Wonder Woman is an overrated film

Constantine review

Rating: 4/5

There are certain people who reject the 2005 film Constantine. Not because the film would be bad or because there was a lot of criticism in the finished film, but because Reeves is supposedly wrongly cast, and because this comic adaptation is not an adequate comic adaptation. Well, there is not much you can say about that at first. Reeves is neither British, blonde, nor a hard knock guy in any way, and as far as the accuracy of the comic book adaptation is concerned, when it starts with the main character, I don't really want to know how much has been changed. And in the early days of the golden age of comics, I too stumbled with mixed feelings from many a comic film, knowing full well that the film turned the template into a miserable one, but at least at the time I could be happy that a film would be made at all could. But what I found particularly bad was - you may forgive me - the implementation of Spider-Man 2 by Sam Raimi. It was so close to the original that it really hurt me personally, it was an episode number revue that no longer had anything of its own and didn't work for me as a medium of film. That is why I still do not understand why this cucumber of all things, with the two total misconceptions MacGuire and Dunst, is so popular. And also as far as the film adaptations of my beloved X-Men are concerned, I am very divided, because some things are not accurate there, on the other hand I think the totally stupid and really dubious first Wolverine film is the best, despite "Deadpool". And why is it like that: Although I'm a huge comic fan, my first love is film, and a film has to work as a film, artistic freedom in favor of a more sophisticated dramaturgy - or at least what I perceive as such - are very often okay. Even an Iron Man 1, which I personally consider to be an average Nullinger film at best, is surprisingly accurate in its origin story, while nicely modernizing the rest, so that it works quite well as a film. Which brings us to Constantine: Since I'm not really familiar with the source material, apart from a few excursions, I didn't care about the acuracy, does the film work as such?

Keanu Reeves is already a strange anomaly in Hollywood Olympus, early action star honors with Dangerous Surf (the significantly more ambivalent and better film than the repentant Feelgood Trash copy Fast and Furious) and speed, he dived again and again because he either pursued his music career, shone in some independent films or supporting roles (I love you to death in the Congenial Duo with William Hurt, for example) or simply repeatedly showed a lousy choice of roles. There were always doubts about his acting talent, which he could easily refute again and again because he did not go down against such house numbers as deNiro or Pacino. And whenever he was evidently going into hiding, he reappeared, for example because a certain Will Smith decided against the Matrix.

At one of the many highlights of his career, he also made Constantine, a film about a man who has the supernatural as a profession. I don't want to tell you much about the story now, even if it's not that stupid, it's the production that we should be talking about.

On the one hand, Francis Lawrence avails himself in abundance and very bluntly in the stock of horror films that have been shot up to then, about exorcists, omens, all the great films and whatever their name may be. But he always does it so casually and nonchalantly that it doesn't bother you that much, but makes you happy about the short episode. In addition, he manages to generate a threatening all-encompassing aura, something that should actually be the be-all and end-all in horror / scary films, but is now very often forgotten, and although the film is clearly arranged as a crowdpleaser, and therefore not a bit open an R-Rating is cross-eyed, it is still pleasantly hard without being explicit. That alone is almost a feat. But it doesn't stop there, Lawrence and his cameraman arrange the camera settings and image compositions so that on the one hand they could be borrowed from comics, on the other hand they look as stylish as possible and ultimately just as cool (this is partly reminiscent of Neo Noirs of the 1960s, the Matrix films and with cutbacks in a few settings that even a Scorsese could have used). In addition, the film builds up a tremendous tension up to the last third, which unfortunately then cannot be completely maintained, but the film still never descends into a real hole or valley. In addition, everything is so stylish to the point, as it was very seldom the case in the USA at the time. In terms of chic, we are almost at the South Korea level of those years.

The whole thing is carried by the absolutely overwhelming presence of a Keanu Reeves who is at the absolute peak, who is able to convince both physically and cynically. He is supported by Rachel Weisz, who is usually totally overrated in my eyes, but despite her background story she conjures up an outstanding chemistry with Reeves on the screen. If there is one (or two) actresses who are considered a dream couple with Reeves, it is definitely sandra Bullock (Speed ​​and the Lake House) or, to a large extent, Theron (this November film and on behalf of the devil) or Winona Ryder, but never Rachel Weisz, even though the two of them have acted together in at least two (of which I know ad hoc) films. And how it sparks again and again between the two of them, that's worth all honors by Reeves standards in action films. That just fits!

Let's get to the supporting roles, let's forget that a young Shia Labeauf is brilliant, that a Tilda Swinton gives the monkey sugar, and and and. who the devil is: Peter Stormare. God, I just like that guy. And his performance is so awesome, so over the top that it is exactly on the point again, the icing on the cake. The icing on the cherry cake. When discussing the big three (Nicholson, DeNiro, Pacino) and their devil performances, it is mostly forgotten that there were also other, sometimes even better, performances. Stormare's version belongs in this pantheon.

All in all, I was quite astonished that this film is still able to pick me up today and that I would actually rate it almost better than I remembered it at the first viewings. I wasn't really aware that the film was actually capable of scary and that it practically pulled through to the end.

To get back to where I started: yes, the film may be a shitty Constantine because it doesn't really appreciate the source material, but no, the film isn't a bad film because it does what it wants: it entertains, it takes with, it tells a befiring story and it remains both coherent and consistent. he also has a lead and a leading actress who carry the film effortlessly. That the film wasn't that successful after all and that there weren't any sequels? I can live with that, Constantine is such a well-completed film.

Not a milestone, but very solid and pretty good, and always worth watching: 8 points

Constantine rating