Constantine Review

Tromack

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
I've been writing reviews for my school paper for a long time. Unfortunately no videogame reviews, but here is my most recent review. Hope you guys find it informative.


Comic book movies are becoming a regular occurrence. Some have been excellent films (Ghost World, Road to Perdition), some have been entertaining blockbusters (Spiderman, X-Men), and others have ranged from mediocre (HellBoy) to just bad (The Punisher). However, there is one final category, and it is the most disappointing of all. These are films that started their lives as stories full of imagination and intrigue, only to be taken by Hollywood and stripped of all but their most basic elements and then reconstituted into a mess of elements without cohesion or any of the original charm (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Unfortunately for everyone, Constantine falls into this category.

Constantine, vaguely adapted from the Hellblazer, follows the adventures of John Constantine, an occult detective of sorts. Constantine was born with the ability to see demons; however, throughout the movie we are never sure if what we are shown is what only he sees or what everyone sees. Constantine uses his ability to return the legions of hell to their proper place there in hopes of claiming a spot in Heaven. Constantine lives with the knowledge that this is his only path to Heaven. This plot could have made a decent movie in the proper hands. Unfortunately, this movie heavy-handedly stumbles around this premise for two hours. Major plot points are never explained, and characters are killed off after saying barely ten lines. Thus the audience cannot be expected to care about their untimely deaths. Whole sections of the movie should never have been allowed to exist by the writer, the producers, the director, the actors, the editors, and any other number of untold people involved with the movie.

As far as the actors’ performances go, Keanu Reeves puts in just about the best performance he has ever managed. However, this only means that the audience is not forced to suffer through another “Whoa!” Mr. Reeves is still incapable of showing what would normally be considered human emotions. He even has trouble creating a believable cough. Rachel Weisz is in particularly poor form. At times she delivers her lines in a way that would be consistent with her character only if other things were happening around her. The chemistry between the two leads is sorely lacking, and at points where the chemistry is most crucial it dips into the negative range and actually detracts from other scenes.
The special effects are also surprisingly weak in the most crucial area in a movie about a man fighting demons, i.e. the demons. They look like action figures being moved around by a kid, and even if they did not look and move like lumps of plastic, they would still be lackluster. They either look like decomposing bodies or rejects from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

This is not to say that the movie is entirely devoid of any interest. Some of the effects and art design are visually compelling. The vision of Hell is particularly well done. There are also some humorous moments, most coming from Keanu Reeves.

If you are either a devout Christian or follower of the Hellblazer series, stay away from this movie because you will be disgusted. Even if you are a fan of both Keanu Reeves and quasi-biblical bastardizations of the battle between good and evil, I still urge you to stay away from this movie until you can rent it with a group of similarly minded people so that you only waste $5 total and not $5 apiece.

I give Constantine a 6/10
 
So you're saying Keanu should win an Oscar? :lol:

I wasn't really expecting anything else out of him.

I'm kind of sad to hear it's not a good film.
 
Ditto, sblymnl....at least you guys dont have to listen to the actual Hellblazer fans everyday...they wont f'ing shut-up about this film...in a bad way
 
Its a loose loose situation for me. I work at a Regal Cinema so I'm either going to be very busy selling tickets or listening to complaining fans of the comic, or both!! :evil:
 
hey man, i just want to be entertained, as long as it amuses me or has some flash bangs, i'll be alright. Going into it w/ Reeves, i'm not expecting oscar caliber stuff.
 
[quote name='cgpwns']Its a loose loose situation for me. I work at a Regal Cinema so I'm either going to be very busy selling tickets or listening to complaining fans of the comic, or both!! :evil:[/quote]

...i forgot to mention my GF works at the movie theatre behind me, so i have to hear her bitch about the types of things you just mentioned.

FUN! :)
 
[quote name='Tromack']I've been writing reviews for my school paper for a long time. Unfortunately no videogame reviews, but here is my most recent review. Hope you guys find it informative.


