Selkie

Any chance of some photos of these proofs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ask, and ye shall receive They're the last photo on the page. Not sure how good they'll look to "civilians", but trust me, for being the first castings from new molds I have every reason to be thrilled.

As for losing at the Art Show, yes, I have no doubt the others deserved to win. This year. It hurts to lose when you think you should of won, or even if you think it's close, but for now, I'm content to have been allowed to play in their sandbox, and am already plotting and planning next year's entries.

What do most women see in jane Austen books anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Akhira, it's always a relief to hear anotherwoman express such sentiments. I have NO earthly clue what the appeal is, outside of historical interest, and I've been subjected to quite a number of them (as class assignments) over the years. I think the women who find them romantic are really missing the points the author is trying to make entirely. Heck, I doubt even my Tolkien obsessed friend owns any Jane Austen novels, but if she does, I'll burn them for her own good!

A quick update: the results from the Art Show arrived, and The Beast didn't place in any of the categories. Not a surprise, so not even a disappointment. I recognized many of the names of the people who beat me, and there's not the slightest trace of doubt in my mind that they deserved their wins.

I'm much more focused on looking at the new proofs a friend made from the bas reliefs I designed, which look terrific. Damn! I'm better than I thought I was!

Selkie - you were in the 9th circle of hell, that conversation there. What a dreadful encounter!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What was especially depressing was that "the wife" is a dear friend of mine whom I've known for seemingly forever. She's educated, articulate, well-read, and was absolutely spitting venom at the mere mention of comic books. Her husband's a big Neil Gaiman fan, and it didn't take long to hook him on titles like Transmet. I always thought she was kidding when she begged me not to bring him any more comic books. Now I'm starting to re-evaluate my original impression. The whole thing was uncomfortable in the extreme, and the only sour note in an otherwise terrific day.

Lots of stuff to reply to, but only this one can be handled quickly.

Now that is a way of thinking that I just don't understand at all.  Who would want women not to be more skillful lovers??

No, no, no. The point is, if women don't understand how enjoyable sex can be, their insecure male lovers don't have to worry that their partners will leave their beds in search of more satisfying partners. It's the same principle as the justifications for female genital mutiliation, just watered down many, many, many times.

:lol: -Selkie and any other members, I'm sorry if you're a fan of Tolkien, but I don't think highly of the man's writing; so I'm here laughing away that someone is arguing that comics have no merit while comparing them to Tolkien, of all authors!

:lol:

That was the point of the anecdote, so please, laugh away. My mirth appreciates the company.

Was it Harlan Ellison who said that if you were under 20 and didn't think Lord of the Rings was the greatest book ever written there was something wrong with you, and if you were over 20 and still thought that there was something even more wrong with you? I didn't read Tolkien till I was over 30, and still can't figure out what all the fuss is about.

If I may be so bold, where's the fund up to? Will we at least get Tom into the theater?

I keep reading stories like this, about how medical research focuses on men to the exclusion of women, and still can't believe it.  You have to wonder what the research establishment is thinking.

That unless it involves making babies, women don't matter? God forbid something as basic as the research mentioned in the previous post be conducted. I am shocked that not even the Kinsey Institute has never funded such a thing. But, after all, many elements of society would prefer that women not experience sexual pleasure, lest we stray to find more skilful lovers. Or something. After reading some of those statistics, BTW, I love my body - damaged as it may be - more than I ever thought possible.

Not only am I bitter that the medical establishment ignores us, don't even get me started on the research conducted for making cars "safer." Women don't factor into that either, and in fact many of the so-called "safety" measures make cars less safe for women, rather than more. I'm a slightly taller than average woman, and I'm still at greater risk of paralysis from the damn airbag than from an accident. Me, bitter? Nah.

Hey, has anyone heard any concrete news about the Pope's upcoming book condemning, among other things, the Enlightenment? My connection's too slow to listen the the NPR clip at the link to verify this. If it's true, from what I'm hearing, there will be lots of eye-rolling material contained therein regardless of on'es religious beliefs. I remain amazed that so many individual Catholics are compassionate, caring people when the church hierarchy ... isn't. I still haven't recovered from yesterday's reading of a Catholic propogranda pamphlet left in the waiting room of the hospital that purported to explain what humanism is, and why it's all wrong. I kept wondering whether the author had ever met an actual humanist, or read a piece of humanist literature.

Oh, and to keep this on topic:

Stupid School Suspension Story of the Day

Happy Belated Birthday, Christian!

The Karl Rove documentary, Bush's Brain, is worth a look. I think it shows a lot of smoke but very little fire, and depending on one's politics, that might be a problem, but it's worth a viewing if you're in the mood to get massively depressed. I hate when the words "brilliant" and "no moral compass" get used together that often. Comcast users, it might show up in your free on-demand movies; it does here.

For the hell of it, I rewatched Johnny Mnemonic the other night. Gawds, to think people complain about Constantine.... I know William Gibson was supposedly cool with the script changes, but I really wonder how much he was paid to say that. I still wish some of his better short fiction had gotten the feature film treatment back in the day. I would love to see The Gernsback Continuum and Burning Chrome given due attention.

Lately I've been coming across negative comments about comic books quite a bit.

You're not the only one, hence this thread. I can't bear to read the Constantine reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes (not that Constantine is anywhere near the only example of this phenomenon, just that it's the freshest in my mind). Look, there are a lot of reasons to dislike the movie, but blaming its flaws on the source medium doesn't cut it in my mind.

You wouldn't believe the borderline argument that broke out between my comic-reading male friend and me on one side, against his wife on the other, when she insisted that "no one could convince her that a comic book could possibly have any depth of characterization." The example she kept using as an example of a novelist who wrote complex characters that could never be matched by a mere comic book was <cough> Tolkien, whom I often refer to as "He-Who-Couldn't-Write-A-Female-Character-If-His-Life-Had-Depended-On-It."

But what was particularly pathetic today was watching my efforts to defend the medium against the likes of Ebert and Schwarzbaum sabotaged by ... actual readers of comic books. One who purports to be quite familiar with Hellblazer insists that although Keanusteen is not a superhero, Constantine is a superhero film. Another insists that 1960's DC comics are wonderfully written. A third says I completely misread Schwarzbaum's review - she's actually praising comics in it, you see, and the term "comic book movie" is a perfectly accurate term to use for an intellectually fluffy action movie.

Oh, my head hurts!

Oh yeah. Selkie, in your review of the film, you mentioned it gave you a James Ellroy vibe. I kinda felt that too. I've read most of his books, and am a big fan of his work. Any idea when the sequel to "Cold Six Thousand" is coming out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a clue, unfortunately.

What things do "civilians" - especially those who work in some sort of journalistic capacity - say or imply about comics that drive you straight up the wall? For example:

Comics = superheroes, Only superheroes. All comic book superheroes wear costumes, even the ones who aren't actually superheroes.

Comics = shallow stories with unbelievable plots and poor characterizations

Comics = light-hearted, disposable fun for kids. Dialogue must, by law, contain at least one of the following: Ziff! Bam! Pow!

If a movie (etc) is based on a comic book, all ifs flaws stem from the medium of its source material. If it's any good, it's because it has "risen above" the medium.

"I've heard there's good money in comics"

All comics look exactly like they did in Kirby's day, down to the four color pixellated effect. There have been advances in printing technology in all other areas, but not comic books.

This thread inspired by Roger Ebert for desrbiging Constantine as a "superhero film", and by Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly for "The way I see it, if Constantine isn't really going to get serious about the fascinating, thorny Catholicism on which it is so somberly grounded, then it's just another comic-book movie, and it might as well lighten up. "

I have been wondering about the tat's on his forearms - they don't explain it in the movie at all; hell they don't even talk about it then its like WTF?  So can someone please explain that to me - is that even something he has in the comics or is that another bastardization of the movie?

 

Thanks all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome, mrmaiden666. Glad to have you aboard.

I'd wager to say no one has any clue about those tattoos - they're most definitely not an element from the comic, and the movie certainly doesn't bother to explain why they're necessary to summon Gabriel.

I don't see how a sequel can be anything but good for the comic, regardless of whether one enjoyed the first movie. If there's a sequel, there's that much more reason for Vertigo and its corporate masters to continue to support the title. Do you think we would have gotten All His Engines or Rare Cuts without the movie release? Look at the support the movie studio has given this site and board. I spend quite a bit of time at a very large pop culture board - with a membership many, many times this one - and I've been fielding questions about reading and buying the comics from Hellblazer newbies and returning fans who haven't picked up the title in years. Will that type of interest result in a big boost in sales? No idea, but it sure can't hurt.

And remember, in the second movie, Chaz will be dead. Angelic-or-halfbreed, but dead. That's got to be an improvement.

Well John's already found redemption and given up the cancersticks at the end of 1, by the time the final credits roll on 2 he'll probably be a member of the clergy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One word: backsliding. No way even MovieJohn's going to play by the rules and keep his soul sparkly white.

So, supposedly, our black haired Constantine lives in the world of Christianity. However, as a failed Catholic/athiest I noticed a great many things that were well, really stupid.

 

1. The ending. What the **** was that? Apparently, if you sacrifice yourself, God gives you a get into heaven for free card. Riiigght. Wasn't Gabirel just explaining how good deeds don't cancel out bad-ones?

That's what I thought at first too. Then I got to wondering: what if John's "I know I'm not welcome in your house ... but I need a little help here" fell under the belief clause mentioned by Gabriel in the earlier scene (All He asks is the usual: belief, self-sacrifice"). If so, that request wasn't enough to get God to intervene - which is why Constantine wound up invoking the devil - but perhaps enough that, when coupled with his selfless act, was sufficient for God to keep him out of hell.

2. And the stupid little set-up they have. "I killed myself when I was a kid, but the para-medics or somthing brought me back. Now I have to go to hell when I die, no ifs ands or buts." If he's still alive he could still be forgiven!! Go to a ****ing conessional booth, the priest will say some ****ing words and you're good as gold. The fact that he's not dead is a pretty big indicator he didn't actually kill himself anyway!!! The soul doesn't leave the body until you're dead. Gone. Kaput. The little ****ing techincality set-up, upon which the whole film is based is TOTAL NON-SENSE.

The movie clearly states that he does, in fact, die for two minutes before being brought back by the paramedics. Why God wouldn't then accept his repentance once he's back among the living is a little shakier to me, but it might easily fall under the heading of his repentance not being sufficiently sincere. Without contrition, any words he might say to a priest would still be meaningless.

3. They mentioned something about Gabriel being a half-breed. Why? I have no idea.

I think this is a case where attempting to cling to the source material after changing some fundamental premises backfired. If full angels can't come onto the earthly plane of existence, but you want to keep Gabriel (as written in the comics) in the movie, the only real choice is to make him/her a "half-breed."

4. The demon Mammon is NOT the devil's son, he's the lord of greed and hunger.

Not in a position to judge, but unless there's something in the earthly Bible that directly prevents it, I think this could easily be explained away as a detail present only in the Satanic version of the text.

5. What the hell was the whole set-up about the acolypse anyway? "if you bring the spear of destiny and an angel together with a psychic impreganted with Son of Satan, the apolypse will take place!" That doesn't make any damn sense!

Does that make any less sense than any of a variety of Christian doctrines?

6. Why would a bible written by the devil contain a section devoted to Paul's letter to the Corinithians?

Why not? I thought the movie set up pretty well that the Satanic bible is the earthly bible, with additional chapters and verses.

7. That whole balance thing. Total mumbo-jumbo. And really quite un-neccesary.

I thought it was an essential part of the set-up, and I rather liked it. Without God and the Devil being equals, the victor of their little wager was predetermined, and with a predetermined winner there's not much room for conflict. By setting up the wager between God and the Devil, the movie establishes quite nicely why any form of sincere repentance to God is beyond Constantine's ability: he's in a position to recognize that God is a genuine A-grade asshole not worthy of worship or adoration.

8. Did they ever even saying what the supposed half-breeds were?<snip> Why the term half-breed then?

Constantine says "half-breed" is a term of his own devising to describe beings which are not angels or demons who can walk the earthly plane and influence behavior, but are still bound by the wager that prevents direct contact. I don't like the term either, and wish they'd picked a better one.

Want other nitpicks?

9. Why does the Devil ask Constantine what he wants, after he's disposed of Mammon? Constantine never entered into a reciprocal agreement: "Look, I'll tell you where Gabriel, Mammon, and the Spear of Destiny are, if you'll give me something in exchange." There's no reason for the Devil not to say "Thanks for the tip, Johnny boy. Off to hell with us both." He knows John ins a con artist - why would he open up the slightest possibility that he would be tricked? I think this is another occasion where a scene from "Dangerous Habits" was used that, without its original context, doesn't quite work.

10. How does Constantine figure out that Gabriel's involved with Mammon's entry into this world? I thought that came out of left field, but may have missed a vital clue.

11. Why does Angela get the call when the priest dies? As best as I can tell, she's on leave after the shooting and her sister's death. In addition, why would she be contacted when, as far as anyone at the precinct would know, he wasn't involved with anything she was working on.

11a. Even with Angela there, why why WHY would the cops let Constantine muck about with the body??

Inca-I'm not sure if this applies to other countries besides America, but in America if you live with someone, change your name to their last name, and sign at least one piece of legal documentation with that name, it means that you are legally married!

