A. Heathen

I recommend the Adrian Brown version of watching the shite boat film.

Rule 1: Whenever Dion starts wailing turn off sound.

Rule 2: Don't bother paying attention until the boat hits the iceberg.

Rule 3: Watch them all drown in the icy depths.

(Rule 4: When old lady Winslet goes back to THE VERY SPOT where her boy drowned, imagine frozen, seaweed-encrusted, reanimated corpse of Dicrapio surging forth from the depths and grabbing Old Kate and dragging her down into the sea with him.)

Rule 5: Billy Zane wins.

Boogeyman.

We saw this last week, it's the second film from Sam Raimi's "Ghosthouse" after his adaptation of "Ju On" aka "The Grudge".

Besides Lucy Lawless as the lead's mom (!) I don't think any of the cast are well-known.

It's a very atmospheric fable, much of the "horror" is from the old suspense and jump-cut school, but if you let yourself drop into that state of mind, it's quite rewarding. They almost steer clear of revealing the evil "villain" of the piece - something that may have been picked up from the Japanese ghost films.

I think it would have worked better with an actor in a mask, qv "Freddie Krueger", rather than a CGI demon.

Despite a philosophical connection with "Poltergeist", the underlying causes of our hero's experiences are rather old-fashioned and low key rather than the modern obsession with genocide and/or forgotten abuse. Which gives it a charm.

A nice scary house movie !

What is interesting about "Video Nasty" evidence is that it chooses to focus on only half of the results. The half that shows violent people/children/experimental monkeys might watch violent films. There is some causative evidence, but that is not "violent films cause violence in otherwise non-violent people" as the Mary Whitheouses of this world would have us believe. In other words, the campaigners say "Obviously *we* wouldn't be influenced that way, but we must stop those lesser mortals getting exposed to stuff they do not understand."

The other half of the evidence is that many people/white rats/even children who enjoy violence in films are aware of the difference between stories and real life, and can develop attitudes that avoid violence (let's face it some children are more mature than the people who seek to band such films).

Oh, there's a third half, in which horror and violent films instigate the "fear culture" that Michael Moore touches upon in "Bowling for Columbine", but many of them cannot discern between "real" and "made up". And most of them don't actually watch the films before they join the moral panic.

And he's only legally a child molester, though not even that because he hasn't been tried or convicted. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

Steady on, eh? He was actually tried and convicted, but broke bail and fled before sentence was passed. That's why he can't/won't come back to the States - there's a hefty prison term waiting for him if he does.

He pleaded guilty to the main charge and was acquitted on the others, therefore would not have been sentenced to such a hefty prison term.

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

Now why couldn't John Shirley have just written the screenplay.

 

Because then another writer would be doing the novelization of his work so you could understand it better.

 

Contrary to popular belief, working screenplay writers are not talentless hacks. And the ones doing the coveted big budget studio projects were not just handed those assignments. Somewhere along the long climb they had to do exceptional work - consistantly. What happens after The End is written is somewhat beyond their control.

There's a large element of truth in what Tears says.

Whatever the various incarnations of the script looked like (and *someone* must take the blame for Chaz), the final one had several important character scenes that were removed from the film.

John is less ambiguous because "they" removed the Ellie scenes that showed how he does not automatically despise all demonscum etc etc. Ellie also exposits the "Satan would come up to collect your soul" thing, which John refers to when talking with Midnite as "so I've heard" even though that earlier scene is gone. Sure, this might work, but it's now a minor pointer to a major conceit of the film.

Yeah, but at least Zane actually wanted Winslet. Dean was more interested in fucking over Jerivan, with the added bonus of getting to shag Frankie.

Zane wanted to fuck Winslet.

But he wanted to fuck Dicrapio over.

Thus he wins.

I dunno, I always wanted Kate Winslet to go off with Billy Zane in Titanic.

What can I tell you ?

I love Frankie, though I can't help wondering if it would have been better as a "proper" romantic comedy about a guy, a girl and her god without the demonic revenge plot.

It is a proper romantic comedy about a guy, a girl, her ex and his ex.

:-P

As per your classic Hollywood romantic comedy being a four-hander not a three-way.

Earlier today I was talking about a song on the Loretta Lynn album that Jack White produced. It's called "God Makes No Mistakes".

As a tune ignoring the lyrics it's very good. If you listen to the lyrics, and take them seriously, it is horribly overly zealous Christianical. However, if you choose to misinterpret them as "ironic" you'll find it is lovely again.

That is what Boondock Saints is.

Beautiful balletic violence, Batman-style crime fighting and ever so right wing "but these are *our* criminals" logic.

It's great.

It's funny. It's pointless. It's great.

Willem Dafoe steals the show. In a balletic version of Robert Goren from L&O:CI.

I must get hold of that documentary, because if the guy's that mad/vain/arrogant then even better !

So, in summary, you will ignore Kris's moderated comments about the film now he's seen it, slag him off rather than argue with him, and tell others who are prepared to argue with him that they are wasting their time ?

On an internet forum ?

You might want to note that "the other Hollywood Guy" (Johnny C) has taken up the invitation you have steadfastly ignored, and posted elsewhere on the forum.

I think he was holding his own, and seems to have people agreeing with him.

(Even Kris !!!)

Anyway, the film's out in the UK next week ... you should stick around for the post-Constanteen Tomocaust that will occur at Easter.

The Devil feels obliged to John (I know, not any Devil/Lucifer/Satan that I'm aware of) so offers him something. He relinquishes his claim on Isabel and presumably the Default Setting is "Go To Heaven".

I think I might've read this in the book, but the idea that the souls who are like Isabel - who do not embrace the whole business and become demons, presumably - reenact their death over and over. But in general, if it was made up for the film, IT WILL NOT MAKE SENSE :-P

Too many words for them actor types.

Let's face it, YOU KNOW when you're being a dickhead.

And if you didn't do it, there'd only be polite disagreements here.

I know your post I quoted was a return to your international internet forum-spanning love-hate relationship with Kris, but it contains the following ingredients:

The tired old "collective anti-Constanteen" nonsense,

and a load of disrespect to the manner in which Pogue McMahone moderates this forum.

I draw your attention to some of the disagreements we have about the monthly magazine that you are learning to love. Note how often we call each other dickheads.

I further draw your attention to Kris saying that the film was not as bad as he expected it to be.

Incidentally, my wife - unprejudiced by reading the comics for many years (although she knew who Constantine was before most of the people on this forum) - said LA was not seedy enough a location and Keanu was too glamourous for Constanteen. I disagreed with her :-P

btw: I'll give you one day of my life if you'll get us out of the sequel horror.

We are told that John can see things he's not meant to see.

Not that he can see everything.

The tattoos got an earlier exercise that was cut.

I suggest you buy John Shirley's adaptation of the earlier script.

It makes more sense.

And if  you continue to fight with him - here or in other sites around the globe - they may even ban you, because for some reason, the powers that be have decided its Kris that needs protecting - he's been elected as the Voice of the collective conscience.  And as long as that continues no new ideas or thoughts beyond his will be accepted in this forum without extensive combative debate.  He can slap you with any insult he wants but you are expected to be curteous and respectful and every word you write has to be offensive to NO ONE.  That's what is considered fair debate here.  So I say quit while you;re behind and as far as Kris is the self appointed moderator I'd say get as far away from this site as you can.

 

Besides - the discussion of any sequel is for naught - it will not happen. 

 

That's the final word.

You can be a right dickhead, occasionally.

Now that is pretty entertaining. I actually like the Hell on Earth angle. I also like the idea that the damned start escaping hell. It would be an interesting moral conundrum for John to have to send people (not demons) back to an eternity of torture when they may have sinned no more than he had to be damned in the first place.

Now, you see Johnny, that is why this film is not about John Constantine.

He would not assume that ANYONE should be send to Hell (or even back to Hell).

He might send them by error.

 

How much of this are you serious about?

You should know by now not to argue with me just because you want what I have typed to be wrong.

There were a few logical inconsistencies to the movie that I wonder if anyone else could explain -

 

(1) When the demon made out of bugs attacks John, can everyone see it or, to a person without the sight, would it look like he was having a fit?

 

(2) How can Gabriel be invisible to someone with the sight (like JC)?

 

(3) Why does the Devil have to cure John's cancer when he could simply repair his cut wrists. That's what he was dying from at that point, after all?

 

(4) On that same note, why was the devil dragging John bodily to hell when all he was after was his soul?

 

(5) When John visits Hell is it his soul or his physical body that does the traveling?

 

(6) How does the chair go back in time?

1) John says he was attacked in the open by a real demon. It probably looked like a swarm of insects (and crabs) !

2) I guess he see whoever is there who would not normally be seen as they really are (hence he saw Gabe's wings in the Theological Inst.) but if someone knows he can see them and has concealment spells or powers, he cannot.

3) He gave John more time - the cancer would probably have given him two months, Satan gave him longer.

4) It looks better :-)

5) With Angela we saw time stop and her body did not vanish.

However the clue is that Isabel's body is still on Earth. So I guess it's our souls.

("Arseholes", geddit ?)

6) It doesn't. Any more than your computer travels around the world to talk to us.

It's a receiver because of its connection to the dead and electrickery.

Yeah the movie was changed a fair amount at the last moment. The dialogue somewhat. Scenes were cut...somethings different...I wish I'd seen it I could have written the novelization better. Sets for example, actors, couldve been in the book right...

 

Not to be direspectful of John, whom I will meet at his signing soon, but there is a hell of a lot more room in a novel to flush out characters and detail that unfortunately cannot be crammed in any two hour movie - one that has countless people pulling and pushing to get their own thought inserted.

He's done a good job with the script. Perhaps if the scripts were written with a bit more "novel" type depth, some of the problems and inconsistencies could have been ironed out.

And he's entitled to be pissed off for example, when the whole Ellie plot was ripped out, which changes a whole bunch of the movie's mythology by omission.

Regarding what can be crammed into a two hour movie.

Several things that were left out for expediency seem to have been replaced with tortuous monologues and even more tortological scenes. So don't give us the old "that part of the comic would not have worked in a MOVIE", when much of the stuff you've put in does not work.

