Quote:
What was wrong with Constantine?

It was, to reuse a phrase, a steaming pile of crap. It was a terrible movie, regardless of its complete bastardization of the source material. The only thing in it that was any good at all was the Peter Stormare/Tilda Swinton scene towards the end. You know, where the entire rest of the lousy-acting cast were nowhere to be seen.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I remember basically just laughing at it once I got over the anger of the completely lousy adaptation and the horrible set design.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it has no connection to the comics other than the name, but even ignoring that supposed connection, it was a laughably bad movie. It was basically a poorly produced 80s Schwarzenegger/Stallone movie with the addition of some supernatural crap. You'd think that if they're going to get rid of the musclebound idiots they could at least find a scrawny man who could act.

For the record, in the comics (Hellblazer, BTW, is the name of the comic), John Constantine is a mediocre magician whose greatest power is that he knows everyone in the underworld and can manipulate them to get what he wants. He's a con artist, and always getting himself in trouble. He's also English -- the character was created by an Englishman and is usually written by a Brit -- and blond. He was designed after Sting (of the mid-80s). If you've ever seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, take Spike, remove the fact that he's a vampire, and you're basically left with John Constantine. Although Giles's mostly implied background is obviously very influenced by Constantine's backstory. Now that I think about it, The Frighteners was actually a pretty good Hellblazer adaptation, not that it was intended as such. Certainly better than Constantine.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk