"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.

"Snowpiercer" Is On Demand Right Now, So You Should Just Go Ahead and Watch It and Read This Review Later

Snowpiercer

South Korean filmmakers have been producing some great, memorable films for a long time now but only recently has Hollywood invited them to create English-language debuts.  Unfortunately, the track record of the first releases has been disappointing.  Kim Jee-woon (I Saw the Devil) made The Last Stand, a goofy (in a good way), but underwhelming Schwarzenegger comeback film.  Park Chan-wook (Oldboy) made Stoker, which was certainly a unique and interesting film, but it was pretty much abandoned by the studio.  Now, and this is the most unfortunate of the three, Bong Joon-ho (The Host) has made Snowpiercer, an ambitious post-apocalyptic film that is equal parts entertaining and thought-provoking.  What’s unfortunate about this is that it spent months in limbo as The Weinstein Company considered editing it so Americans could “understand” it (thankfully, the final release is the director’s version) and, despite the film making over $80 million overseas, the widest release the film had in America was around 350 theaters a few weeks ago.  In other words, this film wasn’t given a chance to become traditionally successful in America because it was assumed mass audiences wouldn’t get it, like it, etc.  Here’s where the good news comes in, however.  Rather than expand to theaters nationwide, the film was released on demand (for roughly the same price as a theater ticket).  While I would much rather have seen this on the big screen, I was still very appreciative to get a chance to watch it at all.  More importantly, for those of you who don’t venture to the theater very often, you have a chance to check out a unique sci-fi film in your living room.  Now for the actual review of Snowpiercer.

Post-apocalyptic movies are almost too common these days, so a film in the genre needs to set itself apart.  Snowpiercer easily does that as it’s about the last of humanity on a frozen Earth surviving on a train (the titular Snowpiercer) that never stops.  Because of this premise (based on a French graphic novel), some people might be turned away.  Obviously some suspension of disbelief is required (as it is for nearly all movies, I might add).  The logistics of how it all works could easily distract the viewer from the film, but I was impressed with the world Bong Joon-ho created.  But, if the message boards at IMDb.com are any indicator, some people can’t get past nitpicking the premise.  My advice is to just go with it.

The reason that the film takes place on a train is to allow for an easy metaphor for humanity.  Even with the world essentially dead, there are still social classes on the train: poor in the back, rich in the front.  But the film is more than just a “rich people are evil” metaphor.  We’ve seen that scenario played out in film and reality enough anyway.  Snowpiercer made me think more about humanity in general.  It made me think about how some of us go about our daily grind and try not to think about the less fortunate.  Or decide that people are simply meant to inhabit certain stations of the social ladder.  What stuck out to me more than anything is how the film demonstrates on a small scale how humanity works things out (usually through awful actions) by being only slightly nudged into action.  The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes likes to imagine that there is a small, powerful group of people out there controlling the world and causing wars and atrocity behind the scenes.  That part of me got into this film as it showed that happening on the smaller scale of a train.

The action of Snowpiercer is that of a revolution spearheaded by Curtis (Chris Evans) who has spent equal parts of life on Earth and the train (seventeen years each).  The film opens on the back section at its worst.  People are crammed into the back cars, fed gelatinous “protein bars,” and subjugated by the front section.  Their children are sometimes taken away never to be seen again without explanation.  Severe punishments are doled out for any rebellious action (there is a disturbing limb removal early on).  Life is awful for everyone, and they’ve reached their breaking point.  Not to spoil anything, but a revolution does occur fairly early in the film, and Snowpiercer becomes equals parts action film and social commentary.

 The action and overall look of the film affected me the most.  The world Bong Joon-ho created for this train is amazing.  The cobbled together living quarters of the back of the train contrast greatly with the front cars, which is probably the easiest feat of the film (just look at The Hunger Games, Elysium, etc. for more examples of extreme class differences).  More impressively, this world feels real and lived in.  There is a history of failed revolutions and trying times that is only referenced but feels present in each character.  Since the film takes place on a train, it allows for some great framing in scenes featuring the powerful speaking to the downtrodden.  You get to see all of the miserable faces while someone in power, like Tilda Swinton’s Mason, speaks to them about accepting their place in life…and the train.  All of this is and the excellent, brutal action is set to diverse music by Marco Beltrami.  It all just comes together in a unique way for this film, and all involved deserve credit, like the creators of the source material and co-screenwriter Kelly Masterson. 

Snowpiercer is my favorite film of the year (so far) for three reasons beyond the aforementioned praise I’ve heaped upon it: the absurdity factor, its similarity to the Silo series by author Hugh Howey and the Bioshock video game series, and the unpredictability of it all.  First, the absurd.  As I mentioned before, many people who take issue with this film immediately attack the premise which they find too implausible.  Defenders of the film usually state that you should accept the “problems” so the metaphor of society through train can work, but I defend the absurdity of the premise on the grounds that the film acknowledges it.  There are many moments that could leave you scratching your head (the use of a fish before a fight, a ridiculous shootout across train cars, impromptu holiday celebrations in otherwise serious fights, Tilda Swinton’s strange mannerisms and dialogue, etc.).  These moments gave the film some much needed levity at times, made the film unique, and showed just how messed up the human race could get if forced to survive on a train for years.  That, perhaps, is most important to me: showing that this world is not the old one.  A new, weird, terrible, absurd world has been created.  It’s enough to make you wonder if you want anybody to survive which is certainly a credit to the ideas of the film.  Secondly, the Silo and Bioshock series are near and dear to me, and since there is no film version of either (yet), Snowpiercer appealed to me because I found it to be a spiritual sibling of those stories of failed utopias, world-building gone wrong, and revolution.  Finally, this was a film that I didn’t have figured out early on.  Not that there aren’t movies that completely confuse me (hello, Holy Motors), but when it comes to movies about social injustices or sci-fi struggles, I can usually guess where it’s going to end up and who’s going to end up there.  With Snowpiercer, the majority of my expectations were upended by the end of the film.  I enjoy unpredictability in a movie more than anything because after watching so many, it’s easy to end up on autopilot as you watch, especially if you’re watching at home.  But the surprises of this film kept me glued to it as if I were in the theater.  So I suppose they knew what they were doing when they released it on demand.

My focus on the weirdness and style of the film should not be seen as a slight against the actors.  Chris Evans is still in action mode here, but he gets plenty of strong character moments which he handles very well.  Plus, he pulls off the revolutionary look very convincingly.  John Hurt is perfectly cast in a mentor role.  Tilda Swinton is likewise a great choice for the quirky Mason.  Kang-ho Song and Ah-sung Ko are fantastic as a father-daughter duo.  I could go on and on; the point is that there is not a weak point in the diverse cast.

That’s about all there is to say about this film (as if I haven’t gone on long enough).  I typically don’t like to write this much about a film (I like to keep it about half this length), but when I see a movie that works on so many levels for me it gets me excited about writing reviews in general again, especially since many people might not even be aware of this movie.  So if you’re into sci-fi, social struggle metaphors, cool action, or just weird movies in general, check Snowpiercer out.  You don’t even need to move from your couch to do it, either, so stop reading me gush about it, and watch it for yourself.  

Snowpiercer receives a:

"Moonrise Kingdom"

Directed by Wes Anderson, written by Anderson and Roman Coppola, starring Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman - Rated PG-13



"I love you, but you have no idea what you are talking about."

This review might be pointless.  I’m not doubting my critical skills (I’ll leave that to you, the reader), but reviewing Wes Anderson films in the traditional sense just doesn’t make much…well, sense.  Here’s the thing: If you like Anderson’s previous work then you should at the very least watch Moonrise Kingdom; if you hate his movies, then definitely skip it.  He has certainly not changed his style.  So this review is pointless if you don’t like his films.  If you are like me and you very much enjoy the majority of his work, then keep reading; I might have some thoughts that interest or anger you.

I am not the biggest Wes Anderson fan out there, but the films of his that I do enjoy, I enjoy immensely.  My favorite films, in no particular order, are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.  That list alone might get an argument started with cinephiles because of a title or two that’s included and one or two that is left off.  The important thing is that I am a fan of Anderson’s style, both the visuals and the dialogue.  It’s just sometimes the story doesn’t work for me or it seems a bit pointless.  The point of all this is that I am happy to say that Moonrise Kingdom can be added to my favorites list. 

Moonrise Kingdom has the style you’ve come to expect from Anderson in that it is set in 1965 (nearly all of his films look like they are set in the 60s, but this one actually is).  The production design and soundtrack are great as usual, so no need to delve into details, other than to point out that it is funny to see a few of the actors dressed as boy scouts.  It’s all very quirky and amusing, and I am being sincere.  I’m usually one to say that the aesthetics of Anderson’s work are just there for the sake of quirk, but in this case it is more about homage.  Apparently this film is influenced by the Jean-Luc Godard film Pierrot le Fou.  I must admit ignorance when it comes to Godard’s films, but I am definitely going to check out a few now, if only so that I can appreciate this film a bit more.  It’s obviously not required viewing, though, since I enjoyed it very much and I didn’t know about the influence until after I had seen Moonrise Kingdom. 

Having an influence isn’t what made the style completely worth it for me, though.  The story and the characters are touching and humorous, and that is what makes some of Anderson’s films great.  (I need to clarify that this film was co-written by Roman Coppola, so Anderson didn’t do all of this on his own.)  Moonrise Kingdom is essentially a love story about two young people who don’t fit in.  Sam (Jared Gilman) is an orphan with “emotional” problems who wants to escape from his khaki scout troop and run away with Suzy (Kara Hayward), a “troubled” girl who wants to escape from her family.  They travel all over a New England island, engaging in amusing conversation and awkward first love.  It’s all very sincere and you really want things to work out for them.

Nearly everyone else in the film tries to keep the two apart.  This group consists of the heavy hitters of the cast like Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, and Edward Norton.  These actors, along with Jason Schwartzman, are the faces you’ll see in all of the promotional material for the film, but they are supporting players.  They all do a fine job and it’s really just about personal preference when it comes to picking favorites.  Simply the idea of Bruce Willis appearing in a Wes Anderson film is funny to me, so he was definitely my favorite, especially since he gives a heartfelt performance that we haven’t seen in a long time. Norton and Schwartzman were a close second and third because of their sincerity.  Norton is channeling his gee-whiz performance from the under-seen Death to Smoochy to great effect and Schwartzman seems to be picking up right where Rushmore left off with equal success. 

The whole khaki scout aspect of the movie was great.  I thought it was funny how the scouts were basically run like a military organization.  An impressive tracking shot revealing the workings of the camp near the beginning of the film fits in perfectly within the Anderson canon.  The scout stuff also lends to plenty of interesting visuals (my personal favorite was the tree house that was far too high). 

Visually speaking, this is one of Anderson’s most beautiful films.  All of the outdoors scenes allowed him to try something new as far as setting is concerned and he shot in some great locations.  On top of that, a storm near the end of the film (this isn’t a spoiler since the narrator lets the audience know about right from the start) created some great moments as well.

Moonrise Kingdom isn’t anything new for Anderson, but that isn’t such a bad thing.  What’s wrong with a guy knowing what his style is and sticking with it?  If you don’t like his style, don’t watch his films.  Simple as that.  If you are a fan of it, then definitely check this one out.  You might not count it among your favorites but it is very unlikely that you’ll be disappointed by the film because it is about as Wes Anderson as Wes Anderson can get.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Since he wasn't in any previews or in the opening credits, I'm guessing Harvey Keitel's appearance is meant to be a surprise.  I just wanted to point out how funny it was to see him pop up in this film, only to promptly blown up.

I really like the title of the film and thought it fit in perfectly with the tone of the film.  The actual Moonrise Kingdom was a very beautiful spot in the film as well, and there's something to be said about the fact that it has disappeared after the storm. 

Another very Anderson aspect to the film: The kids seem to know exactly what they want, while the adults are the truly lost characters who need to change and grow by the end of the film.