Constantine is re-running again and I have recalled a question that’s bothered me ever time I’ve seen the movie.
Towards the end, both Gabriel and the Devil appear barefoot. For Gabe that doesn’t seem too odd for some reason, but the Devil is in a suit and bare feet seems odd - is there some symbolism here I’m missing? Can someone explain this?
In some stories, the Devil can change every part of his appearance except for his cloven hooves. I’m guessing it’s a play on that.
Don’t forget that they’re both angels. One of them just happens to have fallen from grace. So one could argue that the Devil’s bare feet is of the same angelic nature of Gabriel’s bare feet.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, he wasn’t just barefoot – he was barefoot with tar covering his feet and lower pants. To me, that seemed to represent being bound to the depths of the Earth after his fall, specifically in a dirty, mucky, impure way.
All in all, I thought it was a great portrayal.
Definitely the best thing in the movie.
Actually, my wife and I kind of like Constantine. 
When Charleton Heston climbed the mountain, the cheesy special effects told him to take off his shoes, for he was walking on sacred ground.
The Hebrew priests always went barefoot when performing the big rituals. The idea worked its way into a lot of mystic traditions.
I LOVED that movie, don’t understand the hate towards it at all.
This reminded me: Constantine also went barefoot and stuck his feet in a tub of water while doing the whole trip to hell thing.
Also, put me down as another person who liked it.
I liked Constantine. Once you resign yourself to the fact that John is not the John Constantine of Hellblazer, just someone with the same name and a similar occupation…it’s an enjoyable movie on its own merits.
I actually thought the bit with the devil was better than the equivalent aspect of the storyline in the comics.
Well, I read the comics, and while I thought it was on one level… It was ok… Basic entertainment.
But its kind of a cheap knock off of the character and the series. On a par with Judge Dredd in “getting it wrong”.
So the original comic is called Hellblazer. I completely understand why they didn’t use this name, confusing it with another horror franchise. That I don’t have a problem with.
My problem is that they named it Constantine and then removed all traces of the comic character Constantine from it. Nothing. Zilch in there.
Constatine is a cynical sneaky selfish trickster. He seems to be able to do magic, but never does. He plays people. He’s from liverpool, a scouser (like the beatles) and lives in London.
However, what was in there was some self pitying american bloke who was trying to save people and save his soul because he had tried to commit suicide… Nothing like Constantine…
From wikipedia:
“Constantine is shown to be someone with a wide and international circle of friends & allies, and is supremely adept at making friends. He has had many girlfriends as well. At the same time, his close friends inevitably suffer or are outright killed simply by being in his life; this has left a severe mark on him. In #69, when the King of Vampires killed the man next to him and casually asked if he’d been a friend, John replied “Must be. He’s dead.””
Whilst I agree that the film diverged from the comics by a large degree (I’ve read some of the comics too) I disagree with your comparison to Judge Dredd. JD not only got it wrong in terms of lore, it was also a terrible film. I went to see Constantine twice with different friends and we all loved the film, and we’d never heard of the Hellblazer comics at that point. I think a lot of antipathy towards the film was from people who didn’t like how the comic had been abandoned, and the people who enjoyed it most just took it on its own merits.
I loved both, but understand that they are divorced from each other.* Constantine* was actually a good movie, so I don’t hold it against it that it changed the character so much (and can you imagine the stink if the exact same movie had been made without using the name? There’d have been an outcry from fanboys about how they were ripping Moore/Ennis/et al off then, I’m sure.)
Look, while it’s not a frame for frame rendition of a *Hellblazer *comic, Constantine was an OK movie - c’mon, it had Tilda Swinton, who makes movies good just by being in them.
I loved both, but understand that they are divorced from each other.* Constantine* was actually a good movie, so I don’t hold it against it that it changed the character so much (and can you imagine the stink if the exact same movie had been made without using the name? There’d have been an outcry from fanboys about how they were ripping Moore/Ennis/et al off then, I’m sure.)
Look, while it’s not a frame for frame rendition of a *Hellblazer *comic, Constantine was an OK movie - c’mon, it had Tilda Swinton, who makes movies good just by being in them.
Wow, a 72 minute double post. That’s impressive. Did the Devil make you do it?
The devil never makes you do it - you always have free will.