Constantine - Under Rated?

Under-rated? No - pretty accurately rated. It had one interesting idea (the Gabriel bit of the main plot), plus some good ideas about Hell. It was let down by a non-existent acting job from Reeves, who was more wooden than an oak tree. And don't try and tell me he was under-playing it either; he was simply not acting at all - I've seen more convincing read-throughs. Rachel Weiss didn't seem to know what she was supposed to do half the time (and was woefully under-used). Oh - and the Spear of Destiny was stupid: has no-one who made the film actually seen a Roman spear?


Sterling example of the first rule of film-making: any film based on a different medium will probably be terrible.

M
 
Dano said:
It wasn't a common legionaire's spear and you can hardly fault the director for using the established appearance for it at any rate.
Click to expand...



Translation: because everyone else was wrong, we have to blindly follow them?


And I'm not sure what you mean by "not a common legionaire's spear"? The bit with the spear is from 19 John 33 and 34. It points out, I might add, that Jesus was already dead, the spear was just to check. Anyway, the text (in the Authorised Version) refers to "one of the soldiers with a spear" as doing the deed. His spear would therefore be a standard spear (not a pilum one assumes). Or are you arguing that contact with the body of Christ would change it? Because John doesn't think so, as he doesn't mention the thing again. This puts it thoroughly in the realm of Christian legend, along with the Grail, where you can make up what you want a guess.


However, that was a minor quibble: most of my ire was aimed at the poor acting of almost everyone concerned except Tilda Swinton (who is almost always good) and the guy who played Satan.


M
 
It was a centurion who pierced his side from what I have read and not a legionaire, and from what I have read of the roman army he would have had something a little more flash that a common pilum.

Now I'm quite happy to admit that I don't know much and am quite possibly completely wrong :)

Either way, I see no issues with them using the established image of the spear, at least that way people have the chance of understanding what it is without having to have it explained to them.

As to the acting, I think I need to go watch it again now as it's never struck me as being at all bad before.
 
This is going dangerously OT, but my understanding is that only specific infantry formations would carry spears, while the centurion would have a sword. The pilum was carried in addition to other weapons, not instead of them. It was a lightweight throwing spear designed (it had a barbed point) to stick into the wooden shield of an enemy, and force them to either drop the shield, or find it hard to use effectively.


And the acting to be fair is not so much bad, as not actually present in important cases. Reeves appears to be reading his lines off a teleprompter, and Weiss seems to be in a different film to everyone else, after a last-minute change of script.


M
 
Its a nothing film, not a lot happens, it doesn't really go anywhere, it doesn't have so much have problems with its plot strands as much as having NO plot strands and the acting is flat as Tara pajamaramnama Tomkinsons chest.
 
Not seen it but might watch it just to laugh at Keanu Reeves's shocking acting :p. I have no idea how he still gets cast in films, he's amateurish most of the time.
 
I've probably watched this 20 or 30 times.. over the years.. and i've never seen the after credit scene.. (have now obviously having read above!)

Great film, and thanks for the info!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom