Critical Consensus: Critics Mixed on Constantine
This Presidents Day weekend, three wide release candidates vie for the public’s attendance at the box office – Keanu Reeve’s post-Matrix supernatural offering “Constantine,” the Jim Carrey-less sequel “Son of the Mask,” and an adaptation of a bestselling doggie tale “Because of Winn-Dixie.” With all three films opening ultra wide in an average of over 3000+ theaters across the nation, which do critics most recommend? The emphasis here is definitely on “most recommend” because all three didn’t fared favorably with critics.
Of the three, Constantine received the most recommendations with a Tomatometer of 48% (percentage of all print, broadcast, and online critics giving the film a favorable review) Based on a comic book, the movie stars Keanu Reeves as a troubled hero trying to earn his way to heaven by fighting off demons on Earth. Constantine received a mix reaction from critics, scoring a 48% on the Tomatometer. Although that socre is nothing cheer about, it is better than his previous film The Matrix Revolutions, which scored an even more Rotten 36%. It’s also this week’s best reviewed film in wide release. Critics thought the film had an “fascinating” premise and “spellbinding” visuals; they just wish the “bottom feeding” writing could be better and the premise more thoroughly explored.
For parents looking for gentler fare to bring their kids to, there is “Because of Winn Dixie,” based on the bestselling novel about the relationship between a lonely girl and her dog. This also received a mix reaction from critics, scoring 45% on the Tomatometer. Directed by the master of sob Wayne Wang (Joy Luck Club), critics thought that although the film is sometimes sweet and touching, it is nonetheless formulaic and bland.
Critics might be split on “Constantine” and “Because of Winn Dixie”, but they’re unanimous in their position on “Son of the Mask,” the Jim Carrey-less sequel to the 1994 critical and box office hit The Mask. “Son of the Mask” scored a perfect 0% on the Tomatometer, possibly the worst reviewed film of the year. Parents looking for something to bring their kids to must avoid this effects-driven comedy. Critics thought the film was “physically painful to watch” and the experience “agonizing,” “numbing,” and like “a swift, hard kick to the family jewels.”
Of the three, Constantine received the most recommendations with a Tomatometer of 48% (percentage of all print, broadcast, and online critics giving the film a favorable review) Based on a comic book, the movie stars Keanu Reeves as a troubled hero trying to earn his way to heaven by fighting off demons on Earth. Constantine received a mix reaction from critics, scoring a 48% on the Tomatometer. Although that socre is nothing cheer about, it is better than his previous film The Matrix Revolutions, which scored an even more Rotten 36%. It’s also this week’s best reviewed film in wide release. Critics thought the film had an “fascinating” premise and “spellbinding” visuals; they just wish the “bottom feeding” writing could be better and the premise more thoroughly explored.
For parents looking for gentler fare to bring their kids to, there is “Because of Winn Dixie,” based on the bestselling novel about the relationship between a lonely girl and her dog. This also received a mix reaction from critics, scoring 45% on the Tomatometer. Directed by the master of sob Wayne Wang (Joy Luck Club), critics thought that although the film is sometimes sweet and touching, it is nonetheless formulaic and bland.
Critics might be split on “Constantine” and “Because of Winn Dixie”, but they’re unanimous in their position on “Son of the Mask,” the Jim Carrey-less sequel to the 1994 critical and box office hit The Mask. “Son of the Mask” scored a perfect 0% on the Tomatometer, possibly the worst reviewed film of the year. Parents looking for something to bring their kids to must avoid this effects-driven comedy. Critics thought the film was “physically painful to watch” and the experience “agonizing,” “numbing,” and like “a swift, hard kick to the family jewels.”
