lines just don't seem to work when he tries.

"This is CONSTANTINE. JOHN CONSTANTINE, ASSHOLE", it didn't even sound right. It sounded like he was reading the line for a school-play rehearsal or something. He does the motions, the words come out of his mouth, but you don't see a character, you see Keanu Reeves in a cool suit.

ObeyGiant · 15-03-2005 6:35pm

Fysh wrote:

Fitting tribute, my hairy arse. I refer you to the fact that Alan Moore, who originally created the character, has essentially refused to have anything to do with the film (much like every other film adaptation of his works, which have ranged from passably dodgy to bloody awful)

Ah, the wonderful world of half-truths... True, he has distanced himself from this movie. Not true that this has any bearing on the quality of Constantine.

Alan Moore wrote:

I'm currently very, very disenchanted with films, so I don't really want anymore films made of my stuff, but if there was a Miracleman or a Marvelman film, then I'd just not want my name attached to it and all of the money could go to the artists concerned or to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

Rick Veitch wrote:

Alan had decided to wash his hands of Hollywood because of the LOEG lawsuit. CONSTANTINE just happened to be the first project to fall in his lap after that.

Neil Gaiman wrote:

"it's true that Alan's rejected the money for CONSTANTINE and assigned it to his cocreators, but he's now done that for all films of his and things he's done that might one day be filmed.
...
As far as I know, from having spoken to him, Alan's view on Constantine itself is the same as his view on From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which is that he'll probably rent the DVD one day

And before you go jumping down my neck like a rabid fanboy - I disliked Constantine, and am in no way defending it.

Fysh · 15-03-2005 8:03pm

ObeyGiant wrote:

Ah, the wonderful world of half-truths... True, he has distanced himself from this movie. Not true that this has any bearing on the quality of Constantine.

And before you go jumping down my neck like a rabid fanboy - I disliked Constantine, and am in no way defending it.

TBh, I haven't really followed Moore's comments in-depth - I knew he wasn't particularly impressed with it and didn't want his name associated with it, or the money from it. I would genuinely be interested to see a film project of something written by Alan Moore with him actively involved in the development, because I find it hard to believe that someone who's written so many excellent comics would not be able to exert at least some good influence over a film project based on his work.

Bacchus · 15-03-2005 8:16pm

The track record of Alan Moore movie adaptations doesn't leave me feeling too optimistic about Watchmen. If they screw that up, heads will roll.

pauldeehan · 16-03-2005 12:28am

Bacchus wrote:

The track record of Alan Moore movie adaptations doesn't leave me feeling too optimistic about Watchmen. If they screw that up, heads will roll.

Because they obviously owe you.

I don't see why people get so worked up about when film adaptations of comics/books/whatever, turn out to be less than it's inspiration. If Constantine is so terrible, who cares? Just go back to the comics. I've seen some terrible adaptions of books I've enjoyed but I've never felt in anyway outraged because, hey, so what? Someone gave it a shot, it fell short, too bad.

I thought it was a fun film, a fair enough way to pass the time. I thought Keanu Reeves was inoffensive, they didn't give him much to screw up. I wasn't overwhelmed by his performance but I think a lot of criticism he gets is just knee jerk reaction.

Fysh · 16-03-2005 1:29am

pauldeehan wrote:

I don't see why people get so worked up about when film adaptations of comics/books/whatever, turn out to be less than it's inspiration. If Constantine is so terrible, who cares? Just go back to the comics. I've seen some terrible adaptions of books I've enjoyed but I've never felt in anyway outraged because, hey, so what? Someone gave it a shot, it fell short, too bad.

That's just far, far too naive a way of looking at it. This wasn't "oh, someone's vision didn't quite match up to the comic", this was "Hey, let's rip out everything that might possibly engage the viewer or make the characters complex (and therefore interesting), set it in LA and have loads of SFX! Oh, and the character's gotta be cool, so let's have someone cool play him....that Keanu Reeves, he's pretty cool, right? Yeah! Get him! And we can have

a scene where he gives Satan the finger!

That'd be really goddamn cool! But not as cool as the truckloads of money this'll make us! Wow!"

There is nothing in common between Constantine in the film and Constantine in the comic, aside from the name. In the film he's American, dark-haired, vaguely moody-looking/autistic (depending on your interpretation), who spends his time carrying out exorcisms and apparently living off the reputation we never quite get to see him earn or deserve. He has a somewhat typical american action-hero attitude, in that he gets supposedly good lines and can generally hold his own against enemies who seem able to rip pretty much anyone else to pieces.

In the comic he's English, blond and wears a trenchcoat. He smokes almost constantly and is one of the most miserably cynical gits ever drawn. He manipulates almost anyone he ever comes into contact with, feeding his own interests with them, but will fight evildoer-types where this doesn't directly conflict his own interests (and, just occasionally, even when it does). His power comes from his amassed knowledge of magic and his ability to manipulate people - in terms of physical power, it's more often than not his allies who provide. But, you know, it might be hard to make this enigmatic dodgy bastard of a character easily likeable, within the confines of a 2 hour film. Lets just make him a troubled Angeleno who fights on the side of good most of his life and yet is still damned. :rolleyes:

pauldeehan wrote:

I thought it was a fun film, a fair enough way to pass the time. I thought Keanu Reeves was inoffensive, they didn't give him much to screw up. I wasn't overwhelmed by his performance but I think a lot of criticism he gets is just knee jerk reaction.

I'm not a big fan of Reeves, but, well, either he was told that the character he was to play had essentially nothing to do with the character presented in the comics, or he made a really bad choice of technique - it's not his fault that the script involves some crap lines, but he didn't exactly give any flair in the delivery either.

Bacchus · 16-03-2005 4:57pm

pauldeehan wrote:

Because they obviously owe you.

"They" owe me nothing. Why would you say something like that? Have you not read my posts. I don't care if the movie is different to the comic as long as I can enjoy it. I'm just saying that if they mess up Watchmen there will one of the biggest uproars ever among the fans. It's a classic comic (graphic novel for those of you who care) and I too would be dissapointed if they messed it up.

Fysh: In a perfect world everyone would get what they wanted. Unfortunately, the 'often ignorant' masses rule and those who are actually passionate about something get trodden on. Okay, it's nothing like the comic. You've said that, it was a valid point no one is questioning that. If you're so pissed off, just don't ever watch the movie again. Pretend it never happened (like so many people do with the Matrix sequels)

koneko · 16-03-2005 6:15pm

Bacchus wrote:

Pretend it never happened (like so many people do with the Matrix sequels)

There are no sequels to The Matrix. There was one film, and then I had a bad dream, but that's it, there were no sequels. There were also no games.

Constantine.

Comments