Constantine Review

[quote name='epobirs'][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.[/quote]

Just go see the fucking movie. Sneak in if you must, or get someone else to pay. Going off on something you have not actually seen does no one anygood. I can personnaly say Catwoman was crap...why? Because i saw that turd. I saw it so i could warn anyone else, as well as to give the movie "props" if it wasnt as bad as reviewers made it out to be (like Hulk, had some reedeeming qualities, but not a Great movie)
 
[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]

It isn't a question of too much stuff. The character early on was made out to have a lot of history that was only inferred. Recapturing that would be easy for any decent screenwriter. What really matters is that they simply didn't care. I've seen this too many times before. Growing up in the Los angeles area I've always had a lot friends in the industry and others in the writing field who've done business with the industry. Several of those writers have actually taken lesser fees to not have their name and original title attached to a project because the result was so badly distorted that they were horrified that anyone would think they were an active participant.

Some writers instead demonstrate they have no capability for film and destroy their own work in the process. William Gibson was there for every step of the excrable Johhny Mnemonic (starring guess who and the director's wife) and cannot complain about the awfulness of that product. But that is a rare case in film making.

If the producers blatantly don't care about the source material it is extremely likely the movie is going to suck in a major way.
 
the movie was good
hellboy was very good also not mediocre
calling the movie hellblazer loses $$ and viewers who are turned off by the name(old people) and would sound very close to hellraiser
there will be a sequel(same as hellboy)
keanu was good, shea leabou died semi abruptly at the end and was left off to the side in the pool scene as they walked away. Midnight was a good character but was hard to understand with the accent. Constantines friends being killed sucked.
Just be glad so many movies are comic book movies now and not romantic comedies.
 
[quote name='Wshakspear']

Just go see the shaq-fuing movie. Sneak in if you must, or get someone else to pay. Going off on something you have not actually seen does no one anygood. I can personnaly say Catwoman was crap...why? Because i saw that turd. I saw it so i could warn anyone else, as well as to give the movie "props" if it wasnt as bad as reviewers made it out to be (like Hulk, had some reedeeming qualities, but not a Great movie)[/quote]

If I take a shit on a plate, give it some nice arrangement on a plate with a bit of parley and such and serve it to you, will you eat it on the basis that you can't really pass judgement despite knowing what went into it?

I did my penance paying to see mediocre movies in the theater far more than enough for this lifetime. There is a reason Hollywood targets a young audience. It isn't just that they're more inclined to go out rather than staying in. It's also that they'll still take a few bites of the Merde l'Orange before realizing they had every reason in advance to expect it to be shit on a plate. ("And such small portions!") As I've said I can wait for it to come around on cable. If I'm going to spend any money I'd be far better served finding some of the collected Hellblazers from after I stopped buying comics regularly.
 
[quote name='epobirs']

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.

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.[/quote]

How do you criticize an actor's performance based off 15 mins of footage from a 2 hour film? The hell...I don't watch you work for 15 mins then say your whole work day was piontless and rediculous. You have to understand film audiences. No one is going to come see a movie with Rupert Jiles as the main character. Things like this just don't work. Sure you could've gotten some unknown british actor to play the role, but you'd still have to work the role for him anyhow and he'd have no box office draw whatsoever. Not to mention, change the location, make sure all the others are british, etc. If the core of the character is there that should be what is important to the film.

You say "I intensely dislike seeing a good character reworked to suit and actor rather than casting done to suit the character", that's what films do alot of the time. You can't get the perfect person for every single role and when you don't you have to make that actor work into the role. Indiana Jones was bascially created for Tom Selleck's looks, mannerisms and even the way he acted. Now do you imagine anyone else in that role besides Harrison Ford? Movies make comprimises, that's the way of the world, and if they make said comprimises and end up with an awful film then ok. But if the comprimises they make turn into a decent entertaining film, then where's the harm? There's no set formula to making a movie based off Hellblazers last I checked. Oh and if they wanted a british actor Clive Owen was the best choice IMO.

As far as your idea for a TV series goes, well that may work, but then again show's that have had great content ideas have still failed miserably over the years, usually because they try to do too much with what they have and it ends up being poor. You seem to really want something made just for hellblazer fans, well there was the comic. Everything else is not made only for Hellblazer fans, even if it carries the likeness of it. Everything else is made to appeal to as many people as can be and it's goal is to entertain a vast audience and make money. In the end, I'm sure this movie will even create Hellblazer fnas out of people who never read it.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']

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]

Oh yeah, can't have British guys in big movies. Somebody call Jude Law and Ewan McGregor to tell them the jig is up.

The complaints I made were not make or break issues. They were however important hints of the all-important thing I've come to recognize in Hollywood adaptations. If they don't give a shit about the source material the movie is going to suck even if you aren't a fan of that source material. It's happened so many times I've no trust left for them to exploit. Even when a writer purposely delivers a horrible screenplay in protest they're too shaq-fuing dumb to know the difference. (See John Varley and 'Millenium')

Can't take any time to explain cultural background? Are you insane? The character, properly done, makes it completely apparent just in the course of his interaction with others. It doesn't matter if the audience is up on distinctions between different sections of the UK. What matters is having a distinctive set of details to draw upon. Some are more disposable than others. It doesn't matter whether the actor is blond but it does matter if they can talk the talk because that is a major, major part of what defines the character. It is part and parcel of what made for the series popularity in the first place and lead to it being licensed.

Speaking of making leaps, 'Batman Begins' is not pertinent. It doesn't claim to be derived from 'Year One' and Frank Miller is not credited in any way in any of the press packets I've seen. The characters in question are decades older and have been through many revisions over their 66 year existence. The number of writers who've taken a runner at Batman's origin story is quite lengthy. OTOH, John Constantine has nearly all of his meaningful material attributable to two writers and the bulk of the material that should be considered for a first film can be read in an evening. There isn't much excuse for wandering off the path they've defined other than that eternal Hollywood excuse: WE DON'T CARE.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='epobirs']

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.

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.[/quote]

How do you criticize an actor's performance based off 15 mins of footage from a 2 hour film? The hell...I don't watch you work for 15 mins then say your whole work day was piontless and rediculous. You have to understand film audiences. No one is going to come see a movie with Rupert Jiles as the main character. Things like this just don't work. Sure you could've gotten some unknown british actor to play the role, but you'd still have to work the role for him anyhow and he'd have no box office draw whatsoever. Not to mention, change the location, make sure all the others are british, etc. If the core of the character is there that should be what is important to the film.

You say "I intensely dislike seeing a good character reworked to suit and actor rather than casting done to suit the character", that's what films do alot of the time. You can't get the perfect person for every single role and when you don't you have to make that actor work into the role. Indiana Jones was bascially created for Tom Selleck's looks, mannerisms and even the way he acted. Now do you imagine anyone else in that role besides Harrison Ford? Movies make comprimises, that's the way of the world, and if they make said comprimises and end up with an awful film then ok. But if the comprimises they make turn into a decent entertaining film, then where's the harm? There's no set formula to making a movie based off Hellblazers last I checked. Oh and if they wanted a british actor Clive Owen was the best choice IMO.

As far as your idea for a TV series goes, well that may work, but then again show's that have had great content ideas have still failed miserably over the years, usually because they try to do too much with what they have and it ends up being poor. You seem to really want something made just for hellblazer fans, well there was the comic. Everything else is not made only for Hellblazer fans, even if it carries the likeness of it. Everything else is made to appeal to as many people as can be and it's goal is to entertain a vast audience and make money. In the end, I'm sure this movie will even create Hellblazer fnas out of people who never read it.[/quote]

Dude, over the years I've seen about 40 frigging hours of Keanu Reeve's performances. Nobody in their right mind reads Hellblazer and thinks, "Yeah, Keanu would be just the guy for this." What happened here, as is so common, is they got a pitch based on attaching Reeves to the production. That is how Catwoman got made.

There have been successful TV series in recent years that did a very good job of having a season-long story arc while having many self-contained stories along the way. Buffy is one of the more prominent examples but there are many others including some of the most successful shows in TV history like Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue. The original series bible for 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' came right out and admitted they were aiming for 'Hill Street Blues in space' as their one line pitch phrase, much as the original series was sold as 'Wagon Train in space.' At the time they were told this was unacceptable because syndicators wanted to be able to just toss out the episodes in any order that suited them and even skip showing the less popular ones. In the 90's attitudes changed as the cable market allowed for more specialization and more recently the advent of DVD box sets (as well as web sites with episode guides) have made it easier for new viewers to join a series with deep continuity.

The point isn't to cater to Hellblazer fans any more than a new console caters to those hardcore gamers who collect systems. A built-in audience who might help push the show is nice but not something to bet the farm on. The point would be to reach those who would enjoy the material but don't read comics and will never take a look at it until is in a medium they prefer. For some stuff the British TV production model is better suited. Short seasons (as few as six epeisodes a year) and character driven. In the era of multi-billion dollar TV-to-DVD sales this sort of thing can do quite well over the long term. A property can be ruined by the need for the big theatrical opening weekend. Blockbusters are fine in their place but so are good products that just keep selling at a steady pace.
 
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. I, personally, wasn't expecting too much from it. I didn't think it was too bad. Sure, as the OP put it, they kill off characters a little too soon but otherwise it's an excellent film. Not too much CG work like you see in most of today's action popcorn flicks and the story goes at an even pace. I was expecting and would've liked a little more action in the movie but otherwise it was still good. The opening scene with the excorsism was very cool and very well done.

I must say that the OP does write an excellent review, so don't get me wrong when I say this, but I don't know why he came with such a low score for it. I would have at least given it a 7. In my book the movies a 7-8 with more of the 8 coming out on top.
 
[quote name='epobirs']

Oh yeah, can't have British guys in big movies. Somebody call Jude Law and Ewan McGregor to tell them the jig is up.[/quote]

Didn't say you couldn't have a British guy in big budget movies, I said nobody would see a movie with a Rubert Jiles type as the lead and an unkown Biritish actor wouldn't have any box office draw. And actually Nick Cage was going to play the lead, but the director quit and Nick Cage did too.

[quote name='epobirs']The complaints I made were not make or break issues. They were however important hints of the all-important thing I've come to recognize in Hollywood adaptations. If they don't give a shit about the source material the movie is going to suck even if you aren't a fan of that source material. It's happened so many times I've no trust left for them to exploit. Even when a writer purposely delivers a horrible screenplay in protest they're too shaq-fuing dumb to know the difference. (See John Varley and 'Millenium') [/quote]

But in many people's opinions the film doesn't suck. In fact you only think it sucks because of issues you listed, which you now say are minor.

[quote name='epobirs']Can't take any time to explain cultural background? Are you insane? The character, properly done, makes it completely apparent just in the course of his interaction with others. It doesn't matter if the audience is up on distinctions between different sections of the UK. What matters is having a distinctive set of details to draw upon. Some are more disposable than others. It doesn't matter whether the actor is blond but it does matter if they can talk the talk because that is a major, major part of what defines the character. It is part and parcel of what made for the series popularity in the first place and lead to it being licensed.[/quote]

The director made the decision not to make Constanite biritsh because of the actors he had, he all but said himself at a convention if I recall. And what i meant by time, was this is an action movie, like it or not. Action movies typically can't have more than 10 mins spent too mcuh on the background of a character or it gets stale. That background can someims come out in dialogue and other things, but to explain the cultrual background of a British character would take up too much time and end up boring the audience. The character's core attitude is still clealry there in the interaction with others so I'm not seeing where him being british makes such the difference in his interactions with others besides maybe an accent. You mention this distinctive set of details, that's still there too. I'll admit Reeves is far from a great actor, but he does a pasasble job of "talking the talk" in the film. The movie defines it's character well, it's just not the exact same chacter you saw in the comics.

[quote name='epobirs']Speaking of making leaps, 'Batman Begins' is not pertinent. It doesn't claim to be derived from 'Year One' and Frank Miller is not credited in any way in any of the press packets I've seen. The characters in question are decades older and have been through many revisions over their 66 year existence. The number of writers who've taken a runner at Batman's origin story is quite lengthy. OTOH, John Constantine has nearly all of his meaningful material attributable to two writers and the bulk of the material that should be considered for a first film can be read in an evening. There isn't much excuse for wandering off the path they've defined other than that eternal Hollywood excuse: WE DON'T CARE.[/quote]

I admit that may not have been the best example, but seeing how Batfilm productions is doing them both and they comeout near each other, it's the one that popped into my head. Etiher way, though Miller isn't credited and they will no doubt take liberities, it's pretty well-known where they pulled the basic outline of the story from. I think the tentivie or at least rumored title for some time was in fact Batman: Year One. As for the length and wiriters, I saw only two comic writers, oddly enough I didn't notice Moore's name at all (the onlyones I saw were Ennis and Delano). Yet, in the end, we do agree on something at least partially. Hollywood does not care. To be specific, they don't care about diehard fans because it usually doesn't make them too much money. They care if they make money on a property and some (a select few often) occasionally care if it was entertaining at the same time. And IMO a film that has to follow a set formula, even if it's from source material, cannot be fully entertaining to the average movie-goer.
 
A lot of attempts to crappify good little things have thankfully failed. There are not one but two pilots for a US version of 'Red Dwarf.' Each of them cost about tens time what was spent on whole seasons of the original but they're simply awful. Grant & Naylor, the creators of the original series, admitted they'd loved the money but were relieved that the US versions were killed without being broadcast. (Copies get circulated at SF cons and on fileshare sites.)

Money for production values doesn't make much difference if the creative end isn't functioning. The stuff that had been great in the original just fell flat in the adaption for what they thought was needed to sell it to US audiences. (The only really inspired casting was Hinton Battle as The Cat. You may remember him as the demon Sweet from the musical episode of BtVS.) But, funny thing, it turned out they didn't need to make a US version. The original had gotten exposure via PBS and BBC America along with fans bringing PAL/NTSC conversion tapes to their American friends. The series built a following and did a good business on VHS and later DVD. Most big video outlets like Best Buy carry it and the return on investment for this series has been magnificent since its humble beginning in 1988.

More and more in recent years I've found myself getting much more pleasure from series television and little obscure movies. Good FX are now within reach of modest budgets if used sparingly and avoiding the burden of creating a blockbuster makes for far better products after the novelty of the flashy bits wears off.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']

But in many people's opinions the film doesn't suck. In fact you only think it sucks because of issues you listed, which you now say are minor.
[/quote]

But are they people whose opinions I value? There are movies I've avoided because a particular critic was in love with it and I knew from experience that critic loved stuff I hated. Thus a critic can have value even if your interests are in direct opposition.

Right now a lot of critics are soiling themselves for love of 'Sideways.' They particularly love the lead character who uniformly an unlikable weasel of a man. Some have suggested that he bears a marked resemblence tot he kind of person who becomes a serious fim critic and love is that of vanity reflected in a mirror.

You can find fans of anything. Recently, I was at my sister's house and noticed she had a copy of 'Catwoman.' I was baffled. I couldn't imagine her seeing it in the theater or even renting it. It turned out that my 13 year old neice had requested it. She couldn't tell you the plot, such as it is, she just likes watching Halle Berry run around in the costume and whip people. Chances are she'll never watch the entire movie start to finish. I suspect a lot of her generation is similar. Nonetheless, that's one Catwoman DVD sold while other people would only accept a free copy for trade value.

If I think something is crap, it doesn't alter my opinion a bit that a measurable crowd not only didn't form a lynch mob but actually felt they'd gotten their money's worth. As Tom Kenny says, 'Titanic' is 'Star Wars' for teenage girls. That doesn't mean I must praise it for anything other than its financial performance and some technical achievements.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']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. I, personally, wasn't expecting too much from it. I didn't think it was too bad. Sure, as the OP put it, they kill off characters a little too soon but otherwise it's an excellent film. Not too much CG work like you see in most of today's action popcorn flicks and the story goes at an even pace. I was expecting and would've liked a little more action in the movie but otherwise it was still good. The opening scene with the excorsism was very cool and very well done.

I must say that the OP does write an excellent review, so don't get me wrong when I say this, but I don't know why he came with such a low score for it. I would have at least given it a 7. In my book the movies a 7-8 with more of the 8 coming out on top.[/quote]

I might feel more charitable if I weren't familiar with the source material but that is unavoidable as it stands. If you are adapting something I thought was very good, you have more to prove than if there is nothing to raise my expectations going in.

I happened to see 'The Matrix' several weeks before it opened. A friend who is a postproduction manager at Raleigh called me up on short notice for a screening at the Ross Theater on the Warner lot in Burbank. At the time there was just the teaser campaign with 20 second spots showing bits from Neo first training sessions leaping between buildings. I knew this might be something interesting but the production was still largely unknown to most people. The theater itself was excellent with a row of bass speakers right below the screen that hit you in the chest at certain moments like a shotgun blast.

Needless to say, I came out of that screening feeling pretty enthusiastic and told anyone and everyone this was going to be THE movie to see.

