"Constantine" - "It's not always like it is in the books."

I’m pretty loose with my reasons for picking which movies from my collection to write about, but an upcoming concert and a YouTube video I recently watched will have my next few entries a bit more focused. Let me explain. First off, I’m going to see Bush this week (thirteen-year-old me is pumped...hell, thirty-three-year-old me is pretty pumped too...nostalgia!). In case you didn’t know, Gavin Rossdale is the lead singer of Bush, but he also dabbles in acting, and Constantine is his highest profile role. I just felt like watching this again before seeing them live, so I can feel like I’m seeing a band and  Hollywood star at the same time, even if the acting didn’t exactly work out for him.

Second, I went down a YouTube rabbit hole a few days ago and ended up on a video (by one of those movie channels like watchmojo, looper, cinefix, etc.) about critical disappointments that are actually good. As you can guess, Constantine was on there, which surprised me a bit, since I (for no reason in particular) assumed this movie was generally hated/ignored. I saw it as a sign that I must re-watch it and write about it. I also got fuel for a number of future articles, because it turned out I owned most of the movies discussed in the video. So in the next few weeks, expect articles about William Friedkin’s later work (Bug, The Hunted, Rules of Engagement), The Book of Eli, and Knowing. But for now: Constantine...starring Hollywood superstar Gavin Rossdale!

Constantine was a bit of a rarity for me when it came out. It was based on a comic book, but I knew next to nothing about the source material. I’m not much of a comic book guy (I like them, but movies have taken up most of my dork budget), but I’m pretty knowledgeable. Somehow, Hellblazer flew under my radar. So I went into Constantine to see a Matrix-style action movie about angels and demons. I wasn’t disappointed. It didn’t blow me away or anything, but I remember thinking it was overall a cool movie.

Cut to 2018. When I looked for this movie in my collection, I was worried that I had actually sold it years ago because it wasn’t in my comic book movie section. I know I didn’t know the source material, but I even keep Road to Perdition, Ghost World, and A History of Violence next to Thor and The Dark Knight and whatnot. I was relieved (?) when I found it in my sci-fi section. That just shows how little I considered this a comic book movie, which might be why I liked it then, and still like it now. But knowing it’s a comic book movie allowed me to appreciate a few things about it.

For one thing, Constantine is a rated R comic book movie. That was lost on me the first time. Granted, it’s a tame R that by 2018 standards could possibly pass as PG-13, but still. I do wish they had leaned in on the R a bit more and made a truly disturbing film.

The R rating was there to set the tone. This movie is not shy about its influences. The basic equation of it is The Exorcist + The Matrix + Chinatown = Constantine. The first two make sense. Constantine is an exorcist, and Reeves was just coming off The Matrix sequels. But Chinatown? Constantine is mainly a detective film, actually, so Chinatown is a pretty good reference point. The marketing department obviously thought this as one of the posters is very similar to Chinatown’s. It’s an odd combination, but it makes for a pretty interesting film, tonally.

I’m all about tone and world-building (which is why Blade Runner 2049 was my favorite film last year), and Constantine works for me on that level. This movie went so far in creating its underworld that it hardly bothers with the real world. I found that refreshing. Instead of getting twenty to thirty minutes of Rachel Weisz’s character being convinced what was really going on, we get one scene and the movie never looks back. Normally a film of this kind leans on the two world concept for laughs or to show just how different the two worlds are, but Constantine is confident enough in its other world to stay there throughout.

If the visuals and action were a bit more interesting, I would consider this an unappreciated gem. But, especially by 2018 standards, the CG is plain and relied on too heavily. The scenes in Hell are simply uninteresting. The demon design is kind of freaky, but overall those sequences lack imagination. It’s easy to see how director Francis Lawrence ended up making I Am Legend, another promising film with disappointing CG. As for the action...well, there isn’t much, despite the film trying to look like The Matrix. And that’s fine, since the action is a bit too slo-mo heavy anyway. The tone is enough for this movie, if only they did something truly interesting with the visuals. I would have loved to see what they would have done if they needed to use a practical set for Hell.

The surprisingly strong cast makes up for the uninspired visuals and action. Reeves may not look like his comic book counterpart, but he’s comfortable playing a sarcastic prick. Weisz is good, as usual. Shia LaBeouf is only mildly annoying in a sidekick role that is identical to his role in I, Robot, but it makes no sense for him to be in this movie when the source character is an adult who is more equal than sidekick. They should have left the character out entirely, and for a large chunk of the movie, they do just that. Djimon Hounsou is perfectly cast as Midnite, but like Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare, and yes, Gavin Rossdale, he isn’t given enough to do.

That’s my biggest problem with this movie this time around. It seemed like all of these characters had much more to do but got cut down to keep it at two hours. Rossdale, in particular, seems like an afterthought. He turns out to be responsible for the deaths of two of Constantine’s allies, but he has all of two minutes of screen time. I wonder if he was just that bad at acting or if it was to save time. His performance didn’t seem bad. He tends to menacingly whisper more than speak, but he definitely conveyed a demonic smarminess, which, I believe, was the goal.

The supporting roles ended up feeling more like cameos, but I wanted to spend much more time with all of those characters. I didn’t bother watching the deleted scenes on my “deluxe edition” DVD because I can only justify devoting so much time to this movie, but I can only assume these characters had at least one more scene each. If not, they should have.

Speaking of devoting too much time, I’ll wrap this up. Don’t worry, I’ll still do my signature rambling random thoughts for this movie, but I’m going to go back to making that a section I add at the end. I like Constantine, but I don’t know why I bought this. I literally only watched it again because of that YouTube video and because of an impending Bush concert, and I will likely never watch it again. I would sell it, but who would buy it, especially since I lost the mini-Hellblazer comic book that came with it? Oh well, at least I know now that it belongs in my comic book section, not the sci-fi section.

Random Thoughts

“It’s not always like it is in the books.” Keanu says this about halfway through, and I think it is only there for fans in anticipation of the bitching about how he doesn’t look like the comic book character.

There’s a great bit of product placement when Constantine looks at a Chevy billboard soon after getting a cancer diagnosis. The ad reads: “Time is running out...to buy a new Chevy.” First, I wonder if Chevy knew this was going to be the placement and were on board with it. Second, I appreciate product placement that doesn’t hide. Ads exist in the real world; what’s wrong with a character looking at one? That seems more natural than Constantine clearly getting into a Chevy multiple times.

Definitely only own this because it was during my “must buy one DVD a week” phase.

DVD extras really hammer on why Keanu doesn’t look like Constantine. “It just didn’t look right…” What they mean is, “he wouldn’t look enough like Neo.”

Yes, I watched some DVD extras, but I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the promised 18 minutes of deleted scenes.

Producer Laura Schuler Donner claims this was in the pipeline even before the first X-Men (even though this came out five years later) as evidence that they were committed to the story. But I think this movie only exists because of The Matrix.

Richard Corliss compares this to Blade Runner in a blurb on the box! What?!

Had no idea this was Francis Lawrence’s first film. Honestly, it’s quite impressive, both that he was given such a big first film and the overall style of a first-time filmmaker. And I actually think the CG is better in this film than in I Am Legend.

Peter Stormare might be the most interesting version of the devil I’ve ever seen.

Gavin Rossdale’s half-melted face legitimately disgusted me.

I kind of crapped on the film’s CG and whatnot, but there are a couple cool moments. I liked when Constantine chased Rachel Weisz through the building. And bits here and there (grabbing the hospital bracelet as dozens of demons grab him, shining a light to drive off a horde of demons, kicking a crab directly into the camera [seriously, I like that for some reason]) were decent.

Kicking a crab is a good place to stop. Next week: The William Friedkin PTSD Trilogy - Rules of Engagement, The Hunted, and Bug.

"The Hunger Games," the Young Adult Franchise That Ended Up Being a Very Dark Treatise on the Effects of War, Comes to Fitting Conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

The Hunger Games series has been a pleasant surprise (both the books and films) because it started out as a knockoff of Battle Royale but ended up becoming a meditation on war and revolution. The final two parts, while too blatant in their message, do not glory in the war, but rather analyze it. The first part was about propaganda, which made it interesting, if a little on the boring side. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) spent the bulk of the film as the symbol of the rebellion, which meant she filmed a bunch of promotional videos for the war, but spent very little time in the actual war. It felt like a cheat, both for the audience and for Katniss. In Part 2, however, Katniss gets involved in real war.

If Part 1 was about the effects of propaganda and symbols in war, Part 2 is about actual war. An early scene has Katniss arguing with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) about bombing a compound and the collateral damage it could cause. Katniss worries about every death since she had to kill so intimately during the Games, but Gale thinks that even people mopping the floors of a Capitol compound deserve to die. The film actually leaves it up to the viewer who is right as innocent people do die, but positive results ensue. What is notable is the fact that such an issue is brought up at all. In most films, especially young adult films, there are simply good guys and bad guys. In The Hunger Games, it’s more of a gray area. It’s important that a franchise aimed at young people contains such a debate, because war in the real world has collateral damage. But in most popular movies and videogames aimed at young people, there is none.

Despite Part 2 being a meditation on war, it is still an action movie for the most part. Director Francis Lawrence (who has helmed the series since the second film) has an eye for action, and things are kept fresh rather than letting them devolve to nothing but bombings and shootouts. The best sequence of the film is reminiscent of Lawrence’s work on I Am Legend as the heroes spend a tense night in tunnels, fleeing mutated horrors that would have been right at home in Legend (this time the CG is a bit better, though).

While there is plenty of action, the film keeps focusing on the characters’ reactions to it. Katniss is the reluctant warrior, only fighting because she must. Gale is the bold warrior, willing to do whatever it takes to end it. And Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), newly released after being tortured and brainwashed, is the damaged warrior. Peeta’s condition foreshadows nearly every major character: this rebellion will leave you damaged, but there is hope. Once again, The Hunger Games is a franchise that, for better or worse, does not shy away from the effects of violence and war. The heroes do not celebrate, even when they win.

As for that “better or worse” part, any film that wants to get big ideas across runs the risk of becoming preachy, and Part 2 definitely falls into that trap a few times. The amount of speeches about war and rebellion in this film is staggering. It seems like every five minutes someone is giving a speech to remind us what the movie is about. It makes you want to yell, “I get it! This movie is about war and its consequences!” The film, which is a bit long, probably could have shaved ten minutes off its screen time by nixing a couple of these redundant speeches. Also, just like in Part 1, characters spend too much time watching screens. It’s hard to not feel silly watching a screen featuring characters staring at a screen.

Despite these minor squabbles, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 is a fitting end to the series (which probably won’t really end and will be expanded upon within a few years). The series truly found its tone and look in the last few films, ditching the glitzy Capitol of the first two films and flooding the last films (quite literally in one scene) in darkness. The colorful world gives way to concrete and despair as the series focuses on war. Hats off to The Hunger Games series. It could have easily been fluff spoon fed to the masses of young fans, but ended up being a surprisingly dark, if not heavy handed, treatise on war and its effect on everyone.           

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 receives:

Random Thoughts - SPOILERS

I couldn't help but think about Dante and Randall's conversation about the Death Star in Clerks. Turns out Gale and the contractor have the same view of laborers for evil empires...

I don't know why Gwendolyn Christie is in this film. She has maybe two minutes of screen time. 

The treatment of Philip Seymour Hoffman was handled as deftly as possible. He's reduced to a series of reaction shots here and played up as the silent plotter behind it all. I suppose it works.

"Mockingjay," Despite Being the First Part of a Cash Grab, Is Pretty Good and Might Even Make You Think

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games series has become popular enough (among diverse groups, not just teenagers) that comparisons to other young adult series make less and less sense.  The first (The Hunger Games) and second film (Catching Fire) were still similar to other properties because of the love triangle and youth contest aspect, but things change with Mockingjay – Part 1.  To be fair, it is similar to other properties in that they decided on a cash grab by dividing the last film into two parts (more on that later), but the subject matter of the film has certainly changed.  First, no more Games.  This is refreshing since the only real problem I had with Catching Fire was that it was a little too similar to the first film.  Now, they took that fire of rebellion from the first film and dove right in.  This is no longer a young adult series about figuring out your place in the world and picking the right boyfriend; this is a full blown war film with brutal elements of physical and mental warfare.  And the series is better for that brutality because it gives the audience, young and old, something to think about in regards to the real world.

Mockingjay picks up where Catching Fire left off.  By bringing an end to the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) unwittingly started a revolution between the Capitol and the rest of the Districts (with District 13 taking charge).  Now Katniss is left to dwell on the last Games, shouldering the blame for Peeta being left behind.  But the leader of District 13, President Coin (Julianne Moore), and past-Gameskeeper/current-revolutionary Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) want Katniss to be the face of the revolution.  They want her to be the Mockingjay that rallies the rest of the Districts to fight the Capitol.  What follows is a mix of war and propaganda that reminded me of the “Join up!” scenes from Starship Troopers.

The use of propaganda in the film is interesting because it takes what could have been a cookie-cutter revolution film and turns it into something a bit more thought-provoking.  It’s not that revolutions aren’t interesting, but how many films do we really need that simply state, “Autocratic rulers bad, common people good”?  I think everyone, even the youth of the world, understand that.  The use of propaganda shows that war isn’t just about the physical battlefield.  On top of that, it brings up questions about the ethics of propaganda.  Katniss is first tasked with filming a revolution commercial in front of a green screen.  This goes as badly as you can imagine.  Unfortunately, the film plays it for laughs rather than commentary.  No one thought it unethical to fake a triumphant war moment for Katniss.  (Slight SPOILER with the rest of this paragraph and the caption of the picture below.)  And when they do decide she should actually be involved with the war, it’s not because they want it to be real, it’s because Katniss isn’t a good actress and needs a real moment to respond to.  This is where the film is at its darkest without even acknowledging it.  Katniss goes into the field and her presence leads to an attack in which many people are killed.  This spurs the propaganda video the revolutionaries need.  The problem here is that no one points out that the attack would not have happened if Katniss hadn’t been there.  Hundreds of people are killed for the sake of a viral video for their revolution, and no one bats an eye. 

"Now Katniss, you're absolutely sure that nothing bad will happen to us because of your visit, right?"

That is not to say that Katniss doesn’t accept blame in the film.  She blames herself for Peeta’s capture.  What is upsetting is that she could not have possibly saved him, but she could have decided not to go into the field and be bomb-bait for hundreds of people.  She has no issues with that and simply chalks the attack up to Capitol evilness.  Katniss should be a little more skeptical at this point since she’s been used as a pawn by others for two films now.  This is possibly overthinking it all, and hopefully more issues like this are focused on (and if they stick to the book, they will be) in the second part.  Still, it seems like someone should have at least been angry about what caused the attack instead of sitting around patting each other on the back for creating such stirring propaganda.

