I cant nearly consider this the worst movie of 2005 yet but I strongly disliked this movie. The movie tried to be serious but was based off of total nonsense and made up facts that didnt seem the slightest bit real and made you feel stupid for even watching it. The lead actors both gave pretty bad performances. Also, it was amazingly hard to follow and it contradicted itself on almost every "fact" it proposed. If one of the points of the movie was to make you "believe" after it, it did a TERRIBLE job at that. I left there feeling unserved and the only people who liked it in the theater were a couple or 15 year old goths who couldnt tell any better.

I didn't think it was that bad. I am a sucker for anti-heros, though. It wasn't as CG heavy as it could've been though that was still a big minus and I didn't like how super-half-pro religious it was. I hate religion...can't think of a bigger waste of the little time we have on earth than begging to the sky, not to mention the constant death they cause. It's just a very average film and average can't hold a candle to J. Lo's romantic comedys. Those are consistently the most unbelievable and horribly written films I can think of (J. Lo as a maid...right).

quote:

Constantine-It was decent. Although I generally dislike Reeves (Except for his role in "The Matrix" series) he does a fair job of ignoring the plot holes in the movie. What I mean by plot holes is, they put something in the movie, but don't bother to explain why it is there. It isn't a big problem because they only do this on very small details, but it still pissed me off. The special effects are really cool...Overall it is a good movie. My Score:1/2

That is what I said in the "Recommendations/questions" thread.

I can see why you wouldn't like it because it was irrations E.M. but "The Matrix" was based on nonsense but was really good. I don't think the fact that something is impossible doesn't mean that there cannot be an excellent movie about it.

It was decent. Nuff said.

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Holmes:
I hate religion...can't think of a bigger waste of the little time we have on earth than begging to the sky

A bigger waste of time? How about forums?

Well, if you are talking about matrix 2 and 3, I and many other people on the forums dislike those. That may be because of those same reasons.

I haven't seen the movie but I don't quite follow how not being factual has anything to do with not being entertaining. Since it seems to be very theological, contradictions should be expected. And I don't think anybody goes to a Keanu Reeves movie expecting Oscar caliber acting. Kinda like Napoleon Dynamite, I think it's one of those movies that you know ahead of time what you're getting into.

Personally I was attracted by Beksinski style imagery and the slither of hope that Keanu Reeves is starting to associate himself with intelligent and visually stunning films. I have my doubts but eventually I'll get around to seeing it.

And Kudos to Filmore for a lame attempt to turn this into a religious debate.

Constantine has some amazing visuals and looks fantastic but the plot and the third act destroy it as a viewing experience.

quote:

And Kudos to Filmore for a lame attempt to turn this into a religious debate.

The confusing message of the film adversly affected my enjoyment of it. It wasn't a lame attampt at anything. I don't want a f*cking sermon when I go to the movies. I could go to church and get that for a lot cheaper than $10. That was my point. At least Signs was interresting and not pushy about it. This was a little too Men In Black comparatively.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Filmore Mescalito Holmes,

quote:

Originally posted by Call to Apathy:
I haven't seen the movie but I don't quite follow how not being factual has anything to do with not being entertaining. Since it seems to be very theological, contradictions should be expected. And I don't think anybody goes to a Keanu Reeves movie expecting Oscar caliber acting. Kinda like Napoleon Dynamite, I think it's one of those movies that you know ahead of time what you're getting into.

Personally I was attracted by Beksinski style imagery and the slither of hope that Keanu Reeves is starting to associate himself with intelligent and visually stunning films. I have my doubts but eventually I'll get around to seeing it.

And Kudos to Filmore for a lame attempt to turn this into a religious debate.

Well, of course a movie can be fun once in a while with mindless action ect. But after a while, you really dont have any clue what is going on, why is this happening, and that state of mind starts to go away and you start to realize that the movie has no logical sense in it.

quote:

Originally posted by E.M.:
Well, of course a movie can be fun once in a while with mindless action ect. But after a while, you really dont have any clue what is going on, why is this happening, and that state of mind starts to go away and you start to realize that the movie has no logical sense in it.

This kind of describes how I felt about part two and three of The Matrix. Are you positive the movie makes no sense and it's not just one of those films you have to see five or six times? I kinda get the feeling you're right on this one but it's hard to say without seeing it myself. And given much of what I'm hearing I doubt that will be for a while.

I saw it recently; yesterday, I believe.

It was rather poor, but not quite as bad as it could have been. It's a shame, though, that it managed to be neither thought-provoking (I get the feeling that the writers were aiming for this angle, by the way), or just plain dumb fun.

Of course, Keanu Reeves's regular excuse for acting (often seeming more like a straight reading of the script than a valid attempt to get into the role) didn't help things.

I'd like to be able to say it was "disappointing", but honestly, I wasn't really expecting much to begin with.

yeah, i wish it were silly fun. silly fun should never be dumb. king fu hustle was silly but the free-wheeling creativity was brilliant.

constantine was morbidly serious, trite, depressing, and ever so predictable. i seem to think the film didn't turn out bad as it was designed to meet the expectations of its demographic groupies. the film had a modest budget with a heavy pitch toward certain western peoples known for their exotic subcultural interests.

This movie was pretty out there. It was decent, I don't feel like I got my money's worth, but I still enjoyed the time I spent watching it. The action was ok, and it was presented in a way that kept me coming back.

I actually think Constantine was pretty cool. Not a masterpiece, obviously. There was some pretty poor acting (although Keanu was quite decent) and some questionnable editing. That said, it was very entertaining, qute original and nicely gothic and dark. I enjoyed it.

I think the originality was really what played to me. It was entertaining and completely original. I have never seen a movie like this before, that's what got me interested in it and what made me stay to watch the ending.

The effects were great but the acting ... well, typical of Mr. Reeves. I would certainly say it is one of the worst of the year.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by E.M.:
I cant nearly consider this the worst movie of 2005 yet but I strongly disliked this movie. The movie tried to be serious but was based off of total nonsense and made up facts that didnt seem the slightest bit real and made you feel stupid for even watching it. The lead actors both gave pretty bad performances. Also, it was amazingly hard to follow and it contradicted itself on almost every "fact" it proposed. If one of the points of the movie was to make you "believe" after it, it did a TERRIBLE job at that. I left there feeling unserved and the only people who liked it in the theater were a couple or 15 year old goths who couldnt tell any better.

[/As a minster for over 25 years and a film lover, I couldn't agree with you more. I always look for the humanity and spirituality present in a film. Both always exist in any kind of movie. This film did have something to say about both our humanity and spirituality, but I couldn't tell you with certainty what it was. I think it tried to convince the audience that there is a dimension of reality where heavenly creatures exist, and do battle. Maybe it didn't try to say that at all. I don't have a clue. Maybe I was having a bad day; who knows? I saw it only once and I imagine if I had the time to waste I could watch it enough times to finally get it. I did learn not to smoke. Even if you are the chosen of God it is still bad for your health.]

I actually thought it was ok. i mean it wasnt great, but i was entertained, it kind of reminded me of Blade

Bad acting ruined this movie. I think this is one of 2005's worst movies

quote:

Originally posted by LordSmoogsbottomIII:
I actually thought it was ok. i mean it wasnt great, but i was entertained, it kind of reminded me of Blade

That might have been because it's based off of a comic book, like "Blade". It seems noone understands that this movie started with a rich history rooted in the 'Hellblazer' comic. This character made his first appearance in a 'Swamp Thing' comic quite a long time ago. Comics never get religion right because they pick & choose what they want out of many religions. I personally liked it mostly because I'm a comic fan as well as a movie nut! However, I am biased because I'm a comic fan. Me & a friend of mine have decided to do our parts by seeing & buying EVERY comic based movie to keep them coming. I actually own "Elektra", & I really didn't even like that movie!