Then, a couple years later the first sequel came out and I had reason to expect great things from it. The disappointment was great to say the least. Not only did the Bros. have no idea where to go from the first movie they also had some pretty dumb beliefs they felt compelled to include as well.

The thing is, I wouldn't have been so disappointed if the source material for that sequel hadn't given me reason to expect better.
 
Damn this is getting redunant and circular so I'll make this quick:

A) Reeves wasn't the first choice, like I said earlier. They got somebody the thought could work into the role somehow and still have some box office draw.

B) Stop taking things out of context, I never said a thing about TV series not being able to have season long story arcs or anything like that. I simply meant they can have plenty of good concept ideas, but if the production values are poor or outdated, then they will fail for lack of good audience numbers (i.e. ratings). This often happens because they try to reach too far with whatever they have to work with (resources, actors, etc.). You can like as many obscure series or movies as you want, lord knows I do, but because you or I like something and find it unique does not mean it was a real successful film or series.

C) "A built-in audience who might help push the show is nice but not something to bet the farm on. The point would be to reach those who would enjoy the material but don't read comics and will never take a look at it until is in a medium they prefer." Ummm...that's pretty much what I've been saying only my point includes the fact that they often have to take some liberities on the source material to get it across and entertain an audience in another medium.

D) I'm not trying to convince you to see Constantine based on the fact that I or others enjoyed it. I'm tyring to convince you that your reasons for saying it sucks are rediculous. If you saw it and said it sucks (for something other than the character not being British) then I'd be much more open to your opinion of the film. "Thus a critic can have value even if your interests are in direct opposition." True, but nobody wants to listen to a critic who wasn't seen a film.

E) I agree with what you said about the Matrix movies (though I liked the first I didn't think it totally ruled as some would think). But those are sequels, you expect more of the same if not improvement on what was precedent or even a psuedo formula from the first. Constantine is a loose adaptation of something having no precident or established guide, no officailly set expectations (viewers no doubt build their own though) created by previous films.

And you can still be disappointed in the lack of fatihfulness to sources, but being disappointed and telling everyone a film sucks are really different. I've been disappointed that numerous mvies didn't live up to what I envisioned in my head (which is ahard thing for most movies to for anyone), but just because I was disappointed doesn't mean I thgouth the were these horrid failures of films.
 
There are plenty of things in life I've chosen not to experience on the basis that I don't think I'd like the experience. Most of those involve serious physical injury but plenty more are simply discretion in spending.

When a film has numerous data points suggesting that it will not only be an inferior work but outright offensive for one or another reason, I cannot see anything remotely ridiculous in foregoing the theatrical experience. (Especially when the material has been stripped of much of its finer qualities to make it more accessable to a low-brow audience.) As I've mentioned before the portion of my life in which I can be induced to pay for a movie of questionable quality is passed. There are far too many competing venues for me to reward mediocrity with my money. Hollywood won't perish for lack of my business but neither shall I for lack of their product.
 
Some material that is very successful in its original form would be suicide to convert to a movie without massive alteration. This is especially true when there are big ideas but a lack of characters' motives to drive plot. In other words, the opposite of Hellblazer.

An example is a friend of mine, Larry Niven. (I built the P-III system he's been using since 1999.) He is among the world's most successful living SF writers but is admittedly terrible at creating living breathing characters. He relies on collaborators like Steve Barnes and Jerry Pournelle to give life to books that cannot live on their big ideas alone.

Ringworld has been optioned many times over the years, most recently by Phil Tippett. (For those of you unfamiliar with it, the title structure in Halo is derived from Larry's concept for a somewhat more practical Dyson Sphere.) This is a project requiring a LOT of input froma good screenwriter. The book is little more than a travelougue and almost every aspect has entanglements in Niven's Known Space universe. A movie would need to stand on its own and give its cast more motivation than just exploring. Very few fans would have reason to take offense so long as a mere handful of details were preserved.
 
Sorry, epobirs, not trying to attack you or anything, I just find it amusing that you can write in such quantity with such conviction about a movie you haven't seen and have no intention of seeing.
 
Just got back from seeing Constantine, and I really liked it. A very cool movie that does a great job of entertaining. If it's around $15, I'll pick up the DVD at its release. 8/10
 
yeah Constantine wasn't that bad. I will eventually pick it up when it hits DVD. Overall I give the movie a 7.5/10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top