invisiblegt

As someone who has seen Boogeyman, White Noise, Constantine, and Son of the Mask, let me say I highly doubt there is any way that you would enjoy Son of the Mask more than Constantine...

Jackskeleton

How about you read the thread. There's a great number reasons why people feel that the film sucked.

Give the guy a holy shotgun when the character is completely different and wouldn't do that.

The fact is that this movie will get a complete split. Just like I said, some people will like it. some people will hate it.

Heaven forbid that there be a difference of opinion on the internet. I'm waiting for your valid raasons to why this movie is the best film of the year.


I expect it to atleast nail some of the things. You really have to walk into this movie completely seperating the character you've come to like and open yourself up to someone different. This is like going to watch Batman and getting Blue Beetle on screen. This is like going into a Harry Potter movie and have Magic be replaced with "the Force". The difference from the book to the movie is major. Constantine was a Mage. He uses magic in his craft. This had him using gimmick james bond type of shit. This isn't like making spidey's webs organic. This is like making spidey's webs come out of his ass after he says "Shazam!"

Can that be a valid reason why some who like the book not like the movie? Or should we just accept that change?

You really need to sepreate everything you know about the character for the film. So what is the real point of calling the character the same or saying it's a movie based on Hellblazer? Might aswell take the idea and develope it into something that is its own beast.

Fans of the comics will not cross over well to the movie and fans of the movie will feel a bit odd in crossing over to the comics. It is very simple to relate this movie to catwomen when it comes to translating the comic book character to film.

Costumes are one thing. This is like taking Wolverine from the comics and turning him into a clean shaven, well spoken gentlemen. Sure, there is some aspects that remain such as his claws. But in the end these are two way different characters. The complaint comes from those who believe the movies character should have been named something else.

Sorry, but Films are turned into films by making a comic book out of it. They call it a story board. Look at sin city as a film that will take a comic book frame by frame from the comic book to tell the story.

When you get to books with 10+ years of history it's common to condense or go through a specific story only. That's just fine. But in this case they make Constantine stop smoking at the end. To be true to the character he would have just lit up straight after being cured. He's a character that just doesn't give a fuck.

The side characters had very little back story behind them. It really is like you needed to know the comics to know who Pappa was and his role.

The film works on the FX. I give it that. But the acting was just Neo in monotone that it often doesn't work and it shouldn't be a surprise that it is getting a 43% rating on rotten tomatos. That doesn't back up the idea that this is a success or best film of the year.

Perhaps for you jin, but there should be an acceptance that there will be many that dislike the film and that it will split from those who like it and dislike it. Those that dislike it aren't just "crazy" or not stating a valid reason why they didn't like it.

mookyman

I get your point, but I think that's oversimplifying a bit about the storyboard-to-film relationship. But yeah, I do get your point and agree with many of the other things you've been saying.

I'm mixed about the film, slightly on the side of positive, as I did have a very enjoyable time and I really dug the visual style of the film. But yeah, they got maybe half of what makes Constantine Constantine, and missed the other half. I'm not talking British and blonde - I mean the world-weary cynicism coupled with the underlying humanity. Some scenes nailed this; others, not so much.

I really liked Tilda Swinton as Gabriel - there was just something very cool about her performance, and she managed to suggest a lot of depth from some thin writing. And I never expected this, but Gavin Rossdale was pretty great. I didn't like Rachel Weisz's performance; she seemed bored. The story was messy and the holy shotgun was a punch to the stomach. But there were a lot of moments when they opted to take the film down some pretty weird roads rather than trying to make it a generic "good vs. evil" story, and I appreciated that.

Matthew Chmiel, please don't feel unwanted. My opinion of this film may be closer to QuiGonJosh's than yours, but I'm more interested in what you have to say. Differing opinions are valuable; they help us better define our own ideas.

Giantrobo

"Divorcing the film" really helped me enjoy this movie. Like you I used to read Hellblzer regularly but it's been some time since I've done that.

Jackskeleton

You know, some shots did do a decent job at hitting the make, but it just wasn't as consistant to make the grade.

But I will give extreme credit to Gavin. When I saw it I didn't even know it was him, but it was a well done role.

Sessa17

I have no clue if anyone is still reading this, but here is my MAIN problem with the movie that nobody is addressing.

Why call this movie Constantine? Even the average comic book fan has never read one issue of this comic. I've been posting about it for years in the comic book thread , & not one person ever, even Jack who says he reads Hellblazer, has never replied to my comments about the book or discussed any issue, or EVER posted that they bought a Hellblazer comic.

The film really has nothing to do with the comic, the story is not adapted from any of the comics so why tie the movie into the comic? It can't be for marketing b/c the book barely has a fan base. It's like saying "Let It Ride" is adapted from "Seabiscuit" b/c they both are about horse racing. (I know Let it Ride came out before that book was written but you get my point. . . maybe).

The movie could have easily been about the exact same thing, just don't call the character Constantine. The movie was not perverse or twisted, it doesn't take place in London, the character is not British or a psychopath, there were so many glaring differences I just didn't see why the movie needed to be marketed as Constantine. Yeah, it was inspired by the comic but that seemed to be it, many movies are inspired by other stories yet don't call the movie the source material & base the campaign around the thing.

That said, I thought the movie was dreadful. Not b/c it wasn't faithful to the book, just b/c it was an awful film. Extemely slow, comically bad dialogue, poor performances, except for the always enjoyable & grossly underused Tilda Swinton. There is no reason to care or root for any of the characters. Constantine is portrayed as this empty character sick of his life desperate to end it, yet Keanu has the same nearly upbeat demeanor the entire movie. The annoying teenage sidekick served no purpose & was such gratuitious Hollywood fluff it was unbearable every time he was one screen.

Samuel

Thank you for description, it's appreciated. I wish I had stayed but I just may see it again.

Jackskeleton

Sess, even worse is I don't see how anyone can, after watching the movie, go into a comic store and pick up a comic and even remotely feel like it comes anywhere near what they saw on screen.

Which would be the only thing I could see would be a benefit for time warner. To try to get some more readers out of it. But it's a major difference

I think if the movie was named something else it could pass to some degree. Mindless entertainment to that its name. But with the Hellblazer tie in, it just makes me go

jaeufraser

I'm sombebody completely unfamiliar with the comic book, so any of those issues are nil for me.

But in general, didn't care for the movie too much. It wasn't bad, it wasn't really good. Some interesting things happened, but I was never really engaged in the story. There were flashes of interesting character bits for the lead, but they didn't really push that angle enough I believe, so they really were just moments. It looked nice, the acting was fine, but the story and direction just felt flat. It didn't really build at all, and by the end I was just hoping something would blow up.

Overall, just kind of boring. There's an interesting story there, and the lead character was definately a little different, but they didn't push it enough, and it ended up just feeling flat. In the end, a disapointment.

Giantrobo

Actually,

QuiGonJosh

Out of all that goobilty goop, this is the most important thing. And it's a "yes!" Like I said previously, if I wanted to see everything exactly the way it was in the comic, I'd read the comic. An adaption is someones personal take on a previously released artistic endeavor. It's not meant to be exactly like the comic or book, it's one persons take on it. To expect it to be slavish to the comic would be...well...quite stupid and irresponsible on your part.

rushmore223

Never read the comic.

Had low expectations.

Don't like Keanu Reeves.

Went to see it cause I was in the mood for a movie of this genre, and I havent seen a film in about a month.

I have to go against the tide of criticism here and say I really liked this movie.

My wife who didnt even have interest in seeing this really liked it as well, she couldnt stop discussing the movie with me all night.

Wish I had stayed for the post credits scene though.

Dr. DVD

Jack, agree 100%. If it's a small character/following, either make it faithful or just take elements and make a completely different character and movie. Keeping the name of a previously known work and placing it on something that will have little to no relation to it is ridiculous!

Jackskeleton

See.. when I hear the word Adaptation. I expect it to be changed. But only changed to a differen environment. Take Batman. Say we Adapt his character from comics to the big screen. But instead of taking the character from one format (Comics) to another format (film) without much change in character. We decide to make Batman into someone with superhuman powers. He now shoots laser beams out of his eyes, grows batwings and flys while sucking the blood of his enemies.

Now would the defense be that it was the directors vision of the character? FUCK NO. We would lynch that director within an inch of his life. The Problem here is that Hellblazer isn't as known as Batman and Sess' statment stands. What was the point of even connecting Hellblazer into this film if you were going to bastardize it so badly? Might aswell called it something else completely and base the work off situations and characteristics of the book. I mean is there going to be a lawsuit for copyright infrindgement? The company owns the other. get the idea of and change the names and events. simple as that.

When a director takes a franchise, Especially one that is over a decade old, they need to pay some respect to that franchise when translating it if they are keeping the name and so forth. Hellblazer was released in 1988. Do you really think that it would be to hard to adapt one of those many stories and faithfully protray the character that has had that long of a history? Sure they got a few pieces here and there. That's grand, but they didn't get the character and they kept that name tagged on it.

You have an obscure character that has a some following. Instead of playing off that following with those established readers and hopefully introduce others into the franchise, you take that already established fan base and viewers and toss tha out the window and start off with no following.

So all books, when turned into film should forget their previous source material and just be a new hybreed from what it once was simply because if you want to read it, you would pick up the book? The point is to translate the book to film and keep what made that book a success. Sure they can take some steps when some aspects do not translate well on film. That is totally understandbale. But to change everything completely for the sake of changing things is stretching it.

