Change Your Image
DP_IL
Reviews
Constantine (2005)
Why not give the character a different name?
I've been a fan of the HELLBLAZER comics for years. When I first heard of a film adaptation, I was really excited. This excitement was quickly diminished once I discovered that the character was not only going to be Americanized but that he was going to be played by, of all the possible actors, Keanu Reeves.
Had they gotten a competent and talented actor to portray an Americanized version of Constantine, this would have been a much easier pill to swallow. John Cusack, Johnny Depp, Edward Norton and Leonardo DiCaprio all immediately come to mind as good choices who could portray Constantine accurately (albeit without a British accent).
When the trailer for CONSTANTINE was first released, I thought there was a chance it could be good. And then I saw it in the theaters and was completely annoyed. Here are a number of things that I found to be glaring problems with this movie when held in comparison to the source material:
-John is not a magician in this film, he's a simple exorcist who has an ability to see half-demons. This is fundamental to the character and it's been completely ignored in this adaptation.
-In the comics, John is Hell-bound because of some bad decisions he made in his youth while experimenting with magic, decisions which resulted in the death of a little girl and of some of his friends. John was not an irredeemable character, but it made sense. In this film, that incredible aspect of his character is ignored and the reason John is going to Hell? Because he committed suicide as a way to stop plagues of visions. Wow, what a horrible guy. Can anyone blame him for being such a jerk?
-In the "Dangerous Habits" story, John contracts cancer, just like in the film. In the film, he's cured because Lucifer removes the cancer to give him a chance to fall because he's redeemed himself and is rising up to Heaven. This also ruins a key aspect of the character, which is on perfect display in the comic. In the comic, John sells his soul to three separate, high-ranking demons. Then he commits suicide and when all three come at once to claim him, John gives them a choice -- they can either tear apart Hell in a brutal war to claim his soul or they can cure him until they can work this out for themselves. It's a wonderful scene which showcases John's conman nature -- and a scene which is capped off beautifully when after being cured, John lights up a fresh cigarette and flips the bird to the demons. This is ruined in the film when at the end, John reaches for a pack of gum.
-And what I feel is the greatest injustice is this film embraces the extremely antiquated notion of suicide = eternity of torture in Hell. This horrible belief has caused innumerable families and friends who have lost people to suicide unimaginable emotional pain, because the Catholic church wants them to believe that their loved ones are suffering in Hell. The comic book never took sides in any sort of religious debate -- it borrowed elements from a number of different sources and crafted its own unique mythology. The filmmakers chose to be lazy and go with an easy way out.
All that being said, there are good things in this movie. And over time, I've given it some additional chances. And I've found that over time, the Catholic stuff aside, my biggest problem with this film is that it changed so much from the source material. With all these changes that were made, the film only needed to make one further change -- call the main character something other than John Constantine. Had they done that, I doubt anyone could claim in a court of law that this film bore anything more than a passing resemblance to HELLBLAZER. And had they made that one, little change, my review of this film would probably be an 8 as opposed to a 4.
**EDIT**
Since I wrote this review, I've seen Constantine a few more times. While the problems of the film are still very much there (particularly the suicide aspect, which in my mind is absolutely unforgivable), my views on the movie have softened. Given how little resemblance the film bears to the source material, I'd advise any fans of the comic to view this movie as a completely different animal, and think of these two characters sharing the same name as being a bizarre coincidence.
Nick Fury: Agent of Shield (1998)
Hasselhoff Delivers
This movie received a lot of flack, and it's not all undeserved. Yes, Andra Hess is an absolutely terrible actress who can't resist camping up the series and turning Hydra into a complete parody as opposed to a legitimate threat. Yes, the story could have used a bit more work. But where this film got things right, it REALLY got them right.
The Agents of SHIELD are all well-cast and did great work in their roles. But I want to bring special attention to David Hasselhoff. The man gets a lot of flack for his performance in the role and I think a lot of that is just because he's David Hasselhoff. But in truth, this is probably the finest performance of his career. Hasselhoff nails not only the look, but the personality of Nick Fury and he looks like he stepped right out of a Steranko comic.
