*** Official CONSTANTINE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[John Doran]

you're right. who would think something like that? i mean, that would be almost as silly as assuming something like "if it's not (explicitly) in the bible, then it's false or didn't happen".

almost.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Heh... this thread is so much more amusing than the movie.

 

[Shawn_KE]

Maybe man just left out that angels can heal when he wrote it.

 

[Holadem]

It actually does, in the missing chapters owned by Constantine and others in the know. Something about the Original Screening.

--
H

 

[John Doran]

beautiful, 'dem; my first out-loud laugh of the day.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Holadem means those extra chapters of Corinthians found in Hell's Library.

(Chuckle... did anyone read Edelstein's review "I can't believe I just typed the words 'Hell's Library'"?)

 

[Quentin]

Snide commentary like Edelstein's and yours (why are you still haunting this thread, Rich? You thought it sucked...move along my man...) are not 'reviews'. It reminds me of the few negative 'reviews' of LotR movies that can't get past making fun of a movie that has elves and dwarves, yet takes itself seriously.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Now c'mon, you can't place an arbitrary limit on the scope or our commentary about a movie, and you can't kick me out of a thread because I don't like a movie as much as you. Simply put, discussion threads aren't limited to positive commentary... if I want to be snide, I'll be snide.

I appreciated Edelstein's sarcasm on the "hell's library" allusion as that line got a pretty big laugh in the theater. At some level, even though you like this movie a great deal, can't you appreciate the absurdity of at least some of it? Perhaps not, but you're free to your own opinion and free to express it all day long. As am I.

 

[Patrick Sun]

PSA for the day: please utilize the Ignore feature should the need arise.

 

[todd s]

Not to get too biblical. But, if God is the supreme being. And the Devil is just a fallen angel. Then why does God put up with his crap?? Unless, the devil is stronger than an average Angel?

 

[Citizen87645]

Well, that seems to be the case, though I can't think of any reference that states this explicitly. There is much writing around the notion of good and evil and how they need each other to exist. What would God be without Satan and vice versa?

 

[Rich Malloy]

This is precisely why I referred to this film as being primarily "Manichean" upthread. You've put your finger on the essential difference between that philosophy and the one generally espoused by most Christians.

Simply put, if God is both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), then there can be no ultimate "battle between good and evil" for God's power cannot be overwhelmed and God knows everything anyway, including the precise chronology of the end of times, blah blah blah.

But the film posits its rules as necessary to forward the plot (rather than any effort to conform to a particular theology), and it seems to me that it borrows the rather cynical "wager" between God and the Devil from the Book of Job (which I've always considered to be just about the nadir of the Bible) to justify the events of the film.

One last edit to this post: but this is not the reason why I disliked the film, and I don't mind seeing a Manichean worldview depicted or some hybrid Christo-manicheanism, or whatever the filmmakers wish to bring in to establish the universe of the film. I just thought this was a particularly laughable effort with no emotional, psychological or religious resonance beyond the most superficial. You know, just enough to advance the plot from Point A to Point B.

 

[CaseyL]

I'm afraid this is all being taken to literally. If we really wanted to we could pick this movie apart theologically speaking, and there wouldn't be much left. But the movie was good, I enjoyed it greatly, and there was a suspension of disbelief.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm betting we get a lot more answers on the DVD. There were a lot of unexplained things that happened (the big one that comes to mind is when he tries to bring his forearms together but can't, right before Gabriel stops him) that I am sure were cut out due to running time. More showtimes=more revenue, and money is king in Hollywood.

Of course, background theological stuff (for the movie) will be one of the first things cut out because it's mostly exposition and not eye-candy. Hopefully we'll get a more complete movie on DVD.

My bet is on 20 additional minutes for the DVD.

 

[Quentin]

I'm not going to ignore Rich, I like Rich's posts (usually)!

I'm just wondering why he is so interested in posting here. Particularly when all this posts equate to, "I thought this movie sucked."

And, of course I can appreciate the absurdity! But, I knew what it was when I went in. This is why I used the LotR comparison...what's not absurd about a world of dwarves, elves, hobbits and a Dark Lord? I don't take LotR seriously or absurdly...I take it at face value for what it is trying to be.



It never claims to be anything else, nor should it be! This is not Oscar material. If it tried to have any emotional, psychological or religious resonance, THEN I would ridicule it. It still has characters, conflict, and drama (well...melodrama) as well as action, suspense, and some interesting ideas/visuals at work.

 

[Rich Malloy]

You continue to compare "Constantine" to "Lord of the Rings", but the latter is a film for which I think anyone who's not entirely close-minded about this sort of fantasy-adventure would agree has "emotional, psychological and religious resonance" in spades.

And then you note that "Constantine" has none of these, suggesting it hasn't even pretentions toward any emotional, psychological or spiritual dimensions. OK. I'm not sure I agree it wasn't going for these, at least as window-dressing, but it certainly failed to connect on those levels. And so I was left with a boring series of cartoonish CGI setpieces leading to a yawner of a finale that peaks with Keanu flipping the bird (excepting, of course, the cheesy post-credits tag). A total waste of my time.

All of which equates, admittedly, to my opinion that "this movie sucks". But since my original pronouncements of suckitude, I've tried to flesh out my reasons just a little bit. I confess I didn't think there'd need to be very much discussion to reach that consensus.

 

[John Doran]

and you still haven't even made a plausible gesture in the direction of a defense of your assertion that the film is manichaean at all, let alone "primarily" manichaean...

 

[Rich Malloy]

john, that's not an argument; that's mere contradiction! I guess, then, we must agree to disagree (and how fucking boring!). But, yes, I was bored, and my time was wasted, and I don't accept that this film has even one whisker's worth of the emotional, psychological and spiritual depth of "Lord of the Rings". So there!

As for the Manichean thing, I did allude to precisely why I described the film as such, and my usage of the term is hardly complicated or unusual. In fact, I'm using that term as it's most commonly used today, and in it's most basic definition (e.g., "George W. Bush has a monolithically Manichean vision of the world." How many times have we heard that criticism in the last few years?).

Specifically, I said in response to Todd's very intuitive query: "This is precisely why I referred to this film as being primarily "Manichean" upthread. You've put your finger on the essential difference between that philosophy and the one generally espoused by most Christians. Simply put, if God is both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), then there can be no ultimate "battle between good and evil" for God's power cannot be overwhelmed and God knows everything anyway, including the precise chronology of the end of times, blah blah blah."

But, big effing deal, right? What do we care if the film is Manichean, Confucian, Jainin, Christian, or some amalgamation of a variety of theosophies and mythologies? There can be successful films that establish a universe that is primarily "____-ism" in nature, or poor films that posit the same. This, for me, is a poor one.

 

[John Doran]

well i certainly don't care one whit. i only are that you classified the film in a manner that is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Rich Malloy]

OK. A distinction without a difference, but one that I duelly noted in my same response to Todd above: "But the film posits its rules as necessary to forward the plot (rather than any effort to conform to a particular theology), and it seems to me that it borrows the rather cynical "wager" between God and the Devil from the Book of Job (which I've always considered to be just about the nadir of the Bible) to justify the events of the film."

So, we could say that for whatever asshole-ish reason, God makes a wager with the Devil whereby He voluntarily becomes something less than ominipotent (that is, He stays His hand that could otherwise alter events to fit whatever outcome He decreed, becoming perhaps something closer to a pure Deity in the precise deistic meaning). And, likewise, becoming something less than omniscient, for otherwise and rather obviously His knowing of everything would mean He'd know the outcome of the wager. Even ol' Scratch ain't dumb enough to put money on that!

Basically, then, and for the purpose of a wager, the Christian God allows for there to exist a Manichean world wherein the struggle between the light and the dark is one where the victor and time of victory is not insured.

So, we can tether a few ideas together, and with a little sophistry here and there we can make the rules of "Constantine" uncontradictory... none of which makes for an interesting film. I'm saying give me true human emotion and psychological depth, a spiritual redemption I can believe in and be moved by, and I'll happily accept a few plotholes.