If you liked the movie, that's fine. I never said it's wrong to like the movie. It was what it was. I do recall saying that if you had no prior knowledge to the source material you are more likely to enjoy it for what it is. Those who followed the book will have a bit of a time getting into it and in the end, Those who like the movie may not like the book when they pick it up since the style is just different.

Time Warner would be smart to make it so that fans of a film can easily get into the book and increase sales across the board in all their business holdings. This way you alienate one or the other.

ROBERTCOP34

Constantine was that movie rated R because i did not see anything in the movie that was bad enough for a R rating.
LOTR PG-13 was just about same for violence,had Constantine bend a PG-13 than Hitch would not have been number 1 at the box office for the weekend.
I thought Constantine was cool alot like Hellboy can't wait for BATMAN BEGINS....

mookyman

Some good points, Jack. Let me add a very different example of adaptation - today, I was reading the Raymond Carver stories that came with Criterion's "Short Cuts" DVD. I had forgotten just how much the film strays from the original stories at times - plot points are altered, character's backgrounds and sometimes names are changed, the location is moved from the Pacific Northwest to L.A., and new characters are added. But the changes to the source improve the film - it's a unique interpretation of Carver's work, and it's clear that the changes were thoughtfully made both for functional reasons and to bring out new ideas and themes from the stories.

So QuiGonJosh, your point about adaptations being open to the personal interpretation of the filmmakers is true in theory. But that's not what happened in "Constantine." While I thought it was a well-directed movie from a visual standpoint, it's not the work of an auteur. The things I liked about the movie were reminiscent of the comic, and I found that the things I had trouble with were departures from the source. Those departures felt like they were decided by committee, not because the Francis Lawrence was discovering new, interesting, personal connections to the material.

Like I said, I had a good time at "Constantine." But the comic is clearly better.

fumanstan

My friend was wondering about the rating as well. I suppose the imagery in the film may have led to an R rating, but for the most part i don't see why else it would be.

Jackskeleton

i think the suicide hit it to the R zone

ROBERTCOP34

Suicide shot in movie rated it a R please King's IT the minseries was on tv and that guy in the bathtub cuts him wrist and bleeds to death and put's IT in blood on wall next to his bathtub?
I think it just BS from the MPPA...

QuiGonJosh

So many words to say nothing more than "I'm an anal retentive fan of a little known comic book."

Jackskeleton

Wow, is that all the fight in you? No come back? no points addressed? I guess they just made sense.

Your defense of "If I want to see the real story, I'd read the book" is one of the dumbest I have seen. I sure hope Batman Begins has Bruce with those wings, cause if I want to see a batman without laser beams... I'll just read a book.

I have no idea what to tell you. Perhaps it's two suicides in one movie with one being a kid? I dunno. I mean, there wasn't much violence towards humans by humans in it. perhaps It was all half headed demons and the holy shotgun to those folks at the hospitol that did it in.

Dr. DVD

Jack: you do realize that had they gotten the PG-13 there would then be a bunch of people griping on here about how the movie sucked because it was PG-13 right? Probably the same ones that are on here singing it's praises right now!

Jackskeleton

Ha! so true. You know. I didn't even pay attention to the rating of the film and it didn't matter. Perhaps there should be a "Comic book rating" to how close or far it rates based on the source material.

Dudikoff

It was an interesting, pretty good movie. I felt that it was a little long in the tooth though. It didn't seem like enough stuff happened. Keanu did a fine job and he has a good screen presence. I'm not familiar with the comic, so I can't compare the stories or the characters. People really shouldn't get worked up about the movie being a faithful adaptation of the comic. Unless you have $70 million dollars, then your never gonna get to make the movie you want.

Trigger

I guess I'm not enough of a comic book nerd (I'm not even a bit of a comic book nerd) to care about most of the stuff being discussed here, and having not seen the comic I can't whine about how the movie didn't do it justice or whatever... I can only say that I liked the film. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I thought the acting was great and the effects were fantastic. The stunts were very impressive to me as well (which might be a little bit of nepotism on my part since my cousin worked on it). As for the story, I'm not into religion and I don't believe in any of that crap and I usually get easily turned off by a movie if that's what it's about, but I do have a passing interest in the historical mythos of religions in general. I found this version/interpretation/whatever to be fascinating.

Having not ever seen the comic, I can't say I'd like it better than the film, but given how small the fanbase is and how unlikeable the main character sounds, I probably wouldn't like it as much. And as Dudikoff just pointed out, unless you have your own fat bankroll, you aren't going to get the comic book movie you want - and if you made the movie you want, chances are hoards of people who are also fans of the comic are gonna hate it. There were some areas where the film dragged a bit, but for the most part I liked what was put on screen. What delights me the most about this is that I can finally tell my cousin that I liked a movie he worked on.