Related Items
| Movie: | Constantine |
| Because of Winn-Dixie | |
| Celeb: | Jim Carrey |
| Jeff Daniels | |
| Keanu Reeves | |
| Rachel Weisz | |
| Alan Cumming | |
| Wayne Wang |
|
Ophiuchus writes: on Feb 17 2005 08:42 PM I enjoy reading movie reviews where the reviewer despised the film. They're just so funny because of all the sarcasm the reviewer tends to use. In fact I have a wad of such reviews stashed in my bedroom- it's about 48 pages long- which I read as avidly as a favourite novel. (Reply to this) |
|
jeanpaul writes: on Feb 18 2005 08:38 AM [b]Amen to that.[/b] I don't usually CARE for movie reviewers: Most of the reviewers are nasty, narcissistic, condencending, in-love with thier own opinions, sad, ultra-pessimistic, people who wouldn't recognize a good movie if it bit them on thier butts... But, that aside, I DO agree that all three films: CONSTANTINE, Because of winn-dixie, and certainly "the son of the mask" are BAD films... (Reply to this) |
|
JimD73 writes: on Feb 18 2005 12:59 PM Meh, I'll still see Constantine. Just glad Son of the Mask got the royal ass-kicking it almost definitely deserves. (Reply to this) |
|
The Senhman writes: on Feb 18 2005 01:13 PM In reply to this comment (#819901) Yeah, same here. As long as you know what you're getting into. From the reviews, it sounds like it'll be something that I'll like. Just like Matrix Revolutions. (Reply to this) |
|
Jaka Tavers writes: on Feb 18 2005 04:45 PM Saw got 48% and I loved it. (Reply to this) |
|
Ophiuchus writes: on Feb 18 2005 06:46 PM Well, I never said reviewers were always right. I just said I enjoy reading sarcastic reviews because they're funny. But I only read them if I haven't seen the film or if I didn't like it either. Otherwise I fidn it annoying. (Reply to this) |
|
Ophiuchus writes: on Feb 18 2005 06:47 PM Actually now that I think about it I would really hate reading reviews written by nasty, scarcastic so-and-so's if they were of a film *I'd* made. Movie makers must really hate them. (Reply to this) |
|
The Senhman writes: on Feb 18 2005 07:05 PM In reply to this comment (#819904) Yeah, same here. They're really funny and entertaining. I usually read reviews to see what I'm getting myself into for iffy films. For films that I definitely want to see, I skip the reviews until after the screening. And of course, when a film gets really good reviews, then I will definitely check it out. Those films tend to be my favorites, like Being John Malkovich, Iron Giant, Mulholland Drive, and recently, Sideways. I don't think I would actually watch those films if not for the Tomatometer. (Reply to this) |
|
Count_Drake writes: on Feb 18 2005 08:37 PM [b]yeah[/b] most of the time, i cant stand to read what critics say. thats why i like rottrn tomatoes, they read the reviews and give it an overall %.thats smart! they need to do this with books and music, too.i dont always agree, though.i liked matrix revolutions and saw, eventhough they got bad reviews.and joe dirt, 9%? come on! its fun, sometimes,though. like when i saw the trailers for "alone in the dark", i knew what to expect, and couldent wait to read the reviews. i also cant wait to see the reviews for "man of the house", its gunna be a roit! their gunna tear it a new one. (Reply to this) |
|
jeanpaul writes: on Feb 20 2005 08:29 AM [b]Spongebob squarepants defeated keanu![/b] Spongebob squarepants defeated "Constantine"! Horray! Hee, Hee... it got 69% in the tomatometer! (Reply to this) |
|
amamamy writes: on Feb 21 2005 11:07 AM [b]"Critics" are questionable too.[/b] So many of the so-called critics that Rotten Tomatoes figures into their equations are just idiots who have their own websites, post reviews and call themselves movie critics. The whole process is questionable, especially for something like this. I read one so-called review where the guy didn't even talk about the film, he just ranted about how much he hates Keanu Reeves. Not exactly an objective film review. (Reply to this) |
|
suggsmar writes: on Feb 21 2005 06:34 PM In reply to this comment (#819907) ya, i learned to grade different types of movies on a sliding scale, especially comedy. plus i had to factor in expectations and bias. so revolutions i didn't like due to expecctations, not on its own merit. i liked constantine though.. (Reply to this) |
|
Ophiuchus writes: on Feb 21 2005 10:39 PM [b]Critics are indeed questionable, but...[/b] ...what qualifies a critic anyway? Someone who watches a lot of movies, maybe, or maybe just someone who has opinions. I prefer reading professional reviews, though, or at least intelligent ones. However, I very much doubt that even Ebert has a degree in Movie Reviewology from Harvard or whatever. (Reply to this) |
|
darklydoug writes: on Feb 22 2005 08:44 AM [b]Hypocritical[/b] I don't see how many of you could claim how critics are just "movie watchers". The reason people are angry at critics is because they often criticize movies that they liked or that moved them. But saying that the quality of all movies is subjective or that we should spare an artist's feelings is asinine. The worst argument someone can give for defending something is "well why don't YOU do it?" That's the last defense to some terrible logic. A critic's job is this: #1. judge the quality of the movie #2. give a fair concensus of the movie, what it tries to do, and how it achieves it. #3 pick out themes and motifs that every person might not get. If we never criticize anything, art will never go anywhere. I disagree with my favorite critics at least half the time, but I try to challenge my views about what's good about something and what's not. Like what you like, but understanding the difference (and grey areas) of what works and what doesn't is essential. For those who want to get a heads up of what to expect (even a bad review may give reasons to see something, but primarily to save people money on something bad), or want to get a better understanding of their favorite movies: that's the reason for critics. (Reply to this) |
|
Ophiuchus writes: on Feb 22 2005 07:25 PM Well someone's in a grouchy mood, aren't they? (Reply to this) |
|
mont0113 writes: on Feb 23 2005 10:30 AM I thought Constantine was OK. I find it difficult to call KR a great actor. Had he not stumbled into the Matrix films, I don't think we'd be talking about him right now. I mean c'mon...Johnny Utah? Sweet November? Youngblood?! I rest my case. (Reply to this) |
|
killermonkey82 writes: on Apr 23 2006 12:51 PM i thought son of the mask was horrible,because of win dixie wasan't horrible but defintly wasan't good,and i thought that constantine was a good movie i don't know why nobody likes it cuz though the exorcisim scene at the beginning was a little bit cheesy but who cares it was still a kool movie and an interesting storyline (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |







