lowrenttraveller
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by lowrenttraveller
-
-
Why are you getting so upset about? The only thing i said that i think its a plant by some of the things in the article. Not trying to start any trouble here at all. IF you think it's a real review, then go for it. I don't think it is, and that's why i'm saying what i'm saying.
If you're going to get so upset over that opinion as well, then why is this message board here in the first place?
Thanks for posting the review up but i think you're wrong in your accusations and presumptions that its a plant/shill reviewing the film.
I think if it were a plant, there would be no criticism, just bare-faced optimism and gushing saccharine-sweet praise for everybody involved on the film and a big bravo for Keanu and all that arse-kissing studio-cocksucking pish.
I don't think the fella who wrote this needs to be a specialist on the subject of Hellblazer to give a review but at least he displays some understanding and knowledge of the comics and includes them in his review.
Another thing is that i don't think a plant would be going around posting up reviews and criticising a film they're meant to be working hard to bigging up via the Internet, they'd be all about praise and nothing more, you never see more pros than cons in a review by a shill/plant. That much is obvious.
I don't think the reviewer has anything to gain from this review and if he is a plant then i think he just did himself out of a job with some of his criticisms.
You make a lot of good points and I said that could be jaded by the last review that was a plant. What I find strange is the way people act when you give an opinion on the board. A few people (not all mine you) actually got upset over what I said, which was not meant to offend anyone. And BTW the only other review I think I called a plant was from the same web site that posted this review, so I don’t know where I said that a lot comes from.
Most of my posts here are really friendly, which judging by the last few responses, people don’t seem to care for.
Well, it's the mentality of all message boards i guess. :-?
Well, after going over the review again (and really reading it this time), I have to agree that’s not a plant. I don’t know but every time that I see something from there, I still think of the Film Threat article that basically calls Harry a corporate puppet . That’s my mistake of course but I think you’re making a mistake in contemning the board by the actions of a few people. I’m new to the whole Hellblazer scene and I met a lot of nice people here who helped me understand who the character was.
I think you’re taking this way too seriously and should calm down a bit.
-
Reads like a plant, smells like a plant.
-
Presumably pretty low, given all the hot air he insists on spouting out.
That's a good one.
-
A poster called "Mcrowjunction" posted up his own review....
"I saw this a few weeks ago in LA and it suckes hard here is a spoiler review.
Kris, thanks very much for posting Mcrowjunction's review. I've never read anything that ties together all the criticisms that I've read about the film so well, and it dovetails to an almost frightening degree with the view taken by the comic adaptation. If anyone wanted to read only one review of Constantine, this is the one I'd recommend. Thanks again.
The review kind of hits the problems of the film on its head.
-
I note that you wait 'til I'm contractually obliged to start beating me around the head with that one.
It looks like they put more effort into the other web sites for this movie than the US web site.
-
Constantine is the cover story of Total Film magazine in the UK for this month, the article doesn't really say much but its got some of the usual recalcitrant fighting talk from Francis Lawrence i.e "As for setting it in LA and not London - thats pulled from various things, scenes taken from various graphic novels. Constantine in my eyes has always been universal, he's in London, he's in America, there are events that happen in Africa, Its not just a story that takes place in London. And LA is also a very classically noir city"....
In that case Mr Lawrence, why didn't you just make Constantine a Lithuanian panel beater then who likes to dabble with ouija boards when he's pissed up on Meths and lighter fluid?
To be fair to Keanu Reeves, i think he talks more sense than Francis Lawrence does, all in all the article is okay to read if you got 5 or so minutes to kill depending on the velocity of your eyes.
Why does that interview scare me so? :o
-
More Reviews are coming in for Constantine.
http://www.moviehole.net/news/4909.html
They must be having a swag of test screenings for this baby because I believe we've had a trailer full of reports on it of late. This review, from 'Jennifer', is probably a slightly more negative take on the new Keanu starrer.
Constantine
By Jennifer
They gave a industry screening of Constantine for movie theater owners last weekend here in California (one of the few places that was not snowed in) and I got in because I work for a retailer who sells products to them (Popcorn, Soda machines, you name it.)
To make this as quick and as painless as possible, the movie was a huge letdown. Keanu Reeves look like he was just going though the motions here and delivers a rather stale performance that is the worse one in the entire film and that's a great feet considering that Shia LaBeouf, The Don Knocks of our generation gives a painfully unfunny performance as his pet sidekick.
Rachel Weisz is great but she's stuck with Keanu way too much and she would have been a much better lead than he was because she at least made you care about what was happing with the film while Keanu was just playing his Neo character again.
Djmon Hounsou is fine but wasted in a bit part and Peter Stormare is criminally underused in a cameo.
The special effects are great but there is really no story to be told and the script is pretty bad in some parts.
Wait for video.
That's probably the second worse review i have read so far for this film.
-
He went to a private screening that was held on the studio lot. He also said that some of the executives were badmouthing the movie as well. One said that Keanu was a bad choice for the role and another said that the movie would had been much better off if it just focused on the main female character and just completely cut out the comic book connection to the film, because it would have been cheaper to go with the female lead instead of Keanu and she was a better character than he was. Many agreed that a sixth sense approach to the film with a strong female character (They really liked Rachel Weisz and her character) would had been a much better movie than it was now and some of them were quite angry on how it all turn out. At that time, they also said that the producers had to cut the film themselves because they did not like the directors cut of the film and made the director and some of the cast redo a lot of the scenes in the movie.
So in essence, the brass at Warner Brothers said the same thing most of the negative reviews have said.
How interesting indeed.
P.S. I did not know that the producers had to recut the film. It explains the reshoots of the movie, that’s for sure.
-
Thanks. Sad to see the movie getting trashed the way it is. A friend saw the film a few weeks ago in LA and almost said the same thing that most of the reviews were saying. Rachel Weisz stole the movie, Keanu was crap and the movie is not Hellblazer.
The bad thing about that was the fact that he told me that Shia LaBeouf gets killed during the end of the film which does suck because i kind of like him.
Where in LA did he see the movie and how did he get in?
He works for a marketing group out there and got in because they were invited to the screening by some of the people who work for Warner brothers. He does business with them on certain projects.
Did he happen to sit in a theater with a test screening crowd? From the reactions to 4 screenings, the audience response was overwhelmingly positive.
By the way sarcasm is a lost art here. My post above was intended as such. Aw.. who the fuck cares anyway... Just to recap - negative reviews are always correct, positive ones are always plants. And people in the industry who see and critique those films of their competition are always unbiased with no malcontent intended.
The positive review becomes a plant when it appears on Ain't it Cool News, a known web site that has been ousted for it’s bias and untrue reviews. Plus the review looks like a complete opposite of what was written by most of the reviews before. It was a plant and most of the people posting on that web site are saying it themselves.
-
Thanks. Sad to see the movie getting trashed the way it is. A friend saw the film a few weeks ago in LA and almost said the same thing that most of the reviews were saying. Rachel Weisz stole the movie, Keanu was crap and the movie is not Hellblazer.
The bad thing about that was the fact that he told me that Shia LaBeouf gets killed during the end of the film which does suck because i kind of like him.
Where in LA did he see the movie and how did he get in?
-
Anyway got word on an official UK/Ireland release date ?
IMDB still says 18 March for the UK. You'll be able to see it on February 25th if you go to Iceland or 16 February if you go to France.
I thought that there were a gathering somewhere in the world for Fans of the comic book.
-
http://www.superherohype.com/review.php
Here is a review of Constantine that was just posted at Superhero hype. Unlike Ain't it Cool News, this sounds legit:
Jess
date posted: 24-01-2005 Rating 3/10
Keanu Reeves plays John Constantine, a cross between Same Spade and Repairman Jack from the F. Paul Wilson novels. He deals with all kinds of supernatural occurrences all around Los Angeles. He builds a kind of reputation that is only heard in whispers and rumors and he's quite known for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Enter Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) who needs his help with the mysterious suicide of her twin sister who jump off the roof of the mental hospital she was staying in. She believes that there is more to it than it seems and wants Constantine to help her figure it out. So they both embark on a investigation that includes half breed demons strait out of episodes of Buffy and Angel, angels that look way too asexual for words and the devil himself, who looks like he just got back from gambling trip in Atlantic City. Now if you think that I'm being a tad over the top in my plot summery, think again. I'm actually being way too kind. Now it's very hard to start off with the good parts of the film with out addressing the very bad parts of it first and that's Keanu Reeves himself. I do think that he's a good actor with some promise but he's miscast in this role as a hardboiled and cynical private eye with supernatural connections and his sour face demeanor does not help him out at with his character at all. There is a subplot that involves his heath that adds nothing to the overall story at all and his character borders between self important idiot to whiney bastard that cries to god when he does not get his way. His transformation into his Neo persona during the last act of the film takes away a lot from what the movie was supposed to be all about and just turns it into a sad parody of itself. The screenplay feels like a hack job in some places and some characters don't really serve a purpose at all other than to be killed off or to just be a part of the scenery. Some character don't really need to be in the movie at all like the character of Chaz played by Shia LaBeouf, who really adds nothing to the movie other than to be a really bad side kick to our sour faced hero and the angel Gabriel who is played by Tilda Swinton, who for starters is only in the film for about ten minutes and really adds nothing to it other than to have a really bad scene with John Constantine that will make you sit up and take notice on how bad this film really is and the last act, where her character is a part of one of the most stupid plot revelations in recent movies (it involves the devil, who is dressed like a pool hall gambler from Atlantic City.) I don't hold Tilda Swinton, responsible for this (she is a very good actress) as much as I hold the screenwriters who wrote her role because we don't really know enough about her character to be surprise with the sudden turn around that she does in the last act of the film. The screenplay itself feels like it does not know what it wants to be from time to time, switching it's tone from dark horror drama to dumb down action movie in the last fifteen minutes of the film and some of the dialog is so badly written that you are grinning your teeth to the bone when you hear it. While there are a lot of bad in this film, there are some bright spots that make the film somewhat bearable to sit though. The best of these is the performance of Rachel Weisz, which is literally holding this film together by a thin and dangling thread. She gives this movie something the script should have giving it and that something is called class. Her performance is gripping and soul searching and its what the film really should have been about if you had serious people behind scenes making it. Which is too bad because the movie would have worked much better as a standard supernatural thriller with just her character in it instead of the mind numbing mess that is presented to us here. Djmon Hounsou is great as well but he's not really in the movie much at all and his character is really just there for camp effect, not substance. The special effects are cool for what they are and they do have a visual impact but not even that is strong enough to make you forget how cheesy the film is after it ends.
Don't know if this is legit or not but it does seem like a real review than what Harry had in the board.
-
"
I imagine that the Spear was used because a) The Spear of Destiny sounds awesome, b) people already know about it supposedly granting the bearer indestructibility and awesome power since it's been mentioned in everything from Wolfenstein 3D to Hellboy, yet c) it's still less hackneyed than the Holy Grail.
And what does this have to do with anything? You said that Constantine's sacrifice wasn't selfless, since he's only doing it to con god and the devil
Correct. His sacrifice wasn't selfless. He knew God could relate to it as I have previously mentioned. This goes back to my earlier arguments that God cannot know the underlying motives due to FREE WILL once again. This is congruent with the conjob he manages to pull off.
the Spear belonged to Longinus, the Roman soldier who practically killed Jesus (finished him off), but out of Mercy, to save him the agony. at least that's how the event is portrayed in the medieval icons/fresco art. He then recognized that he was the one who killed the son of god, so he repented, and is regarded a saint. (ironic, considering that Judas, who only SOLD OUT Jesus, and also repented, is demonized... the guy who ACTUALLY pulled the trigger, or the spear, as it happens, is glorified as the one who truly saw him for who he was)...so, the spear of destiny is perhaps a symbol of a "selfless act" - killing off Jesus, to ease his suffering...
dunno if this helps, and i'm sure i didn't explain it as best as i could, but i thought that maybe Matadoor had that particular aspect of the spear in mind.
Absolutely Right on! A selfless act PERCEIVED BY the God Almighty. Constantine played into that act of symbolism and that was how he managed to con GOD. In his case, it was the life of another (Angela). This is supported in the comic adaptation as well. Constantine sacrificing his own life to ease the eternal suffering of another. God is all too familiar withthis symbolism and it is somewhat personal to him being that it was his only son. CON-stantine played his cards off of that. In the end, he sarcastically replies to SAtan- oh well, I guess I'm stuck here on earth. What I understood and I hope all of you did was........NO LOSS HERE- By NOT going to heaven........... becuz this jackass cured my cancer problem.
It seems to me that Constantine got lucky with what had happen. he was going to give his life for Angela and her sister but he did not know that the devil was going to save him.
-
John in this book did not really have a personality at all, unlike the comic John Constantine who had a flair to him.
The first pages shows his personality more, as the way he talks with the officer, in the exorcism with the girl, with henessy and the bits with Midnite. Aside that, it's only him trying to save the world, not even his ass. There's no dialogue with Chaz, neither with Angela, who seems very pale in the adaptation. Guess it's better forget that and just wait for the movie...
All the characters look pale in the adaptation and it looks like about 50% of the movie is missing from the comic ( Chaz has alot more screen time than this i heard)
One thing is certain though. It not John Constantine at all.
-
Matadoor, it's not clear to me, yet, that John cons his way out. You could show a real moment where that is clear? And the file "363ub" kept me thinking...
John says: " Heaven would look good to you too... if you were a suicide sentenced to a prision where half the inmates were put there by you."
For what I understand (with my half-ass English...) is that he prefers heaven to go to hell...
It actually brings up the point that many people on the board and some of the reviews point out. That the movie is not a real adaptation of the comic book.
-
Aside those things, I enjoyed the story, even if contain basically the bits we knew already. I like that there is are some humor ("ecto-net" - and the guy with the cards at Midnite club cracked me up! Hope it's on the movie...), and John does not look a bit so unlikeable like those early reviewers said. Well, at least in the adaptation.
John in this book did not really have a personality at all, unlike the comic John Constantine who had a flair to him.
-
Rogan, MUCH THANKS for all the work to put that online. :happy:
I agree with the points that lowrenttraveller did. There's no vermin, it seems for the trailers we have that Balthazar shows up in more scenes, the scene with Gabriel is too short, they don't show hell and many more things. A lot was cut, and the story, at some point, makes no sense. They are saving it for the movie, of course, and it's because of that I still think the end will be different in the movie, even if it has the same context.
Aside those things, I enjoyed the story. There are some humor ("ecto-net" - and the guy with the cards at Midnite club cracked me up! Hope it's on the movie...), and John doesn't look nor a bit so unlikeable like those early reviewers said. Well, at least in the adaptation.
CON-stanTEEN looks like to me he cons his way out of that one. Don't you agree?
Very evident in the adaptation. I hope we can finally lay this to rest.
Ocean is right. The story really did not make sense at all and it broke down after the first half of the book. As for John Constantine, I did not get the sense that he con the devil at all. It seems to me that he just got lucky.
BTW Matadoor, what do you think about the scenes I mention that were cut out?
-
Thanks for putting up those pages. Judging by the adaptation, they cut about 50-60 percent of the movie. These are the scenes that I read were in the actually film. Correct me if I’m wrong in any of this please…
1)The tub in the Angela baptism scene exploded right? So why did it not explode in the comic?
2)What happen to the vermin man?
3)Angela fought the demon really hard in the pool scene but it looks like the demon took her out like it was nothing at all in the comic.
4)John hit Gabriel in the climax of the movie but where is it in the comic?
5) John went to hell for a good amond of time, but he's there for only one page.
I know they can’t put everything in a comic but at least try to stay true to the movie.
-
Well Matadoor, did you see the movie? Is it good? And how does Keanu and The rest of the cast do?
By the way, Why do mean when you say, “Even Keanufans can be 100 times more objective”
Forgive me, I’m new here and I’m trying to understand what is happing on the board.
-
I get the sense that you actually saw the movie Matadoor correct me if i'm wrong. How was it and how were the performances of the actors in it? Are the reviews true to form?
-
I did not see the movie, i'm going by what i have read about the film, about the reviews, and by what i know of the character. You would have notice that if you read my posts.
-
And if you compare the interest on the Sin City imdb boards with the interest on the Constantine one, you'll see how the unconventional looking movie is capturing people's attention.
But Sin City is way more popular than Hellblazer, isn't it? It's well known. And the trailer looks VERY good (even if for a moment it reminded Dick Tracy (the one with Warren Beatty) a lot! It's good to know that the forces behind the project are real fans of it, what will make the movie faithfull and fans will love. But will they make this deliver at the same way with the mainstream audience? I'm hyped after seeing the trailer, but I get a sentiment that it could well be a case of a whole lot of style and "wannabe something different" over substance... hope not.
Not really, they both have their followers in the comic books but nether is bigger than the other.
-
lowrenttraveller, did you watch the movie? because the way you talk it seems you did.
Anyway, I said I "prefer" to think the cancer plot functions as a plot device to other developments, not to make Constantine looks like a good guy. But I'll only know that after seeing the movie, because I didn't yet.
Some here in this forum read a draft of the script, they could answer if the cancer really serves to make John looks sympathetic. Even Tears in Rain could give us some hint about that.
But, IMO, I just think it's a bit too early to state that the writers wanted the audience to feel this type of sentiment for the character throught the cancer plot only based in those "opinions" at the test screenings.
I don’t know what’s your deal or your tremendous problem is but CALM DOWN.
I 'm only taking about what is being said in the reviews, You’re the one who is taking things way too personally.
Get a grip.
-
Look at the press Sin City is getting. Someone who was PASSIONATE about the comic (meaning that Robert Rodriguez actually reads something besides scripts) made it. So passionate that he left the Directors' Guild in order to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez thought he deserved, and dropped a plum assignment. With examples like this out there, why should be happy with a cold, passionless exploitation?
And if you compare the interest on the Sin City imdb boards with the interest on the Constantine one, you'll see how the unconventional looking movie is capturing people's attention.
I don't know about Sin City. It looks interesting but i don't know.....It could also be pretty bad as well.
The Possible Sequel Thread
in Comics in other media
Posted
No sequels please, they already sound horrible just by the ideas that are being tossed around.