GazReview: “Constantine”

Gaz · 03-03-2005, 06:54 AM

Let us get the bad stuff out of the way, shall we?

Fans of the comic book should NOT expect the John Constantine you know and love/hate. If you hated “I, Robot” because it only vaguely resembled the book, then do not waste your money on “Constantine.”

Keanu Reeves does not have the depth nor the face to carry off the bitter, broken-down Constantine. Fortunately, the script does not call for him to do much acting, and he is surrounded by actors who are well-suited to their roles, so Reeves is adequate.

However, I must say that I enjoyed “Constantine.” It was WAY over the top [shotgun crosses, fallen priests, demonic bugs and a visit from Satan himself], but it kept my interest and provided some genuinely creepy moments. Sure, there is too much exposition, but we have to know the rules of the balance between Heaven and Hell before we understand that those rules are being broken.

The film is dark, dark, dark-dark-dark. Blacks, grays, blues. Even the blood [and there is surprisingly little of it in this movie] is dark. Many scenes are very grainy, almost over-exposed. There are a few attempts at humor, but they are so few and far between that they are more incongruous than mood-lightening. Dark, I said.

The special effects are very good. CGI is better than average [I am not a huge fan of massive CGI doses]. The Director uses lots of odd angles that keep you off balance. And he never misses an opportunity to give us a view down Rachel Weisz’s blouse. Now, I do not mind looking down Rachel Weisz’s blouse, but after a while I found it more blatantly manipulative than titillating. YMMV.

All in all, I liked it. Despite the grim approach [did I mention it is a dark film?] and despite the choice of Reeves as the lead. Given the rules [the eternal Balance between Heaven and Hell, half-breed angels/demons, so forth], the film is internally consistent. It makes up some whacky rules, but then it follows them to the letter. The motives of the villain [okay, the one slightly more villainish than the other villains] are interesting and [again] logical within the framework of the film. And Constantine’s last, desperate gambit is made of the same cloth.

However, “Constantine” suffers on the Gaz Hoot scale because there is precious little FUN to be had. It held my interest, spooked me a couple of times, gave me some eye candy [special effects AND Ms Weisz’s cleavage] and wrapped everything up in a tidy little package that did not elicit a WTF. But it is not all that much fun. Give it 2 Hoots, but think about giving it a shot.

xoxo~
Gaz
Surprised at this one.

03-03-2005, 06:54 AM	Topic Starter
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	GazReview: “Constantine” Let us get the bad stuff out of the way, shall we? Fans of the comic book should NOT expect the John Constantine you know and love/hate. If you hated “I, Robot” because it only vaguely resembled the book, then do not waste your money on “Constantine.” Keanu Reeves does not have the depth nor the face to carry off the bitter, broken-down Constantine. Fortunately, the script does not call for him to do much acting, and he is surrounded by actors who are well-suited to their roles, so Reeves is adequate. However, I must say that I enjoyed “Constantine.” It was WAY over the top [shotgun crosses, fallen priests, demonic bugs and a visit from Satan himself], but it kept my interest and provided some genuinely creepy moments. Sure, there is too much exposition, but we have to know the rules of the balance between Heaven and Hell before we understand that those rules are being broken. The film is dark, dark, dark-dark-dark. Blacks, grays, blues. Even the blood [and there is surprisingly little of it in this movie] is dark. Many scenes are very grainy, almost over-exposed. There are a few attempts at humor, but they are so few and far between that they are more incongruous than mood-lightening. Dark, I said. The special effects are very good. CGI is better than average [I am not a huge fan of massive CGI doses]. The Director uses lots of odd angles that keep you off balance. And he never misses an opportunity to give us a view down Rachel Weisz’s blouse. Now, I do not mind looking down Rachel Weisz’s blouse, but after a while I found it more blatantly manipulative than titillating. YMMV. All in all, I liked it. Despite the grim approach [did I mention it is a dark film?] and despite the choice of Reeves as the lead. Given the rules [the eternal Balance between Heaven and Hell, half-breed angels/demons, so forth], the film is internally consistent. It makes up some whacky rules, but then it follows them to the letter. The motives of the villain [okay, the one slightly more villainish than the other villains] are interesting and [again] logical within the framework of the film. And Constantine’s last, desperate gambit is made of the same cloth. However, “Constantine” suffers on the Gaz Hoot scale because there is precious little FUN to be had. It held my interest, spooked me a couple of times, gave me some eye candy [special effects AND Ms Weisz’s cleavage] and wrapped everything up in a tidy little package that did not elicit a WTF. But it is not all that much fun. Give it 2 Hoots, but think about giving it a shot. xoxo~ Gaz Surprised at this one.
Posts: 5,911