Even if you are a fan of both Keanu Reeves and quasi-biblical bastardizations of the battle between good and evil, I still urge you to stay away from this movie until you can rent it with a group of similarly minded people so that you only waste $5 total and not $5 apiece.

[/quote]

I like your phrase about the "quasi-biblical bastardizations of the battle between good and evil," great line. That should be the Headline...It could be bold with "quasi-biblical bastardizations " and under in italics with a smaller font, could be "of the battle between good and evil."
 
I actually really liked The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen so your review though well written did'nt do anything for me other than substantiate a phrase I coin quite frequently "Different Strokes for Different Folks"
 
The most important question this: Does the character mispronounce his own name?

In the Swamp Thing days, Alan Moore (IIRC) had the character complain that people were always saying his name as if he were a non-stop adolescent.

The ads get it wrong. I took that as a very bad sign.
 
How can you recommend that no-one waste their money to see it and still give it a 6 out of 10? Your review suggests the score should be a couple points lower, but I'll still go see it when I get the chance. :)
 
[quote name='Terabyte7']How can you recommend that no-one waste their money to see it and still give it a 6 out of 10? Your review suggests the score should be a couple points lower, but I'll still go see it when I get the chance. :)[/quote]
[quote name='Terabyte7']How can you recommend that no-one waste their money to see it and still give it a 6 out of 10? Your review suggests the score should be a couple points lower, but I'll still go see it when I get the chance. :)[/quote]
Holy double vision Batman!
 
I just watched this "movie".

Who greenlit this piece of garbage? People actually started laughing at parts that were supposed to be serious. Why did IGN give this movie an okay review?

The Hulk owns this movie. THE HULK. I know they have nothing to do with each other, but as something that is supposed to entertain you, the Hulk is 10 times better.

Constantine gets off to a rough start. The kind of start where you are thinking "Well, maybe it needs more time to get you hooked" . You keep thinking that throughout the whole movie. It never gets better!

Most theaters will give you your money back within the first 15 minutes. If you don't like the movie about 10 minutes into it and think it will get better, it won't. Get out and spend your $10 (in Los Angeles) on some booze.
 
Constantine was the best movie I have seen since The Matrix: Revolutions, The Butterfly Effect, Equilibrium (saw it in March 2004) and The Village.

One of the best of 2005.
 
[quote name='Neo']Constantine was the best movie I have seen since The Matrix: Revolutions, The Butterfly Effect, Equilibrium (saw it in March 2004) and The Village.

One of the best of 2005.[/quote]

Are you being sarcastic or not?

There was NO character development. Nothing to make you care about Constantine. He walks in like "I'm a bad-ass". That's fine IF you show the audience WHY he's a bad-ass. The "Director" and the "Writer" assumes you are an expert on Hellblazer. He has all these powers and weapons, yet they spend no time how he got them.

The only parts that were good was when they show Constantine as a boy (for about 2 minutes) and when Satan appears (about 5 minutes).

Well, I guess since you liked The Butterfly Effect, The Village, and the Matrix: Revolutions, you are willing to watch anything that puts flashy effects over substance.

Wanna see a movie with a great story, great acting, and lots of blood? Go watch Million Dollar Baby. That was the best 10 bucks I have spent on a movie in recent memory.
 
[quote name='Neo']Not sarcastic at all.[/quote]

But come on, they don't really explain much about Constantine. He just comes in and saves the day. They didn't need to make a movie about it.

They should have stuck more closely to the the comic.

Even Quentin Tarantino could have made this movie watchable. They should have given it to him.
 
[quote name='Neo']Constantine was the best movie I have seen since The Matrix: Revolutions, The Butterfly Effect, Equilibrium (saw it in March 2004) and The Village.

One of the best of 2005.[/quote]

How does that song go?

I wish I was like you
Easily amused
 
[quote name='nneace'][quote name='Tromack']I've been writing reviews for my school paper for a long time. Unfortunately no videogame reviews, but here is my most recent review. Hope you guys find it informative.


Even if you are a fan of both Keanu Reeves and quasi-biblical bastardizations of the battle between good and evil, I still urge you to stay away from this movie until you can rent it with a group of similarly minded people so that you only waste $5 total and not $5 apiece.

[/quote]

I like your phrase about the "quasi-biblical bastardizations of the battle between good and evil," great line. That should be the Headline...It could be bold with "quasi-biblical bastardizations " and under in italics with a smaller font, could be "of the battle between good and evil."[/quote]

Indeed a funny line :rofl:

But I must say to the OP that I actually liked League of Extraordinary Gentlemen even though it was a perfect adaptation but I still enjoyed it. Only a little towards the end did I think it get drawn out but it as still good nonetheless. I also enjoyed Punisher so I don't think it was so good to put in an opinion like that into a review.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie today. At first I didn't think it looked so good from the previews but, I don't know, it just starte to look entertaining.
 
I was kinda disappointed with this movie. I don't if it was cuz I was tired or bored but I was struggling to keep my eyes open in some parts. I kept thinking that Keanu looked like a skinnier version of Max Payne and kinda wished it was a max payne flick instead, maybe I'd be happy cuz it would've had more action.

There were a couple of cool sequences like when he uses the holy water sprinkler and the first like 10 mins with the mexican dude and the mexican girl were really interesting, but the rest just left me feeling bored. I would agree with the 6 outta 10 cuz it's not horrible or anything but it's not great either.
 
I'd give it a 7/10. It wasn't as good as I thought it would be, but it wasn't as bad either. The CG effects were well done and the movie looked great overall.
 
I haven't seen it yet, but I thought that Road to Perdition was a horrible movie, and I thought the Punisher was above average movie...nothing great, but not a poor movie in my opinion
 
I too liked the movie. I have to agree that the OP is a good writer, but it's also obvious that he knows that a 'good' review has it's share of controversy. I'd say it's about a 7. Anyone who thought this kind of movie would revolutionize anything is an idiot. For what it is, it's a good movie. The plot isn't too convoluted, there are no characters thrown in just to pay a 2-second homage to the movie's origins. This movie also doesn't rely solely on CGI, picking it's moments. Definitely worth seeing.
 
I disagree with most of the review, so far everyone I met that didn't like this movie either made undue comparisons, didn't understand what was happening, or had some kind of close minded view going in. To be honest, I didn't think it would be all that great but I had an open mind and enjoyed it very much by the end.
 
Stigmata + End of days -Suckiness= Constintine.

I liked it quite a bit. If you have some base in religion (light or dark) the movie will make much more sense. Otherwise, you can kinda figure it out. Keanu did a fine job...actually everyone did. I liked Satan, too. 8/10
 
If your hyped up for this movie, I give it a 6/10.

If your not expecting anything, 8/10.

So I give it a 8/10 . Since I was expecting a decent movie.
 
[quote name='Wshakspear']Stigmata + End of days -Suckiness= Constintine.

I liked it quite a bit. If you have some base in religion (light or dark) the movie will make much more sense. Otherwise, you can kinda figure it out. Keanu did a fine job...actually everyone did. I liked Satan, too. 8/10[/quote]

Ditto, my fellow hominid. I enjoyed it. I expected a bit more action, but it held my interest and was worth seeing.
 
[quote name='"Wshakspear"']Stigmata + End of days -Suckiness= Constintine.

I liked it quite a bit. If you have some base in religion (light or dark) the movie will make much more sense. Otherwise, you can kinda figure it out. Keanu did a fine job...actually everyone did. I liked Satan, too. 8/10[/quote]

The guy who played Satan wasn't good for this role. Keanu is too typecast from his Matrix days, but did a reasonable job. He had a harder time with the lines that were supposed to be funny (the bit about the cat being already half in hell), though. I wouldn't expect anyone to imagine that the angel Gabriel is a 6' tall flat chested blonde woman as well.

Having some knowledge of religion does help a bit when watching this. It is like the exorcist in that respect.

I would give it a 7/10. Not the best movie, but not the worst either.
 
I find this movie offensive because rather than do their own take on an oft visited subject, they licensed a very well done version from a different medium, threw out everything good about it but kept the name.

This flick made my shit list the moment they announced Keanu Reeves for the lead. I'm not down on him in a general sense. I've even defended his performance in some movies against those who could only see him in the Bill & Ted mode but this character is utterly and completely outside of his range. So what do they do? They change the character! The single biggest selling point of the Hellblazer and that is the first thing lost.

I will never pay a cent to have a fond memory shat upon. I may watch it when it comes around on cable but I'll need to be bored with nothing else to do.
 
[quote name='epobirs']I find this movie offensive because rather than do their own take on an oft visited subject, they licensed a very well done version from a different medium, through out everything good about it but kept the name.

This flick made my shit list the moment they announced Keanu Reeves for the lead. I'm not down on him in a general sense. I've even defended his performance in some movies against those who could only see him in the Bill & Ted mode but this character is utterly and completely outside of his range. So what do they do? They change the character! The single biggest selling point of the Hellblazer and that is the first thing lost.

I will never pay a cent to have a fond memory shat upon. I may watch it when it comes around on cable but I'll need to be bored with nothing else to do.[/quote]

You don't seem like you saw it, but I have problems with people that say the same thing after seeing it. Like a said earlier, vendettas and steeotypes going into the movie generally don't like it. Hellblazer was a comic book, the movie obviously didn't folow the books blow for blow, and that was easily revealed like you said prior to it's release. Then why see it? If they can't separate the two then don't walk in that theatre, watch the film, then walk out out saying "well it's nothing like the books". Then they come and complain about wasting money on it, when it was all damn obvious before they went in. I don't blame you, but people that do this just piss me off to no end. In reality, if they made it just like the comics, it probably would make hardly any money in the theatres.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='epobirs']I find this movie offensive because rather than do their own take on an oft visited subject, they licensed a very well done version from a different medium, through out everything good about it but kept the name.

This flick made my shit list the moment they announced Keanu Reeves for the lead. I'm not down on him in a general sense. I've even defended his performance in some movies against those who could only see him in the Bill & Ted mode but this character is utterly and completely outside of his range. So what do they do? They change the character! The single biggest selling point of the Hellblazer and that is the first thing lost.

I will never pay a cent to have a fond memory shat upon. I may watch it when it comes around on cable but I'll need to be bored with nothing else to do.[/quote]

You don't seem like you saw it, but I have problems with people that say the same thing after seeing it. Like a said earlier, vendettas and steeotypes going into the movie generally don't like it. Hellblazer was a comic book, the movie obviously didn't folow the books blow for blow, and that was easily revealed like you said prior to it's release. Then why see it? If they can't separate the two then don't walk in that theatre, watch the film, then walk out out saying "well it's nothing like the books". Then they come and complain about wasting money on it, when it was all damn obvious before they went in. I don't blame you, but people that do this just piss me off to no end. In reality, if they made it just like the comics, it probably would make hardly any money in the theatres.[/quote]

I've only seen about fifteen minutes of it but I've read the shooting script. THat was enough to know that little more than a mispronounced name had survived the transition.

If you buy the rights to a property and keep the name itntact, I think it's damn well reasonable to expect some recognizable, and enjoyable, vestige of the source material to have made it to the screen intact. Some people took difference with the choice to make Spider-man's web shooters a part of his body rather than an invention of Peter Parker's but that was a minor complaint becuse the character was true to the original. That isn't the case with Constantine. They took something good, collected the result of their most recent meal, and decided that the latter was superior to the former. Imagine if Sam Raimi had some politically correct bug up his ass (like a certain pair of brothers) and decided Peter PArker was too white bread should instead be a Puerto Rican immigrant with entirely different vocal and other mannerisms. That is pretty much what they did with John Constantine. They threw out the character's personality and cultural background, a critically important aspect of the series, to allow for their choice of lead actor instead of finding someone up to the task.

