What surprised me was that 'Constantine' actually dealt with Christian themes, and whether or not John Constantine should be a Christian, though it was never explicitly said in the film, was the main dilemma of the film. Was it done in a Hollywood way where moral issues were represented by special effects and things blowing up? Sure. But, still, it was definitely there and, what's more, kind of encouraged people to be Christians if they wanted to avoid a Hell that was very present on the screen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
**possible mild spoilers**
I think the theology was severely lacking - the wager aspect, for one. It wasn't until the end that the possibility of redemption was even broached, and Gabriel contradicted herself from what she said earlier to Constantine.
It also seemed to postulate an equivalence between God and (Edit: Satan), without making it clear one is the Creator of the other.
Edit: The problem wasn't that it disagreed with "acceptable" doctrine, but that it didn't seem to present a unified, consistent version of the universe envisioned by the author.
Dagonee
[ February 25, 2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I liked it. Never read Hellblazer anything, but it seemed well done. And I was inpressed with the concepts and how they dealt with them. I have to say, though, my favorite part was the holy brass knuckles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. If merely being Christian keeps people out of Hell in the movie, they really missed the point of the comic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, by no means do I say it was, or attempted to be, a 'Christian' movie that was based on sound, or consistent, Christian doctrine.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
OK,please put up a spoiler alert..I want to see this, but now I know some things I wish I didn't...one of the few problems with reading so fast...
By the time I realized I didn't want to know any of that, I had already finished it. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, did you post that before I added the last sentence? That one summed up my principle artistic problem with the movie.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Tom, out of curiosity, what was the point of the comic?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, after.
I was kind of nervous typing up the initial post that I would be seen as saying that this was a Christian movie that obeyed Christian doctrine. I tried to, in my post, say that it was a Hollywoodized version, or view, of Christianity. So, my point in my last post was to clarify that I agreed with you and wasn't saying in my initial post that this was was a movie consistent with Catholic/Christian doctrine. For instance, I assume 'the spear of destiny' is not a common part of what's taught to Catholics.
I'm not saying this is a great movie. Could it have been consistent with doctrine? Maybe. My question is, would it have made the movie 'better'? I don't see it.
I am going to guess that adhering to doctrine would make this movie a liability. If it's clearly adhering to Christian/Catholic doctrine, then some might take the way it presents other things as attempts to skewered Catholicism or Christianity. So, really, you can't win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The point of the comic: John Constantine is an addict. He is addicted to magic, even more than the power it brings; life without magic seems boring and insipid. Unfortunately, his inability to avoid dabbling in magic has occasionally caused him to enter into very questionable contracts with very nasty people, and has also earned him some extremely powerful enemies. Despite this, he's managed to survive largely thanks to a certain amount of cynicism coupled with a genuinely commanding personality.
He skirts the edge of the Christian mythos precisely because, in the Vertigo universe, the Christian mythos is by no means the only one out there. In the Vertigo line, there are multiple gods, multiple hells, and even multiple worlds; the comic Lucifer, which used to run in the same universe until Lucifer actually made his own sandbox, explores this theme more completely. God, in Hellblazer, is exactly as powerful as the human imagination has been able to make Him. He's probably the creator of this universe -- the Vertigo line steals enough Christian symbolism that this is strongly suggested -- but it's also clear that He doesn't run all the universes out there, and for that matter has no interest in doing so. (One of the current plot themes in a couple of the Vertigo books right now is the ramifications of the discovery that God just recently abandoned His creation, which is now falling apart without His attention; the comic Lucifer appears to be setting up Elaine, Lucifer's daughter (and technically the anti-Christ, although the comic renders that kind of thing meaningless), to reluctantly take over the reins to avoid letting everything descend into ruin.)
So if the film has a fundamentally Christian viewpoint, it has been substantially altered from the comic, which is fundamentally blasphemous in both tone and concept.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To Storm: Yeah, I just don't think the rules it presented were self-consistent. It's not that the rules we heard about directly contradicted, but that the overarching defining principle didn't seem to be there.
[ February 21, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Thanks, Tom. I wouldn't say that the film is fundamentally Christian, however. It doesn't seem to take on the wide scope you described, or maybe just takes a bit of a different perspective. I don't know how to be more specific without giving anything away, so I'll just leave it alone from here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Who was it that typed up previous comments on Constantine? I can't remember, but I liked his quote of, I think it was Faulkner's comments on his books. "There they are, unchanged."
I am not a huge fan of Hellblazer for reasons I already discussed in another thread and that haven't changed after the last four or five issues of Hellblazer. So, while I respect the fact that the movie differs significantly from the comic, it just doesn't matter to me.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Being unfamiliar with the comic, my main concern was basic aesthetic of the movie--simply put, it was very pretty. However, the plot was pretty insipid. I enjoyed K'nunu's acting, but I though Rachel Weisz was kind of weak.
It was a decent night out at the movies--I like a movie I can talk about. It didn't bowl me over; I think they were going for some semi-spiritual epic on in the vein of the Matrix. Clearly, upsetting the faithful comic reader is not a good way to build credibility.
I am really looking forward to learning more about Batman.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
More importantly, I don't think the movie is going to make people not like the comic book and anything that brings more people into comics is good.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, Batman looks great and Sin City looks even better. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I liked it fine. The writing was suprising good. Technically, it would have made a nice three act little play.
Not a real spoiler: My favorite scene was Wiesz talking about how she denied her sister's visions and the visions went away. I thought that a powerful scene done subtly. In fact, that scene saved the entire movie for me. It's amazing how one scene can hold a story together and save it at the same time. There is no big reveal that happens, but it does lend depth to the story. Getting one scene right can fix all of the other excesses.
[ February 21, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
That is a good scene. I like RW usually, but I think she was wrong for this role. Det. Dodson is somewhat unwashed, and I think RW's perfect diction was a huge impediment to her.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree that that was a nice scene.
I also liked Peter Stormare as the Devil.
And Tilda Whatsername as the halfbreed angel.
[ February 21, 2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
I thought Mr. Reeves acting was awful, and it spoiled a lot of the movie for me.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I've read two Hellblazer TPBs, and yeah, the movie is pretty far from the comics.
What they did nail nicely was the magic. In most stories, it's a deus ex machina light show that makes everything better. On another board, someone described Hellblazer/Constantine magic as "McGuyver meets Gandalf." The use of magic in this universe seems very ad-hoc and uncertain - though more so in the books.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, bunbun reminded me we got to see the Batman Begins trailer (the full one, not the teaser) with all his training. Looks way cool. I hope those training scenes aren't just a montage, but actually developed somewhat. Several of his trainers make appearances in the comics, such as his training with the guy who ends up being an assasin. It'd be nice if they laid the groundwork early for that kind of thing.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I want to see Angels!!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Did anyone else see the casting of Tilda Swinton as Gabriel as a nod toward the supposed (by some) androgyny of angels? Or did everyone except me just think of Gabriel as "she" because of the casting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was a deliberate nod, I'm sure.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I think the name kind of makes people lean more towards male, but I always thought that Gabriel, whether male or female, was supposed to be very "pretty." Casting a somewhat masculine-looking female and binding her chest, but putting her in those pants does inspire one to contemplate the possible androgyny of angels.
Basically, yeah. What you said.
[Edit for idiot grammar]
[ February 22, 2005, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: fiazko ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Karl, I noticed it, primarily because the first time they showed Gabriel,my immediate thought was, "Is Gabriel supposed to be male or female?"
I thought it was kind of cool, actually.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm with Irami. It was a good film, with plenty of quiet moments, and I really don't know why so many people are down on Keanu. He did fine.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think the thing with Keanu is that he is always exactly the same (i.e., he doesn't seem to have much range in terms of character types). If it's a character that fits his style, we love it! (cf. Matrix, Speed, Constantine, etc.). If not...not so much. He's not the only actor I think is like this; Kevin Costner springs to mind.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I actually found Tilda Swinton so striking, and the question of whether or not she was actually a hermaphrodite so intriguing, that I googled around for some other photos of her to see if she had breasts. She does. So, apparently they edited out the breasts, which I think is really cool on their part, since everyone knows angels are asexual.
[ February 22, 2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Megan, I've long thought that about Keanu. Others on the list of "Actors very good at playing themselves" would be Julia Roberts, and Tom Hanks. Until very recently I had Tom Cruise on that list, but he's actually begun to show a little range, I think.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I would have switched the Toms there myself Karl, but otherwise I agree.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Also Jon Stewart.
In the "why is Constantine dark-haired, American, and layerless" discussion, it occurred to me that James Marsters could do this character easily.
Now I want to see that version.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hehe. THAT would be interesting.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Had the same thought. SOunds like he would be tailor-made for the role.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Random impressions:
*I liked the story much more than the acting, but I loved the chemistry between Constantine and Angela.
*I thought there were some great lines like, "You don't have faith; you know. There's a difference." and "Hi Lou, what took you so long?"
*Whether or not the movie is Christian seems a question that is wide of the mark. I think that a better question would be whether or not the movie is Catholic since it seems to lean so heavily on the themes from that particular brand of Christianity.
*I've always been a big fan of Goethe's Faust and enjoyed revisiting the theme. That God has a son is assumed, the idea of the Devil having a son seems a nice device to ensure the balance and personify the players.