I believe it's called "Common Law Marriage".....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the rules regarding common law marriage differ from state to state, but AFAIK there's not even a legal requirement to change your name, let alone sign a document. Speaking as someone who did legally change her name for reasons unrelated to marriage, I can say the judges grill you pretty hard about why you want to change your name, and if someone said it was because they wanted to declare a common law marriage, I'll bet judicial eyebrows would be raised and there'd be a decent chance they wouldn't permit the name change.

An ex of mine was never legally married, but did get a legal divorce from a common law marriage because it was advantageous for both of them when they split up. At one time, in Illinois, to have a common law marriage you had to live together for six months, sleep together, and act like a couple in front of the neighbors. That is, if you WANTED your arrangement to be considered common law marriage at some future point; if you had what could be construed as a common law marriage at one time, but went onto a new partner, the state wasn't going to arrest you for bigamy or anything.

OH I can't wait till I read something that you have had lesiure to write. Your tired, is other peoples unreachable goal, says I.

 

And like I said, I really wanted the opinion of a person I knew somewhat of. You address the points that matter to me. Three Cheers for Selkie, Hipp hip !.

 

Excellent review, selkie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

8-)

Any other aspects you'd like me to discuss? I really should talk about Rachel Weisz and the myriad ways the film gets her shirt wet, or why I wasn't as thrilled with either Tilda Swinton or Peter Stomare's performances as the critics seem to be.

It is the whole " Even our scoundrel hero comes to God, in the end " , you naughty European Athiests, Hollywood has your number, attitude that I really resent.

FWIW, that aspect wasn't as strong as the reviews make it sound, and I say that as an atheist who loathes the Christian mores that tend to slip into American films. Constantine isn't repentent even in extremis, and he winds up en route to heaven solely through an unselfish act, not a "Come to Jesus" moment in which he suddenly thinks God is a swell guy. (More on that in a moment) Although the events of the movie at the very end set him into a dynamic where he has to be a "good boy" to avoid hell, one really does get the feeling that won't last long. He's not given much of a choice - it's either go to a suitably unpleasant hell, or try to get into heaven via whatever loophole he can find. God comes across as an asshole, and there's not much of an effort to make him appealing. Most of the angel half-breeds are shown in a positive light, but we don't see much of them so they're not a major factor. For as much as the Christianity on display is overtly Catholic, the film contains a lot of the Baptist and fundamentalist emphasis on avoiding hell, as opposed to seeking heaven.

One of the things that I don't think the movie handled as consistently as it should have was the issue of grace and how a soul makes it into heaven. On the one hand, Constantine is supposedly forever doomed to hell because

he committed suicide

, and nothing he does sincethen can ever erase that sin. All his efforts at doing good are seen as a crass attempt to buy his way into heaven, and those works, without belief (as opposed to knowledge) in God, accomplish nothing. Yet later in the movie, because he later commits a selfless act, he's sudden being conducted into heaven without any sign of a change in faith. Anyone out there in moviegoer land care to explain away the discrepency?

I didn't get anything about Chaz being an angel. He just died.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you stay to watch the scene that appeared after the credits? When Chaz rises from the grave on a pair of angel wings?

SPOILAGE (like anyone cares)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, ChaZ DOES die, but only to become an angel... tsk tsk tsk...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does he become an angel, or was he a half-breed all along? Either way, it's something I wish they'd never brought up.

Speaking of which, where did those damned half-breeds come from? Within the internal logic of the movie, they didn't make much sense.

Glad to see someone else liked the monkeys too. I meant to mention them earlier, but was too tired. Couldn't help but notice the floor number during a crucial scene, and the parking lot section number too.

I live in Malaysia. We had it since Feb 9th.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. Wish I'd known. I would have twisted the arm of my cousin in Malaysia to preview it for me. If nothing else, her howls of outrage would have been fun to hear. :)

It's been out for two weeks?! Where?

FWIW, the theater I was in was much fuller than the average Friday afternoon matinee. I saw a later screening in the day, so it can't necessarily be attributed to a bunch of Hellblazer fans crowding in to make sure they saw the first show.

Ray.

I'll admit biopics aren't usually my bag, but my goddess, it's a biopic of RAY CHARLES! How much more dramatic and interesting a life for a biopic could there be? But for the most part, I wasn't engrossed. I feel guilty for not loving it, and I certainly can't say it's a bad movie, but it lacks some fundamental spark. It was just ... there.

Does Jamie Foxx give the performance of a lifetime? Absolutely yes. Give the man his Oscar right now. The period settings and costumes are amazingly believable, the cast is top notch, and there's an attempt at a non-linear narrative that I give extra points for effort, even if the results weren't always successful. Individually, the elements work. As a whole, there's something missing, and I can't figure out quite what it is.

Thought I was going to have some time tomorrow to write at leisure, but have been informed at an ungodly late hour that tomorrow will not be my own. Please, guys, forgive some rougher than usual writing.

With "movie goer who likes this sort of thing, but has never read Hellblazer" hat on: I liked it, especially through the first two acts. The movie is much slower paced than one might expect, and has an interesting James Ellroy meets Hieronymous Bosch vibe that I quite liked. This L.A. is definitely stylized in a noirish way, which is both a strong and weak point. (We'll focus on the strong for now). For the most part I quite liked the CGI visions of demons and hell; like any effects-heavy movie some elements work better than others, but overall, both sets and CGI get a thumbs up from me (although I can understand why others would absolutely hate them).

Keanu Reeves definitely brings his A-game to the acting, and anyone who suggests he wasn't trying his damndest deserves a good slap (Actually, the same is true for everyone involved. Whatever the film's faults, it wasn't for lack of obvious effort). I think the filmmakers kept him looking a little too baby-faced throughout, especially because it seems that no matter what happens to him, he's incapable of being physically bruised or bloodied, but that's certainly not the actor's fault. To the extent I think someone as young and pretty as he is is capable of looking world weary and cynical, he did it.

Young Chaz? Ouch, but again, not the actor's fault. I have no idea how old Shia LaBeouf is in real life, but he looked only about 15 throughout the film. Both my companions and I commented that he didn't look old enough for a driver's permit. His character serves as a plot point more than a full-fledged character, but again, the actor was clearly trying to bring something to an anemic role.

The plot? On its own terms, it works more than it doesn't. Yes, there are some lapses in logic, but I thought the script was tighter than the average Hollywood effects film. There's plenty to pick apart if one's so inclined, but it's not a gaping mess. The "water as a conduit between planes of existence" bit didn't work at all well to me, and resulted in some many close-ups of bare feet that I started to wonder who on the crew had a foot fetish. There was certainly some cringe-inducing dialogue, but this aspect was better than I expected after seeing the trailer.

I thought the third act, when Ellroy/Bosch turns into a generic action film that relied heavily on gadgets, was a victim of the average action movie cliches, and that was where disappointment set in. Almost all those scenes from the trailers and commercials that have given us pause? Third act, every one. The devil's motivation at a crucial point was particularly inexplicable. At least there wasn't the usual "hero gets the girl" ending, for which I breathed a sigh of relief. The after-the-credits scene left all three of us wondering about what should have been a key plot point, and I almost wish I hadn't seen it.

OK, Hellblazer hat on. Better than we'd feared, but not a Hellblazer movie. I originally hoped that this movie would be so far divorced from Hellblazer that I could easily separate the two, as with I, Robot. That didn't happen, with mixed results.

There were a lot of nods and plot elements borrowed from Original Sins and Dangerous Habits. Beforehand, I would have guessed that stew would have been unpalatable at best, but in fact most of the time they worked very well. I particularly enjoyed the nod to Mnemoth, which was handled in a visually clever manner.

Earlier in this too-long review I commented that the stylized atmosphere was both a strong point and a weak one. Here's why: one of the elements I like best about Hellblazer is the injection of the superhnatural in perfectly mundane objects and settings. With a film this stylized, most of the time nothing is mundane, and that opens the way to the reliance on objects, from. One often felt that anyone could do magic, if only they had access to the "stuff." I greatly prefer a mage whose power stems from knowledge and will rather than holy relics.

The element I think Hellblazer fans will object to most strongly has already been discussed here and elsewhere: Constantine's motivation and attitude toward God and heaven. I love the idea of someone who has absolute evidence of the existence of God and the Devil, and dislikes them both. There are elements of that present in the film, but for the most part, John's motivation is to get into heaven to avoid hell, not to kick God in the teeth as he so richly deserves.

Lots more to say, but I'm so tired I'm starting to see double. Will catch up with you guys later.

Looks like I'm going to be one of the lone dissenters: I liked it. I didn't love it, and it's not much of a Hellblazer film, but an an occult noir it's not bad. Well, it's not bad for the first 2/3. Once the holy shotgun heralds the beginning of the action portion, all bets are off.

When I'm less exhausted I'll post an in-depth review, if anyone's interested.