Having said that, as I've posted elsewhere, my expectations for Constanteen as a film (but not as an adaptation) were actually surpassed. Needs cutting by twenty minutes or so.

Starting with Hell on Earth (a) relies too heavily on previous continuity

(b) doesn't leave much left to fill up the rest of the film

© removes the exciting "holy shit!" moment and

(d) would really be stretching it to try and somehow make it John's fault since the deal between Gabriel and Mammon didn't involve John until the very end.

(a) The Matrix, perhaps even Blade

(b) Yes it does (but less than in this film which would be a good idea)

(c.) No it doesn't.

(d) Film opens with John & Angie expositioning the first film and getting jiggy with each other. Fredericks, a South African collector hated by Midnite for obvious historical reasons is having dreams about IMPENDING DOOM (you know where that story is going) and kidnaps Angie to get Constanteen to do his work. Constanteen rescues Angie who tells him what Fredericks was worried about. "Oh fuck", said John, "I should have killed that bastard Gabriel while I had the chance." "Why do you say that?" says Angie. "Because this is Gabriel's plan all over again." "No it's not," says Gabriel. "Well you would say that," says John. "Ah but this sounds like the work of the shadow dog of Hell, who approaches Earth at times when the barrier is breached, trying to get at Man" (note, Gabriel does not lie, but does not tell the truth). "Right," says John, "I'm going to need some allies." John recruits his allies like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. His assembled allies are the ghost of Beeman, Angie (duh!), Papa Midnite, Balthazar (they did it in Blade, they can fucking do it here - and they can have him misdirected as a bad demon and tack on some of their beloved redemption shit), someone who can "spiritually surf the internet", one other new character - probably someone who knew Isabel from Ravenscar, Angel Chaz (who later gets his wings stripped from him by TBWNN har har har) and a scene at Midnite's bar where they squabble with similar consequences to those we saw in Staring at the Wall. Midnite tells Constanteen he won't help but they can use his bar. Madness begins to spread around the world. John fucks up again (as seen in S@TW). Beast with No Name, played by Tim Curry turns out to have been set to work by Lucifer in an attempt to trip John up sooner rather than later. (NB I don't like this bit either, it's just to keep the film's audience happy.) Everyone lives happily ever after, except John, who has lost his memories and his power to see Demon and Angels and his crap tattoo ... Final scene: even though he does not know who he is John makes some sort of Constanteenian gesture. End monologue, "Blah Blah Blah, does the end justify the means, blah blah blah, does everyone who knows me die horribly, blah blah blah, IS THIS WHO I AM ???" etc

Job done.

Guys and Dolls could work.

The bet is off, and thankly doodly because it was shit unless used as a metaphor.

Having been fucked over by Gabriel, God's upper echelons clamp down on stuff like what we saw in Midnite's bar. Most of them take the easy ride (after all Satan's acting up as well since he nearly got ousted by his foetus I mean son).

Ellie and Whassisnamiel are having none of it and ... etc

Perhaps you'd have to explain away the "half-breed" thing (Gabriel's job with a bit of exposition along the lines of "That was just a constantinian insult").

If you did Staring at the Wall, it'd be too similar to the film I've just seen - "Constanteen 2: Another Earth-threatening Demon" - but that could work if it somehow spun out of Mammon's pact with Gabriel. However, Gemma would have to be Angie for it to work for me. And it would start with Hell on Earth rather than the threat of impending Hell on Earth, which would suit my sense of redressing the Constantinian balance. Oh look, Constanteen saved the Earth ... oh but then why are those people all killing each other ? Did he fail after all ? John call's Satan, who says "Nothing to do with me, *you* messed the balance up and ended the bet, now this is not my realm to worry about until later" (a nice tip of the hat to Lucifer in Staring at the Wall).

I could do this job !

As I texted to John and Tom earlier tonight.

It's not as bad as all that.

Sure there are problems above and beyond the lack of the Constantine we know and love, but it was an enjoyable Keanu film.

Surprises: Rachel Weisz bored me (that capalert.com guy must be OBSESSED with breasts); second time around Satan irked me - although I liked his words, his manner was just irksome most of the time; the funny scenes were funny (full marks to the cat scene - YES it's a silly idea, but that's played on in the film); the demons were a let down - except the composite vermin one; the "lighter" music was annoying - esp. when being faux romantic; Beeman was a likeable character - just one we've seen before ... in Van Helsing; Hennessy's death and Beeman's were well done; the scene's with Balthazar and Midnite should have been extended; 20 minutes should have been cut from the film - eg when they drive to Baltazar's place and Chaz and John have a pointless conversation; the Hell scenes were good, could have done with more writhing; Ellie's scenes should have been left in, the expositionary monologues should have been cut.

But, you know, not as bad as I expected.

I hate resorting to posting this kind of thing myself

Me too !

(Only joking.)

Sorry, I can't make it as I'll be doing the world record 24 Minute Comic in London's Mile End.

One day though, sir.

There'll be trouble when everyone finds out that Michelle Pfeiffer is teaching them english literature.