Film review: Constantine.
What is it with Keanu and chairs? Johnny Mnemonic? Strapped to a chair while undergoing some vague and painful process (downloading data); The Matrix? Strapped to a chair while undergoing some vague and painful process (entering the Matrix); Constantine? You guessed it (stepping into Hell).
Most of the viewers of Constantine will come to the film having never seen the comic, Hellblazer, which it is is based upon. Be assured this film stands on it's own; in fact, viewers are probably better off not to have read the comic and to encounter Constantine without expectations; comparisons to older, existing material (in any which form) have never done a movie good.
So what's it about? Constantine tells the story of irreverent supernatural detective John Constantine, who has literally been to hell and back. When he teams up with skeptical policewoman Angela Dodson to solve the mysterious suicide of her twin sister, their investigation takes them through the world of demons and angels that exists just beneath the landscape of contemporary Los Angeles and, hopefully, towards salvation.
The casting of the movie is good enough in some regards (Reeves and Weisz), and rather inspired in others (Swinton, Stormare, Rossdale). The archangel Gabriel is extremely engagingly done by Tilda Swinton, a classic beauty that is somewhat androgynous in appearance, but whose voice is all female. This combination, along with some very abrupt and surprising dialog provide a truly memorable character.
Up there with Swinton's performance is Peter Stormare's portrayal of Satan, which also provides us with another very, very memorable character; two big reasons this movie deserves serious attention. Stormare's characterization of Satan is absolutely surprising, but at the same time very believable. Gabriel and Satan are both given subtle costuming and makeup that strongly assists in their unusual and memorable performances.
The sets are incredible, and their juxtaposition against one another ingenious. You get scenes from of a nuclear-style hell in all it's hideous glory paired with some of the classic noir elements -the LA apartments of the main characters- as well as the bright but sterile sets of the Catholic hospital and back rooms of a shopping center, where much of the action takes place.
The movie, in my opinion, is most interesting in how it takes all the elements of well-made modern movies (excellent special effects, plays on classic movie scenes, crisp action, and a strong storyline), combines these with the fun of a seemingly (at first) comic-book-level storyline and extremely unusual takes on religion (especially with the first meeting between Constantine and Gabriel), and ties these together at the end of the movie into a truly unusual, engaging and memorable finish.
A 78 out of 100.
Cheers
12 Comments:
i just saw this movie last saturday and loved it!
two things:
Keanu is the WORST actor ever! his bad acting wasn't bad enough to keep this movie from being awesome!
Gabriel is HOT! She was spectacular and definitely a classic beauty.
the ending BEGS for a constantine 2!
No, go on, tell me how you really feel.
:-)
Cheers
Didn't read the comic, but want to see the movie.
"comparisons to older, existing material (in any which form) have never done a movie good" — is that really so?
hello!
Yes, I do really think that. The problem with cult-comics like this is, the die-hard fans will never, ever be satisfied with what will be put up there, on the big screen.
Look at this film, look at Spiderman, look at Rings - the fanboys will always find something to bitch about. Which is a pity.
And I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with that link.
Cheers
Right, as soon as I hit the publish-button, I realised what you meant with that link.
Good point.
But I stand by my opinion. The fact that I will compare The Hitchhiker's Movie with the book will make it awfully hard for the movie to live up to my expectations. I'm aware of this, but I can't change it.
Not an enviable position for a movie to be in, wouldn't you agree?
Cheers
Yes, I love Google's calculator and no, I wouldn't want to be a movie either.
I know most films are found a bit wanting in comparison to the original, but is that always the case? Surely there are some mediocre books that have been made into good movies?
Or is it perhaps impossible to compare these two media?
BTW, do you remember the "has there been any movie that was......" thread?
Why do I get the feeling I'm being lectured here?
All I'm saying is, extensive knowledge of material will do an upcoming movie that is based on said material no good. It makes people too critical, and this could prevent people from enjoying the film which they might have enjoyed if they weren't as familiar with the source-material as they are.
And yes, I do remember that thread. I never said there are no movies which are better than the books they're based on.
Cheers
I'm not lecturing. Kill me if ever you see or hear me lecturing! (Lord, I hope I never become a teacher.)
Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the comics/books thing, especially if the original is somewhat of a (cult) classic.
Don't be angwy with me, Mawtin! I think you'we weally, weally smawt! ;o)
Well ...
... ok, you're forgiven.
:-)
Cheers
hehe. really enjoyed reading you and lies conversation. Yes, this is watercrystal of the bookforum.
Best wishes. ^)^
Post a Comment
<< Home