Constantine.

skywalker

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

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

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

NewFrockTuesday

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

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

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

Retr0gamer

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

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

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

koneko

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

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

Bacchus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wheres spacedog when you need him?!

projectmayhem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Drag00n79

Easily the worst movie I have seen this year. Very disappointing apart from the special effects. Keanu Reeves' acting is actually getting worse.

NewFrockTuesday

Keanu Reeves' acting is actually getting worse

i believed him. wheres Samson777 when everyones talkin about hell

Phil_321

Shamrok wrote:

Easily the worst movie I have seen this year. Very disappointing apart from the special effects. Keanu Reeves' acting is actually getting worse.

Is that even possible?

Being a fan of the comic I was sceptical of the film, what with all the changes being made to the story. But never the less I was still excited about seeing one of the coolest comic characters ever on the big screen. (I seem to have this habit of getting hyped up over most comic book adaptions.)

But as I watched the film I realised that I was going to be disappointed, this wasnt the John Constantine that I know and love, it was a strange rendition of the character. With that out of the way I slowly began to warm to the film and before I knew it I was enjoying it for what it was. A loose adaption of an obscure comic book that needed to find a wider fan base if it wassnt going to flop.

I will admit that as much as I do like Kean, he was not suited to the character, though thankfully he didnt say something like, "Woo Dude, Demons. Narley". Rachael Weisz, Tilda Swinton and Shei LeBeouff all worked very hard, but Keanu was just Neo in a black suit. I think it was SFX that said he was acted off screen by the cat in the scene they shared.

Over all I still enjoyed the film, maybe a bit too much. And I plan on going to see it again at the weekend, maybe drag some friends along.

pauldeehan

Bacchus wrote:

"They" owe me nothing. Why would you say something like that? Have you not read my posts.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

I don't think my view is naive. If I were a fan of the comic I'd shrug it off and continue with the comics which are going to endure long after the film has ceased to be remembered (because it was a tad unremarkable).

Yeah, they put in an American, changed stuff up. They have to market it to the general public, not the hardcore fanbase. If your producers are putting in millions they're going to expect some return.

I understand that seeing a favoured character protrayed as less than is expected is annoying. But hey, for every Batman and Robin there's a Spiderman.

Fysh

pauldeehan wrote:

I don't think my view is naive. If I were a fan of the comic I'd shrug it off and continue with the comics which are going to endure long after the film has ceased to be remembered (because it was a tad unremarkable).

The problem with that is that DC have been marketing the hell out of the movie and have release a bunch of stuff directly connected to the movie (a special about Papa Midnite, a character who was basically rewritten for the film; a film adaptation comic; a collection featuring a few defining stories and the film adaptation; and a hardcover-only novel to "commemorate" the film's release). It's disappointing to see a high-quality comic turned into such a dire cash cow, when it could have been a really good cash cow.

pauldeehan wrote:

Yeah, they put in an American, changed stuff up. They have to market it to the general public, not the hardcore fanbase. If your producers are putting in millions they're going to expect some return.

Yeah, but it could have been better and appealed to a wide audience without having to be dulled down enough to attract the xXx audience. The comic relies on a strong character more than anything else - like many horror stories (in fact, pretty much all of the good stuff) it's about characterisation as much as it is events or ideas, and the mutilation this film's script went through in terms of the central characters renders it so far from the original source material that the link to the comic is only really for marketing purposes.

pauldeehan wrote:

I understand that seeing a favoured character protrayed as less than is expected is annoying. But hey, for every Batman and Robin there's a Spiderman.

Well, personally I thought that was crap as well, for the same reasons. Cool character gets changed to daft cliché just because having him as a science nerd, instead of just a social incompetent, might alienate the audience. Despite Peter Parker's intelligence being pretty core to the character (this is the guy who managed to chemically synthesise the fluid for his webshooters, rememer), it was changed because it gave a more typical and therefore "pleasing" character arc. Mind you, I don't think those changes were anywhere near as bad as the ones made in Constantine.

humanji

Fysh, I can understand who pi$$ed you are that they destroyed a good character, but you have to realise, films are made to make money and not to entertain! The comic book to film trend is starting to die out and so companies are just spewing out any old rubbish. They buy up the rights to comic stories and churn them out in what ever way will make the most money in the short term. That's why they put Reeves into it and change the location to the states. There's a better market for it. The money the film pulls in here is inconsequential compared to the millions it'll get in the US.

I generally don't look forward to film adaptations anymore. Not, since the Judge Dredd movie came out and they did such a bad job that I stopped buying the comic! Just watch the movie for the mindless rubbish it is and forget about it until teh sequel comes out.

I am MAN

I went to see this last night and I would recommend it.

TOPDAWG

ha ha. i know your goin on about stuff not bein true to the comic or whatever (never been one to pay attention.........oooh string.....) but all this bickering over a BRUUUTAL film!!?? now why doesnt everybody put this shameful film in the past and move on?

azezil

I really enjoyed it! Visually stunning, lots of quirky humour, not much of a story line but enough to keep me interested and few bits that made me jump, just a really fun movie

ionapaul

Saw it last night and enjoyed it too - that said, it would really have had to be awful for me to be disappointed, I am an easy-to-satisfy movie fan in general. Glad I hadn't read the comics, as no doubt I would have been slightly disappointed as a result. I can say with some degree of certainty that the majority of the crowd watching last night enjoyed it too, there was a good buzz living the place.

Kingp35

one simple question.

Do you think a girl would enjoy?? bear in mind she is terrivle at following story lines so it sounds like this film would be good in that respect

evad_lhorg

man i got so confused in that film.

i mean i understand the whole halfbreed thing and the influence but what the **** was balthazar doin or what did he do? and why was gabriel tryin to bring the devils son out and why did the devil stop it? aghhhh! and why did he give the bloody blade to her?!!!

CathyMoran

Kingp35 wrote:

one simple question.

Do you think a girl would enjoy?? bear in mind she is terrivle at following story lines so it sounds like this film would be good in that respect

Yes - a girl should enjoy it but for one reason only - Keanu Reaves, admitidly that is a very good reason. I thought that it was OK - suited the day that I saw it, no brain cells required, very good scenery (aka Keanu Reaves) and a bit like a dodgey Buffy episode.

SoupyNorman

was ok, they were quite lazy with the plot but at least some energy was put into the special effects.not the worst film this year........(National Treasure= puke in a rusty bucket)

Kingp35

bravestarr082 wrote:

was ok, they were quite lazy with the plot but at least some energy was put into the special effects.not the worst film this year........(National Treasure= puke in a rusty bucket)

I thought national treasure was ok. But of a da vinci code wanna be but was entertaining enough for the most part. Ok im gonna see constantine this weekend. I hope its worth it

jill_valentine

Alright, I am fan of the comics, but I found myself utterly shocked at how much I liked this film. It's not high art, it's almost entirely disassociated from the source material, and yes, Keanu Reeves' Constantine is the worst case of miscasting I think I'll ever see in my life. Shia Lebouf was utterly pointless, and the plot contradictions scream "More than one screnwriter!" but for all that, I found it thoroughly entertaining.

Yeah, there were some embarrassingly bad scenes, but it's still very watchable. For all it's many, many flaws, the spirit of the thing claws through from time to time, notably the Constantine/ Gabriel conversation beside the fireplace. I think, in fairness, I liked it purely for the skin crawling creepy Satan and Tilda Swinton's fantastic Gabriel. If they make a sequal, and they fix the mistakes (Less of the two leads, for instance) it could be rather marvellous...