If they had simply passed on the license and written something with a differently named character, there might be a few who saw a relation and even called it a rip-off. But there would be numerous other films and books that could also be called in for comparison. The difference is when you claim to be an adaption but are plainly either ignorant or contemptuous of the source material, it is insulting to expect anything other than scorn from fans of the source material.

This is coming from someone who actually like much of the Hulk movie. I didn't agree with all of the choices but I found most of them understandable. (The movie's biggest flaw was in choosing an overly linear narrative and pacing that made the audience wait too long to meet the title character. They should have started with some serious destruction and brought us up to date via flashbacks. And no gamma dogs.) The original comic had serious problem in sheer plausibility and structure. It was largely lifted from the classic monster movie 'The Amazing Colossal Man' and the Cold War setting still worked a few years later when the first issue was published. Forty years later it was a bit much to ask that this was the result of an aboveground bomb test and that Bruce Banner didn't simply die on the spot. By adapting some of the elements created by Peter David they created a reason why Banner had never been a normal person but it had been an unknown latent potential up until the events of the movie.

As it stands, I felt the makers of the Hulk had some respect for the material and work with it as best they could while trying to make it work in contemporary context. THe makers of 'Constantine' had no such respect, either for the material or its fans.
 
epobirs, I've never read the comic, so I'm interested in your opinion. Do you think they could have put in everything you woul have liked to have seen from the comic and still make a decent stand alone movie? It seems like in cases like this there's always just too much stuff to work in.
 
[quote name='epobirs'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='epobirs']I find this movie offensive because rather than do their own take on an oft visited subject, they licensed a very well done version from a different medium, through out everything good about it but kept the name.

This flick made my shit list the moment they announced Keanu Reeves for the lead. I'm not down on him in a general sense. I've even defended his performance in some movies against those who could only see him in the Bill & Ted mode but this character is utterly and completely outside of his range. So what do they do? They change the character! The single biggest selling point of the Hellblazer and that is the first thing lost.

I will never pay a cent to have a fond memory shat upon. I may watch it when it comes around on cable but I'll need to be bored with nothing else to do.[/quote]

You don't seem like you saw it, but I have problems with people that say the same thing after seeing it. Like a said earlier, vendettas and steeotypes going into the movie generally don't like it. Hellblazer was a comic book, the movie obviously didn't folow the books blow for blow, and that was easily revealed like you said prior to it's release. Then why see it? If they can't separate the two then don't walk in that theatre, watch the film, then walk out out saying "well it's nothing like the books". Then they come and complain about wasting money on it, when it was all damn obvious before they went in. I don't blame you, but people that do this just piss me off to no end. In reality, if they made it just like the comics, it probably would make hardly any money in the theatres.[/quote]

I've only seen about fifteen minutes of it but I've read the shooting script. THat was enough to know that little more than a mispronounced name had survived the transition.

If you buy the rights to a property and keep the name itntact, I think it's damn well reasonable to expect some recognizable, and enjoyable, vestige of the source material to have made it to the screen intact. Some people took difference with the choice to make Spider-man's web shooters a part of his body rather than an invention of Peter Parker's but that was a minor complaint becuse the character was true to the original. That isn't the case with Constantine. They took something good, collected the result of their most recent meal, and decided that the latter was superior to the former. Imagine if Sam Raimi had some politically correct bug up his ass (like a certain pair of brothers) and decided Peter PArker was too white bread should instead be a Puerto Rican immigrant with entirely different vocal and other mannerisms. That is pretty much what they did with John Constantine. They threw out the character's personality and cultural background, a critically important aspect of the series, to allow for their choice of lead actor instead of finding someone up to the task.

If they had simply passed on the license and written something with a differently named character, there might be a few who saw a relation and even called it a rip-off. But there would be numerous other films and books that could also be called in for comparison. The difference is when you claim to be an adaption but are plainly either ignorant or contemptuous of the source material, it is insulting to expect anything other than scorn from fans of the source material.

This is coming from someone who actually like much of the Hulk movie. I didn't agree with all of the choices but I found most of them understandable. (The movie's biggest flaw was in choosing an overly linear narrative and pacing that made the audience wait too long to meet the title character. They should have started with some serious destruction and brought us up to date via flashbacks. And no gamma dogs.) The original comic had serious problem in sheer plausibility and structure. It was largely lifted from the classic monster movie 'The Amazing Colossal Man' and the Cold War setting still worked a few years later when the first issue was published. Forty years later it was a bit much to ask that this was the result of an aboveground bomb test and that Bruce Banner didn't simply die on the spot. By adapting some of the elements created by Peter David they created a reason why Banner had never been a normal person but it had been an unknown latent potential up until the events of the movie.

As it stands, I felt the makers of the Hulk had some respect for the material and work with it as best they could while trying to make it work in contemporary context. THe makers of 'Constantine' had no such respect, either for the material or its fans.[/quote]

You are making leaps and bounds judgements on a film you haven't seen. That's pretty bold, even if you read a script they often change things n the fly in films, not to mention what goes on in post-production, these don't include what happens in a shooting script. So if they got some biritish guy who looked like Sting and acted really Biritsh you'd like the movie more. Spare me, that film would make no money. Your problem is you can't use any imagination to separate the two. If the movie was called Hellblazer, I may be able to understand your complaint about the film, but it's not. How do they they pronounce his name in the comics, and does it make that big of a difference? The answer is no, only to hardcore fans like yourself which likely would make up less than 5% of the films box office. They pronounce it like most people do when they see the name written. Did they accurately represent the main characters look, movements, etc.? I and most other don't really care too much if he acts or moves like some psuedo kickass version of Sting. They aslo can't take the time to explain a character's cultrual background in a film. They only difference they could've done was make him lok a cetain way and that really wouldn't affect how the film plays out. Actors are casted on their abilities to BOTH play the role (Reeves still may not have been the best choice though) and have a look. If you only casted them on designed looks then many films would turn out poorly. I really care if he has an appropiate attitude and mannerisms for the film, not follows the comic blueprint.

To be honest they never seemed to claim this as an accurate representation of the comic, in fact I spoke to the executive producer sometime ago about it and he said the film turned out well but was really different from the comic and other films based on comics. This being the same man who has helped make countless films based on comics. The bottomline is they wanted to make an entertaining film everyone can enjoy, no a fan film for a limited number of people. I have some issues wiht the film, but I think they basically accomplished that task. And to make comparasions to Spiderman and even the Hulk is a stratch in terms of entertaining an audience. Even prior to the films, mention Spiderman and millions of people can know what you're talking about. Mention Hellblazer and and most people will ask you what that is. I like movies that remain faithful to their source moreso than ones that don't, but I can some imagination separate the two and enjoy something for what it is. Rabid fans lack that ability.

I'd say they probably expect scorn from diehard fans (who will criticize comic movies no matter what anyways, so I'm sure they expect), but my original point was that these fans that go see the film probably knew ahead of time like you did that it was not faithful to it's source, then see the movie, then realize they wasted their money because it wasn't just like Hellblazer. Why did they bother then? Countless sources and reviews pointed out it was nothing like the books in before it was released. I suppose if Batman Begins doesn't follow Batman Year One to the letter than it's a failure right? My point is you can think it a bad film for many reasons, like the OP did, but because he doesn't lok just like the comic or because the name is prnounced different than what you think is not a valid reason to hate a movie, IMO. If they took something and totally ruined it in genreal cinematics and in the faithfulness to the source like say AvP did, then I can see your complaint, but if they pull an entetaining movie out of the source in genreal concept and it doesn't follow the source I'm not disappopinted nor do I hate the film. If it followed everything to be so exact as too please most of the diehard fans, it would just be a big budget fan film.
 
[quote name='atreyue']epobirs, I've never read the comic, so I'm interested in your opinion. Do you think they could have put in everything you woul have liked to have seen from the comic and still make a decent stand alone movie? It seems like in cases like this there's always just too much stuff to work in.[/quote]

I'm not gonna answer for him, but i'll mention that HellBlazer/Constantine is a long running series. Yes, Spiderman has had over 1000 seperate comics come out, but its all the same basic thing, where as Hellblazer goes off in different ways. Hell, they technically should have made a Swamp Thing movie first, then do a spin-off to Hellblazer....sad thing is, there is actually a Swamp Thing movie in the works.

The basics of the constintine character as far as personality were there. The accent and location, even the trenchcoat are gone, but we were still left with a neat charcter.
 
[quote name='Wshakspear'][quote name='atreyue']epobirs, I've never read the comic, so I'm interested in your opinion. Do you think they could have put in everything you woul have liked to have seen from the comic and still make a decent stand alone movie? It seems like in cases like this there's always just too much stuff to work in.[/quote]

I'm not gonna answer for him, but i'll mention that HellBlazer/Constantine is a long running series. Yes, Spiderman has had over 1000 seperate comics come out, but its all the same basic thing, where as Hellblazer goes off in different ways. Hell, they technically should have made a Swamp Thing movie first, then do a spin-off to Hellblazer....sad thing is, there is actually a Swamp Thing movie in the works.

The basics of the constintine character as far as personality were there. The accent and location, even the trenchcoat are gone, but we were still left with a neat charcter.[/quote]

I disagree. I've seen some footage of Reeve's performance and he is nothing like what I'd expect from the character. As I said above, they could easily have done this movie without the license and hardly anyone would have noticed. In many ways, Rupert Giles from 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' (who Joss Whedon acknowledges got much of his history from the inspiration of the Hellblazer series) was a far better embodiment of what the character should be. There is no shotage of British actors in their early 30's who could do a better John Constantine in their sleep than Keanu Reeves could do if his life were hanging in the balance. He is simply physically wrong and I intensely dislike seeing a good character reworked to suit and actor rather than casting done to suit the character. While they're at it, why not give Clark Kent a makeover so he can be played by Wesley Snipes. After all, he's an established action star, what more is needed.

This character could easily have been adapted without any reference to Swamp Thing at all. Yes, he started off as a mysterious supporting charcter in that series but grew into much more when spun off into his own series under a different who'd been greatly influenced by the original creator, Alan Moore. The appearances in Swamp Thing established there was something there worth building upon but it isn't as though the character's existence is dependent on his origination in that series. It isn't, for instance, like the Venom character as an oft-requested villain for a future Spider-man movie. That character has an extremely convoluted otrigin tied up in not just Spider-man but a storyline spanning the whole Marvel Universe that wallowed in its complexity.

By the time Hellblazer was a couple dozen issues in, the early Swamp Thing stuff was just an early side trip. We were no longer dealing with a mysterious snarky Brit who knew more about the entitly that thought of itself as Alec Holland than it did, and what role it had to play in coming events. Alan Moore litle sideshow during the 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' storyline was a great thing but not critical to a Hellblazer adaption to film.

Given the choice, I'd go with a less well known actor but one better suited to the role and do it as a TV series on one of the cable outlets like HBO. The budget could be quite modest by today's standards but the content very rich. Plenty of the Hellblazer stories were quite light on stuff that require SFX but excellent in their depth. A blockbuster action fest cannot hope but lose what was best about this series.
 
bread's done
Back
Top