The propaganda obviously brings up plenty of issues in the film, but it is also a bit of a weakness, as well.  It isn’t just Katniss making videos.  President Snow (Donald Sutherland, looking as crazy-eyed evil as ever) gives speeches throughout, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) gives a series of interviews trying to dissuade everyone from fighting.  What this means is that a large portion of the film is presented on screens.  So the audience is basically watching videos along with the characters of the film.  There really isn’t a way around this, but it’s easy to see why some might label this film “slow” or even “boring.”  This might be where younger audiences split with the older.  I’m not sure the propaganda issues that came to my mind will be what younger viewers focus on.  Regardless, watching characters watch screens is not visually compelling cinema. 

This brings me to my only true issue with this film: it should not be a two part event.  It’s not that this film drags on, it just repeats itself at times.  For instance, Katniss visits the bombed out District 12 near the beginning of the film to see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, and later in the film she is sent back to District 12 to…see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, but this time on camera!  It seemed like they could have killed two birds (mockingjays?) with one stone with that scene.  Once the second film comes out, I imagine the total running time of Mockingjay will reach around four hours.  That would be far too long for a single movie in this series, of course, but I think the story of this final book could easily be pared down to a three hour movie.  This just felt too much like a cash grab from the studio.  It doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of Mockingjay – Part 1 or anything.  It’s just that we’re going to end up with two “pretty good” movies when there might have been a great one. 

Speaking of great, everything that has made this series beloved is back for this third installment.  All of the performances are fine once again.  The new additions are welcome; Julianne Moore is a perfect choice for Coin, and it was nice to see Marhashala Ali (House of Cards) as Boggs.  There is a bit less action this time around, but the war scenes are handled quite well.  Director Francis Lawrence has truly given this series a signature look and that continues with this film.

Most importantly, Mockingjay shows how this series has grown up.  It’s a movie aimed at the young, but it is filled with adult issues and ideas.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that this could be rated R.  There are quite a few scenes of brutal violence, and the body count is extremely high.  And Finnick’s speech late in the film, though it is ignored by the characters (and most likely, the audience) reveals some very disturbing things that he was subjected to in the Capitol.  I honestly think if the film had focused on what he was saying a bit more, the rating may have changed.  This is all a positive, by the way.  Even though the propaganda scenes left me wanting more conflict, and the film repeats itself, it’s still a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.  The fact that a movie meant for people half my age made me think this much is a testament to how good this series is.  It’s just too bad we have to wait an entire year to see it end.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 receives a:

"Catching Fire" Proves That "The Hunger Games" Has More To Say Than Other YA Franchises

Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - Rated PG-13

Much like the unfortunate deputy, the Capitol has no idea what's about to happen.




The first Hunger Games movie was a welcome departure from the usual young adult adaptation fluff.  Typically, a young adult (or YA) series is either skewed too specifically to its young audience (the Twilight series), or its world is too complicated, or wacky, for the non-readers (insert any of the failed YA franchises here).  The Hunger Games worked because it had something for everyone, and the setting was recognizable.  You had the love triangle business for the tweens, but you had the social satire for the adults.  Sure, the satire wasn't very subtle, but it left you with something to think about.  Plus, there was a strong cast that made you care about the characters.

Catching Fire doesn't simply continue the story of The Hunger Games, it enhances it.  The appropriately titled film (and book) takes the injustices hinted at here and there in the first installment and puts them at the forefront.  Heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) can no longer be the quiet pawn in the government’s game.  She has become a symbol, and it’s impossible for her to keep a low profile.  Because of this, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has to push Katniss back into the spotlight, so he can destroy her and any hopes for a revolution that she might represent. 

This is a fairly basic story as far as dystopian films go.  An impoverished populace must fight their rich overlords.  What makes it different is that this is not a film about planning.  Katniss is truly a game piece that each side uses, often without her knowledge.  Since she is kept in the dark, the audience is as well, for the most part.  The film diverts from the book (which is told only through Katniss’s perspective) with a few scenes with Snow and the new head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the bulk of the film is told through Katniss’s eyes.  This is important because it leaves some mystery to what could have been a very boring story.  Katniss is an unwilling symbol of freedom that needs to see firsthand the atrocities being committed throughout society.  Instead of boring secret meetings in which plans are hashed out then performed, we get to see Katniss react to the extreme poverty gap.

The Hunger Games is a series that requires you to suspend disbelief and accept that this world, in which the nation’s youth are forced to kill each other for entertainment, exists.  As a free society, the audience may find it hard to believe that humans could ever let things get so bad, but historically, it happens (some would argue it’s happening right now).  Some might think, “How is Katniss so gullible?”  But she is the product of the world she was born in.  There is no grand revolution to celebrate because it hasn’t happened yet.  In fact, it was attempted years ago, and the district that rebelled doesn’t exist anymore.  So her frame of reference for revolution is the opposite of, say, an American’s.  To Katniss, revolution means everything you know and love will be destroyed.  So it’s important for her to see the discontent firsthand.

Director Francis Lawrence, writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael DeBruyn, for some reason), and author Suzanne Collins have done a fantastic job of showing the divide.  Collins, of course, laid the groundwork, and Beaufoy and Arndt focused on the best examples, but Lawrence (no relation to star Jennifer) should get most of the credit for presenting it all in a very effective way.  He sticks with the first film’s style by following most of the characters from behind as they walk into scenes, but he has improved upon the original.  Perhaps it’s only because there was more money available, but Catching Fire simply looks better than the first film, which means that the differences between the rich of the Capitol and the suffering of the poor are that much more realistic and powerful.  The staging of most of the film in general is quite effective with the characters small in the frame and the surroundings towering around them.  It created a feeling of the world bearing down on all of these characters.

Who cares about the world bearing down if you don’t like the characters, though?  Thankfully, Catching Fire has enough talent for you to get on board with most of the characters involved.  There are some great actors involved with this, including two Academy Award winners (Jennifer Lawrence and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and two more nominees (Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci).  These four acclaimed actors are joined by returning stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Liam Hemsworth, to name a few, and a few newcomers in Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Lynn Cohen.  The fact that there are even this many roles to be filled by recognizable actors shows that this is no throwaway movie for tweens.  Because of the size of the cast, however, most of the roles rely on screen presence alone. 

Most of the actors are given at least one scene to show off a little bit, but there’s not enough for them to do to stand out in any way.  But it is certainly nice to see the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer in small roles.  The most high profile new addition would be Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character takes the place of Seneca Crane, aka the guy with the crazy beard, from the first film.  Hoffman looks pretty much like he does in any other movie, but he gets to play up the ruthlessness in this role.  Hoffman is perfect for any role that requires him to seem indifferent to characters around him. 

As for the returning stars, nothing much is going on with them.  Lawrence and Hutcherson both do fine in continuing their fake romance while realizing how bad things are around them.  Banks is still pretty much a walking costume, which is kind of the point with her character.  And Harrelson is still the comic relief as the constantly drunk, but wise, former victor.  If there is a slight fault to the film, it is that his character’s alcoholism is treated so lightly, but laughs are hard to come by in the bleak world of the film, so it’s not a terrible transgression.

Catching Fire, despite the love story and social commentary, is still a bit of an action film, as well.  Since the focus is more on the problems with society than it is on the titular Games, the action is pretty scant until the last hour or so.  But that last hour is filled with plenty of tense moments.  Once again, this might be because of a larger budget, but the action looked better this time around, especially the special effects.  Director Francis Lawrence has used computer effects to his detriment before (I Am Legend), but that may have been simply because the technology was not yet up to snuff.  Either way, it looks great now, as nothing in the Arena segment seemed overly fake or manufactured.

Overall, Catching Fire improves upon the original and solidifies the series as something more than the passing fad that other series were.  There are some big themes about society and life in general behind the blood and love of the story.  Will the tweens focus more on the love triangle and pick which “team” they are on?  Probably.  But for those of us who don’t care who Katniss ends up with, there is a seriously enjoyable movie beyond that love story.