Constantine (2005) by The Critical Movie Critics

Movie Review: Constantine (2005)


Ok, I’ll admit it, I went into Constantine thinking it was a pile of horseshit. Everyone I knew (and their mothers) claimed this movie sucked ass. “Shit movie,” and “Keanu Reaves can’t act,” are a few of the remarks I’ve heard. Although I can’t argue the latter opinion, I make a case on the first. In a nutshell, I liked the movie. I like movies about good and evil, Heaven and Hell . . . that supernatural shit has always piqued my interest.

The story is adapted from a DC comic book, “HellBlazer” (what movie isn’t from a comic these days), and chronicles a ‘soldier’ who fights against the hordes of Hell.

Constantine starts off interestingly enough, with Constantine exorcising a young girl of a soldier demon who is trying to cross over to our plane of existence. Of course the soldier demon is CGI and quite frankly the CGI in this movie was awful. I think I could have done a better job with a pint of vodka and a Commodore 64 (remember those?).

The movie goer is drawn throughout the supernatural story at a robust pace, there isn’t any overly romantic parts, although I did like the scene when Constantine is thinking about having Angela disrobe. The action is sprinkled throughout the film in just the right amount and doesn’t bog down the overall plot of the movie. I wasn’t overly pleased when it was revealed who the person was causing all the problems. It just seemed too obvious to me. I did especially like Peter Stormare who played Satan. He had a small part at the end of the flick, and I wish I had seen more of him, as it was clear he was enjoying the role.

Overall, Constantine was an enjoyable movie to watch. Keanu Reeves has only one facial expression but He uses it well in this role (he used it well in the Matrix trilogy too). The CGI graphics were shit, but who knows, perhaps Hell and Hellspawn really does look that pathetically bad. I’ll let you know when I get there.

Critical Movie Critic Rating:
4 Star Rating: Good

4

Movie Review: Hide and Seek (2005)
Movie Review: Elektra (2005)


The Critical Movie Critics

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.


'Movie Review: Constantine (2005)' have 17 comments

  1. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 2, 2005 @ 2:38 pm Nashtradamus

    “Constantine” remains tediously in between what could have made it good and what could of made it horrible, resulting in an uneven, half-baked motion picture that has its moments, just not enough of them to construct an overall success.
    The basic premise of the story and the first 15 minutes or so of the movie were intriguing. The movie started off with a bang (a tense exorcism) and set the stage for what seemed to be a potentially dramatic, action-packed metaphysical thriller, but soon began to lose it’s steam and any build up of suspense, interest, or logic due to constant detours into senseless/mindless violence with CGI special effects.
    It’s hard to say whether this is the fault of the script or the casting of Keanu Reeves, but in any case, the performance can become a bit of a bore. Rachel Weisz as the spiritually curious Angela Dodson is fine, as is Tilda Swinton playing the devious angel Gabriel, but I think the best performance award in this particular film goes to Peter Stomare, who plays the role of Satan quite well- the best Satanic performance since Al Pacino’s in “The Devil’s Advocate”.
    After watching “Constantine” though, it’s hard to tell where its fan base lies. It doesn’t have enough action in it to sustain the attention of the under 12 crowd; even though it has some frightening moments or elements rather, the horror junkies won’t get their fill, and those seeking adventure will find a movie that has only outbursts of energy that is otherwise muddled by scenes of tedium. Fans of the graphic novels are the only ones I can think of who will, without a doubt love this movie, but even then, I’m unaware of how well adapted the film is because I’ve never read the source material.
    I was disappointed with Constantine’s struggle to find redemption. It lacked a true sense of drama or suspense. Bottom line this movie was yawn out loud interesting and however I slice and dice this movie, I can’t go beyond a C-.

  2. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 3, 2005 @ 8:02 am G. Siskel

    Holy shit! Maybe you should be doing the reviews!
    I tend to agree with you that the segues into the CGI realm could have been minimized a bit more. The lack of realism of the CGI caused me to lose focus on the story, as I paid more attention to the seemingly rushed, ill-conceived graphics.
    As for the casting of the movie, I tend to think these are the kinds of movies Keanu Reeves was meant to be a part of. He has little emotional range, and this lends well to playing a focused, brooding type of character.
    I too would be interested to hear the comments from individuals who were/are fans of the original comic books. I tend to think the movie strayed from the material, and why not, as there are countless ways to draw up a Heaven vs. Hell plot…
    As I stated previously, the downfall of the movie was its’ heavy reliance on computer graphics to portray Hell and hellspawn. It would have done itself a greater service to minimize the high tech sh*t and focus more on the internal struggles of Constantine.

  3. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 4, 2005 @ 8:54 am Nashtradomus

    I’m glad you noticed my special skills with words.
    As for blaming the movie for ill-conceived CGI and hence the outcome of the movie, well my thinking is that even if it had some great special effects, this movie could not be saved if it did not have a good story and cast to support it. I liked Keanu as Neo than Constantine.

  4. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 4, 2005 @ 6:33 pm G. Siskel

    I would have rated the moviw better had the CGI been better. A hefty portion of the movie is CGI based and thus more care should have been taken to ensure the final product was more realistic.
    The storyline of the movie wasn’t hurt by the CGI…the presentation of the movie was.

  5. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 8, 2005 @ 5:42 pm Nashtradomus

    My verbage in my previous post have been misconstrued, I actually meant presentation when saying good story. The essence for a movie to be a success is according to my infinite wisdom is a good story, good cast, presentation which includes acting, special effects, music etc. etc and last but not the least some oomph and hot chicks. With the following said, I wonder how does Constantine rate against those ingredients. I suppose none of the above fits aptly. I rest my case now saying Constantine was a disaster waiting to happen.

  6. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 9, 2005 @ 7:08 am G. Siskel

    Aha!
    Constantine had a good story with a good cast…you can always make an arguement that Keanu Reeves is a poor actor, but he does admittedly fit these types of parts well.
    Rachel Weisz can be construed as a hot chick, although there were simply too many close up shots giving the viewer a microscopic view of all the pores in her face.
    I’d also argue the movie was full of “oomph”. Had plenty of action that supported the storyline.
    As stated before, the failing grade comes from the movies’ reliance on unbelievable CGI.
    Therefore, the movie has earned its’ two piles of sh*t…

  7. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 10, 2005 @ 11:11 am Nashtradomus

    When do we get off this binge?
    My argument with Keanu Reeves in this movie is the wooden nature of his acting. He cannot seem to get away from “Bill and Ted” persona which usually is “whoa dude…thats like”.
    I have to disagree with R.Weisz as someone under the category of a hot chick. I cannot look beyond the fact that she is good looking and nothing more. Well if you want to mention anything about her, it might be her accent.
    I fail to see where there was “plenty” of oomph. If you call the little bathroom scene as oomph, well I would like to point out at what part of that scene did you see any glimpse of her pointed ends?
    The action parts in this movie was marginal and needs to be called as squeamish. There were some gore effects, which was basically some f’ed up CGI which at best is classified mediocre. This film stands tall at the pedestal of my feet for “split” second.

  8. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 10, 2005 @ 7:28 pm G. Siskel

    Rachel Weisz can be counted as a top-tier chick. Ever see “The Mummy” or “Beatiful Creatures”? Constantine is a dark movie, so her looks were purposefully downplayed.
    Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning of “oomph”. I’ve never used that word to describe sexual moments. Agreed, there wasn’t much “oomph”, as you so elequently put it. If there was, I think it would have taken away from the movies’ purpose.
    And finally, I think we can put to rest the notion that Keanu Reeves attended his Acting 101 classes. We both are clear he didn’t. My point is that this is the only type of movie he excels at. Little emotional range is needed to play a part like Constantine (or Neo)…

  9. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 14, 2005 @ 10:55 am Nashtradomus

    I did watch “The Mummy”, both 1 and 2. I thought she was sexy and good looking, but nothing on the levels, we are talking about. She absolutely cannot be considered red hot much less for being hot. Having said that, have you watched “Chain Reaction”? Whats your take on her in that one.
    You might be right that Keanu Reeves fits best in those dark brooding sort of movies, but then Constantine was an eternal sleepwalking Reeves who I thought would never wake up from his bored, unconvincing state.
    As Neo, he was an all-assault on the senses and a cult presence to him. The best moments on this movie lies in the theatrical trailor.

  10. The Critical Movie Critics

    March 14, 2005 @ 2:19 pm G. Siskel

    The Constantine character was supposed to be portrayed in that manner. He was not convinced about the trials he had to go through. He did not revel in them or attack them in an “all out assault”. He simply did them.
    Rachel Weisz, is indeed a good looking woman. Perhaps, however, I overspoke when I put her on the top-tier. She is a mid-tier actress in ability and looks.

  11. The Critical Movie Critics

    June 30, 2007 @ 7:36 am rg

    I rily like Constantine!

  12. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 9, 2008 @ 8:35 am Rock

    I dont like this film . Keanu Reeves still think he is NEO

  13. The Critical Movie Critics

    September 27, 2008 @ 12:20 am Rock

    thanx man,good working

  14. The Critical Movie Critics

    October 7, 2008 @ 1:51 am john

    I like this character. but hellblazer etter than.

  15. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 20, 2009 @ 3:57 pm marko

    If you feel what the character is doing, if he is wooden you say or no emotions, its because that was what was called for. He was differnt in “The Gift” and he sure is different in Bill & Ted.

    If he can make you believe what his is going through while you are watching, he can carry it then.

    We know there are many actors handsome enough but are no longer visible, its because they got no talent.

    Keanu – he can act!

  16. The Critical Movie Critics

    July 22, 2009 @ 11:17 pm Berkay Sozbilir

    Constantine had a really good story with a good cast!
    I like this movie.

  17. The Critical Movie Critics

    July 23, 2009 @ 2:47 am new moon movie

    i really love this movie..and i even forced my dad to buy me a copy of this movie..what i really love in this movie is how Constantine was connected to elements, demons, angels, gods, and even to Lucifer… nice.. i Love Supernatural movies… i hope there’s a sequel for this one… thanks :D

Privacy Policy | About Us

 | Log in

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger