Constantine

Well, Constantine may be many things, but its hardly a second Matrix. Admittedly, both the visual styling and the intertwining alternative world motifs seem like a good foundation. But Lawrence's film does not have the figurative power of the Wachowski brothers' opus, and even the main idea is communicated too lazily, intermittently, as if trying to camouflage its simplicity. Yes, all those religious discussions are bearable and sometimes interesting, but it simply cannot match the postmodern straightforward power of The Matrix metaphor. But that's the only negative thing I'd point out about Constantine. Otherwise, it is a very entertaining and interesting film in all respects. I quite like the torn concept of Reeves, even though the dark side is hard to believe with his angelic face... But Constantine needed a star. The craftsmanship packaging, including the effects and visuals, is really good and corresponds pleasantly to the story. In the end the final gradation and a hint of twist outweighed my complete impression and the good side. A four-star spectacle with a hopeful, half-open ending. I'm just not sure a sequel would benefit Constantine. (10/02/2006)

The series about a guy named Constantine is not among the most famous comic book projects (at least in mass pop culture). Therefore, the vast majority of viewers got acquainted with this (anti) hero only in movie form and can appreciate the dark world of film comics and the cynical one-liners of the casual exorcist. Such viewers will feel that it is almost an "underground" film that goes against established stereotypes of film characters and stories. It is typical for this concept to compare it not with the literary original, but with the Matrix trilogy, and thanks to Keanu Reeves, Constantine is compared to Neo. Which is, of course, a mental mistake. For a minority of viewers familiar with the comics, Constantine will be rather disappointing, because, for understandable commercial reasons, the film went only halfway in portraying the comic book atmosphere. However unlikely it may seem, the comic book is even darker and more cynical, and its humor is more morbid and sarcastic than in the film. But many viewers wouldn't have stood for that. The comic book's purity of style is simply missing. However, Reeves is perfectly suited for his role and Peter Stormare is truly charismatic as the devil. In terms of comic book adaptations, it is definitely a decent film with above-average direction and quality performances. Overall impression: 65% (05/21/2007)

great future prospect in the field of the fantasy genre, but on the whole I found the film overwrought to the point of shame and also terribly uninteresting and slow. Maybe the fact that it's based on a comic book hurt it, because comic book movies have a specific order and attitude that didn't fit this story for me at all. Or maybe it's because I'm not a true connoisseur, as POMO points out in his review, and I wasn’t able to appreciate the film enough the first time. I think the latter option is the more likely :) (10/06/2012)

Constantine is one of those films that you might not fully get into the first time around, but you’ll enjoy it all the more the second time. It draws us into its own world straddling the line between reality and fiction, combined with serious questions of religion from our everyday lives. It is distinctive and intelligent as it cleverly deals with some relatively crazy subject matter. The film’s visual appeal never slides into self-indulgence, the characters are well developed and the actors do a very respectable job. Constantine is not entirely for mainstream viewers, but rather a notable curiosity for connoisseurs. One could almost call it a “big-budget underground” flick. (04/14/2005)

A conman, a joker, a thief, a magician... Well, simply John Constantine. An Englishman from Liverpool, a blue-eyed, cynical, amoral, scruffy-faced blond who is forever shrouded in a cloud of cigarette smoke and, in a mysterious English fog, solves mysterious cases in which he relies on his wits rather than weapons to outsmart (or cheat) almost everyone, from ordinary mortals to the bigwigs of hell. None of the above, however, can be found in this movie adaptation, not even a hint of it. Not in terms of the look or behavior of the main hero, or the location, or the plot, or the action, or anything. And yet that doesn't mean Constantine is a bad movie; it’s not - it's just a bad adaptation. But damn it, of all the "CGI action comic book movies" it is, even years later, one of the best. Everything here is as it should be with a good popcorn movie; it just doesn't have anything of what a good adaptation of “Hellblazer" is supposed to contain. (06/01/2012)