Which is better?: Constantine (2005) or John Carter (2012)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Alatar

Super Freak
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
2,520
Both movies fall under the category of flawed and certainly not as popular as the studio hoped. But they both have a following of sorts. Maybe not enough of a following to call them cult films. But whenever I see either film mentioned I notice some folks saying they really like the movie.

So I’m putting them into the octagon as gladiators for a cage match. Which is better?

Or which do you like more?

And what other films like this can you think of?
 
Ooh, tough one.
I really like both a lot, but I think Constantine has more re-watchability factor than John Carter. I've certainly watched Constantine more times than John Carter.
It's a shame John Carter bombed though, I still don't get why it didn't do better, and it hasn't garnered semi-cult status like Constantine. Probably because it doesn't have Keanu Reeves in it :lol .
 
personally for me, John Carter was boring and messy. it feels like a chore to watch, feels like homework. John Carter is exactly like lone ranger, overly long, overly stuffed, confusing at times, characters aren't very interesting.
you can add Chronicles of Riddick to it. all the same, over the top fantasy epics that are meant to start a trilogy. the first chapter of a story.

Constantine has a little more edge, it's scary, more interesting, better pacing. a more interesting plot, more interesting characters, it's a self contained story. more grounded, smaller in scope.
Constantine has a great detective plot and good suspense. great special effects. great supporting characters, great villain. great ending. amazing soundtrack.
 
personally for me, John Carter was boring and messy. it feels like a chore to watch, feels like homework. John Carter is exactly like lone ranger, overly long, overly stuffed, confusing at times, characters aren't very interesting.
you can add Chronicles of Riddick to it. all the same, over the top fantasy epics that are meant to start a trilogy. the first chapter of a story.

Constantine has a little more edge, it's scary, more interesting, better pacing. a more interesting plot, more interesting characters, it's a self contained story. more grounded, smaller in scope.
Constantine has a great detective plot and good suspense. great special effects. great supporting characters, great villain. great ending. amazing soundtrack.

Chronicles of Riddick definitely has achieved a cult following at this point, at least as far as I can tell from the 4K Blu-ray subreddit and the Blu-ray.com forum.

It’s fine if others view it differently, I love diversity of thought and experience. But here’s my take:

The setting and main character was created by Vin Diesel for one of his home brew D&D campaigns. Therefore the film places you in that universe basically in the way one experiences a D&D game as a player. You’re inhabiting a well established world that is unfamiliar and requires a bit of ciphering. For example, it isn’t ever explained via dialogue what mercs, elementals, Formyans, and necromongers are. You’re just thrown into that world, and you’re shown how they live and operate in that world. You kind of have to piece it together inferentially.

See, I like that. That’s not only not a negative for me, it’s a plus.
 
Would you all consider Alita: Battle Angel to be in this group? I think it’s a rock solid film, but for some reason didn’t garner mass popularity.
 
Ooh, tough one.
I really like both a lot, but I think Constantine has more re-watchability factor than John Carter. I've certainly watched Constantine more times than John Carter.
It's a shame John Carter bombed though, I still don't get why it didn't do better, and it hasn't garnered semi-cult status like Constantine. Probably because it doesn't have Keanu Reeves in it :lol .

I think John Carter struggles because it applies a kind of earnest realism, on the one hand, but it can’t quite figure out how to merge that with the romanticism of the early 1900s view of science, and that time period’s approach to fantasy in general.

Imho, it would have helped for example if it is shown in some way that the portal that transports John Carter to Mars sends him to Mars in the past when it could still support life on the surface (if it had that for a few hundred million years, let’s say) and had mostly lost its oceans and its atmosphere was beginning to get stripped away.
 
Back
Top