The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL] http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0360486/trailers [/URL]
Neo/Cardboard actor man's back with what looks like it could be another sleeper hit.
"Still, while Constantine works reasonably well as an energetic effects-fest like Hellboy or Van Helsing, virtually anyone but Reeves would have made a better John Constantine. Swinton is terrific, Holes' Shia LaBeouf makes the most of a thankless role as Reeves' hapless apprentice, and even Weisz at least seems to believe in her character, but Reeves is a wooden icon where the story demands a complex and sympathetic figure. His rigid delivery makes Constantine's occult backstory sound pretentious and silly, and converts Constantine himself into a repressed cipher. The film's biggest revision isn't in not making him blonde, or not making him British. It's in not making him human. "
> All very interesting, but since the film is based upon the comic book
> character John Constantine, calling him anything else wasn't really
> going to happen was it. And I guess it being a comic book adaptation
> kills any vision you had of it being an original story with original
> ideas anyway. :)
Heh. You beat me to it...
Saw a trailer looked alright though im sure it's going to be one of those movies with an appaling ending.
> Ok then. I have come to be rather annoyed with film cliches,
> especially the one with the main character being called John because
> the main character has a tendancy to be a "tough guy" and
> the name John aids this image. Constantine looked to be a smart film
> with an original story and original ideas, that was until I realised
> that the main character was called John. You see where I'm going with
> this yet?
All very interesting, but since the film is based upon the comic book character John Constantine, calling him anything else wasn't really going to happen was it. And I guess it being a comic book adaptation kills any vision you had of it being an original story with original ideas anyway. :)
> It was used appropriately as yours was used during a somewhat serious
> comment.
Did you fully understand my last post?
> 2. Your use of sarcasm in this case was absolutely terrible.
Whereas your's was sublime. How was that?