Surprising comedic genius? The Rock.

This surprises me not at all. In fact, if I'm remembering my Leonard novels correctly, that character is practically written for him. (I mean, in the sense that it was written when he was probably 11 years old, i.e. not at all.)

Surprising comedic genius? The Rock.

He did a turn on SNL five years ago. He played Clark Kent, but was so big everyone knew he was Superman, and treated him like he was simple for thinking they were fooled.

He also sang.

I've been in love (as opposed to lust) since then.

Don't get me wrong, I like Mr. Rock plenty and think he is a talented guy. I just think he is nearly as smug as Travolta already, and Travolta has almost 30 years in the Biz, as opposed to The Rock's four or so movies under his belt.

FWIW, I hated John Travolta in the 1970s too. I mean, I was a toddler in the 1970s, but I saw his 1970s movies later and hated him retroactively.

I hated Saturday Night Fever. I have a really difficult time believing that movie is not a satire of some sort. It's terrible.

However, I love The Rock, too. I'm just saying that in a movie filled with comedians, he stole the show. Easily. Which surprised me. I figured he'd be good, but I didn't realize quite how good, though. And now I'll quit talking him up, so people don't watch and are then disappointed because of me.

Also, there is a cameo made by an ME alum. Which was very cool .

IMDB review synopsis of Constantine:

The Keanu Reeves in Constantine is not much different from the Keanu Reeves in the Matrix trilogy, several critics observe, including A.O. Scott in the New York Times, but many, Scott included, suggest that this film is unlikely to enjoy the success of Matrix, despite its supernatural pretensions. "The movie tries for a stylized, expressionistic pop grandeur -- the kind of eerie, dreamy visual environment that made the first Matrix so intriguing -- but its look is sticky, murky and secondhand," Scott writes. Asks Gene Seymour in Newsday, "Why is it that whenever a studio movie engages the unseen, malevolent forces crawling beneath 'reality's' surface, Keanu Reeves is always the guy charged with beating them down?" Leah McLaren in the Toronto Globe & Mail imagines the studio execs' meeting at which the decision was made to produce the movie: "A few guys in Prada suits sit around an L.A. boardroom table going, 'The Matrix meets The Exorcist, huh .....? With Keanu? I like it. No wait -- I love it.'" Geoff Pevere in the Toronto Star has got it figured out. "The fact is, there is no person in movie history who has devoted more time to defending civilization from evil and obliteration than Keanu Reeves, or who has spent more time shifting between spiritual, perceptual and historical planes to do the job right proper." But this time, many critics suggest, the job is just too big for him. Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal describes the movie as "a preternaturally joyless tale of the supernatural" and goes on to nominate for the year's most depressing film. And Hank Stuever in the Washington Post suggests that the movie ought to be called CSI: Revelation. The film does have a few defenders, including Glenn Whipp in the Los Angeles Daily News, who call it an "intelligent, wildly entertaining nerve-jangler." And Michael Booth in the Denver Post comments, "Constantine takes itself just seriously enough to put on a good show."

Salon gave it a good review too.

It's been getting mixed to bad reviews, but it still sounds kind of interesting. It doesn't sound like a Catwoman or League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen level atrocity.

It doesn't sound like a Catwoman or League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen level atrocity.

That would be difficult to match. Though I am feeling lucky that I have no attachment whatsoever to the source material -- I suspect I'll enjoy the film more that way.

One of my cow-orkers--who hasn't seen the film yet--was complaining today about how it deviates from the comic.