****Spoiler****
*Gabriel was just plain scary to me. Is Gabriel depicted as a self-righteous lunatic in the Catholic doctrines?
[ February 24, 2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
No, but he is in the comics. He's sort've a sunnuvabitch. For instance, the conception of Christ isn't portrayed as so "miraculous" in Hellblazer. In the comics, Gabriel stoically raped a weeping Mary behind the carpenter shack. In the books, no side is entirely right. Both have their faults.
He gets his own in the end. But you don't feel good about it.
Whilst I agree that Keanu is good in his roles, I don't think Constantine should've been one tailored for him. You'd really have to strip the character down just to find an actor to make some money.
[ February 23, 2005, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow. Just got back from watching it.
Very cool. The sound in the theater was turned way down though.. could hardly understand what they said half the time.
But anyway, SUPER cool!
I'm a big fan of Archangel Gabriel, bringer of the last great song and all that... I was sad to see him as kinda evil!
Hehe... but when he sees Lucifer was great! "YOU! The Unclean One! For the honor of Him I shall smite you down!" Classic.
"The Prophacy" also shows Gabriel as evil too. What's with the trend of having the greatest of all angels as a baddie? Is it because of the whole old idea of Lucifer being number one and then leading a rebelion? What about Archangel Michael? Aren't Michael and Gabriel the two cousuls of Heaven, changing ruling authority every couple thousand years or so?
I also liked how they brought in the Lance of Longinus. VERY nice. And I'm glad they showed us a glimpse of Heaven and the Holy City. Yay! Their protrayle of the Devil was super neat as well. So horrible and evil that even his fair guise was nasty.
Two thumbs up!
[ February 23, 2005, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Was that the actual archangel Gabriel? I'm pretty sure they make it clear in the movie that the halfbreeds are the only agents of Heaven and Hell that exist on our plane.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Haven't seen the film yet. But in the comic, it is indeed the actual archangel Gabriel. Of course, in the comic, the idea of a "halfbreed" is kind of nonsense in the first place.
[ February 23, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:It also seemed to postulate an equivalence between God and Savior, without making it clear one is the Creator of the other
Um . . . dag? You’re not suggesting that Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ was created, are you?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
quote:Um . . . dag? You’re not suggesting that Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ was created, are you?
Nope - that "Savior" was supposed to be "Satan." Big Oops - I'm going to go back and edit it, but I'm not denying I said it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow. I have perceived the Onion AV to be fairly elitist in their reviews. That's actually a very evenhanded, fair review, though I don't really agree with it. As was mentioned previously, Keanu did fine.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
A quick questions for the Christians here:
*SPOILER*
In the scene where they were at the hospital, they put a cross in the water supply and that was (I'm guessing) supposed to turn the regular water into holy water...
I'm a bit confused by that. From what little I know about the subject, doesn't it have to be blessed by a priest to become holy water?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This cross was one of two that supposedly can bless any water by mere contact. So the movie is acknowledging that in general, more is needed to bless water, but presenting this as a "shortcut." It's in keeping with the magical nature of the movie, but there's no real corollary in traditional Christian folklore that I'm familiar with.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well hey, at least they acknowledge Roman Catholicism as the true Mother Church of Christianity.
[ February 27, 2005, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You know why I liked that scene. I like the story of Peter denying Jesus three times by the third crow of the cock.
I think it's rich, and there was something about the way Weisz's character denied her sister's dreams that reminded me of Peter.
[ March 01, 2005, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I just saw the movie last night and was confused by the last scene with his apprentince.
Is he a double half breed? Is he still alive?
[ March 11, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What? The apprentice?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
The guy who drove him everywhere.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
He is dead.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
I liked the apprentice alot--he was really funny. His death caught me. We should have had more of that guy!
Eve
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, he's d-e-d dead.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
But then why did he jump in the sky like that?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
And why did he have wings and red glowing eyes?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Does anyone even know what I'm talking about?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
MEC, he got possessed by the Devil's son and killed. That's all.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
But then why in the end did he come out of his grave with angel wings and glowing red eyes and jump into the sky?
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
The apprentice was killed by Gabriel actually, the angel was invisible which is why Constantine used that weird spell thingie to make her visible.
He killed him while he was invisible. No clue why the apprentice became an angel, I'm sorry to say I didn't stick around to watch the end of the credits for this one.
By the way, first post here!
[ March 13, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Rico ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
MEC, when did this jumping into the sky thing occur? I don't remember it.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
After the credits:
It shows Constantine going up to the kid's grave. Then Constantine places his lighter on the grave and says "you did good, kid". And then when he's walking away wings suddenly apear and then you see behind him that it is the kid, the kid's eyes glow red, then he jumps into the air, and constantine smirks.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)