It really is a shame that Hasselhoff's performance and potential future as Nick Fury was completely overshadowed both by his own reputation and by the bad elements of the film. Given a proper villain in the form of a well-cast, well-written Baron Strucker, this would have been an incredible telefilm that would have led into an amazing television series.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Violently Unnecessary
So organized religion wants to enter the arena of film... and this is their opening salvo? I've heard many people say how The Passion is the greatest movie ever, how it's such a moving experience, blah, blah, blah. The common factor is that all the people who feel this way are all religious. So I feel they are a little bit biased.
This movie is not a moving experience, and it's certainly not the greatest film ever. What it really is, is an anti-Semitic film depicting a guy getting the crap beat out of him for two hours, and Gibson trying to see just how much blood and gore he can fit into a movie while still avoiding an NC-17 rating.
I have a friend who is very religious, and she gave me a free ticket to see this movie with her and her church group. During the movie, everyone in the theater was crying their eyes out -- except me. Afterwards, everyone talked about how amazing it was. I just smiled and nodded, not wanting to start any arguments, but in my head I kept thinking, "is this the first movie you people have ever seen?" If you want a good movie about the final days of Jesus, I encourage you to watch The Last Temptation of Christ. As far as Passion goes, I've seen better slasher flicks.
100 Girls (2000)
Just More Of The Same
I just don't get it. Why do so many people think this is a good movie? There is absolutely nothing here that sets it apart from every other Hollywood teen/college/coming of age flick ever made. The movie is completely contrived and predictable. Once all the main characters are all introduced, you can pretty much predict what will happen (especially the glaringly obvious "ironic twist" where Matt falls in love with the woman he claimed he wasn't in love with).
The jokes get old, the directing is poor, the acting is sub-standard, and the writing is unoriginal. But what really gets me is the completely unrealistic ending where Matt stands in front of the girl's dorm and proclaims his love for some mystery woman (whom he's only met once). Not only that, but he promises to do all these things, essentially promising that he'll be whipped. Now, as if this plot device isn't overused, what happens next is just plain stupid. Every girl in the building claims that she's the mystery woman, that she'll go out with Matt, etc.
Like I said - contrived, predictable, and unrealistic. Avoid this movie.
Batman & Robin (1997)
Crap
>>This isn't a horrible film. The action is over the top, the script is terrible, the acting is lame, and the story is ridiculous.But this is a Batman movie people. What the hell did you expect?<<
I cringed at this line. "But this is a Batman movie people. What the hell did you expect?"
As if Batman is a f***ing Looney Toons character.
Honestly, I want to know how many people who say that this movie isn't as bad as everyone says actually knows the first thing about Batman.
There have been several studies over the year that examine the Batman comics and state how the character of the Batman suffers from numerous psychological disorders. These studies were conducted by professionals from accredited institutions, I might add.
Do NOT be fooled by the camp of the Adam West show of the 60s. It was nothing more than a slap in the face to Bob Kane (creator of Batman).
To see an accurate representation of what the Batman is really like, I refer you to the following texts:
The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale Dark Victory by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale Year One by Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli Arkham Asylum by Grant Morrison and Dave McKean Hush by Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee
Go read those books and then tell me with a straight face that Batman & Robin was not "that bad."
It takes someone with insight into tortured psyches to properly portray the Batman. This is why we can only hope that Darren Aronofsky's planned fifth Batman film will come to pass.
Children of the Revolution (1996)
Comedy?
Don't get me wrong, I thought this was a great movie. When I saw previews for it, it seemed like it would be a funny comedy. However, upon watching it, I found that it's not much of a comedy. There are some comedic moments in it, true, but I would classify this film as a drama more than a comedy. Three Kings had comedic moments, as did Fight Club, but I wouldn't classify either of those as comedies. And I wouldn't classify Children of the Revolution as one, either. I feel that Miramax dropped the ball by advertising this film as a comedy.