--- title: "Constantine: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/constantine/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/constantine" critics_score: 50 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Constantine (2005): what the critics said Critics' score 50 from 12 reviews: 2 positive, 6 mixed, 4 negative. The consensus on Constantine is mixed, with praise clustering around its Gothic atmosphere, inventive visual details and special effects. Even several less persuaded critics admire the imagery and the sense of supernatural unease. Performances draw more selective approval: Tilda Swinton’s Gabriel and Rachel Weisz receive praise, while Eye for Film also welcomes the chemistry between Weisz and Keanu Reeves. The recurring reservation is that the images offer more interest than the story or its religious ideas. The reviews range from qualified enjoyment to outright rejection. Empire finds a wry pleasure despite weaknesses in the script and supporting characters; elsewhere, complaints centre on confusing exposition, thin substance and Reeves’s unconvincing performance. Time Out treats his wooden portrayal as a central problem, rather than a drawback the atmosphere can overcome. The New Yorker offers the sharpest dissent, regarding the use of Catholic doctrine and imagery as exploitative spectacle. ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The critic finds Constantine an enjoyable, wry pleasure despite flaws in its script and supporting characters. They praise its eerie, stylishly Gothic world and inventive details. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/constantine-review/) ## Screen Daily — John Hazelton Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 8 February 2005. The accessible page identifies this as a review, but its text is behind a registration wall. The critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint are not visible. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/constantine/4021880.article) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 18 February 2005. The page appears to be a review of the 2005 film, but its verdict cannot be determined from the accessible text. No specific praise or complaint is available to report. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/movies/exorcism-is-part-of-the-job-description.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 17 February 2005. Ebert finds the film visually stylish but lacking in substance. He singles out its striking visual style, while faulting the film for having little point. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/constantine-2005) ## Radio Times — Leslie Felperin Rating 3/5. Felperin finds the adaptation diluted but visually arresting. The striking visuals stand out, while the supernatural exposition and relic subplot are criticized as silly. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-q7k67w/constantine/) ## Slant Magazine — Nick Schager Rating 2/4. 17 February 2005. Schager finds the film’s religious ideas and story unoriginal, with Keanu Reeves’s performance too vacant to make the protagonist convincing. He praises Francis Lawrence’s skill at creating an atmosphere of otherworldly unease. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/constantine/) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 20 March 2005. French finds the film obscure and ludicrous, though not entirely unenjoyable. He singles out its expensive special effects as the punchline to its moral lesson. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,,1441787,00.html) ## Time Out — LZ Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). The review is dismissive of the film. It singles out Keanu Reeves’s wooden portrayal as a central weakness. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/constantine) ## Variety — Brian Lowry Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 7 February 2005. Lowry finds the film stylish but ultimately weak, with a confusing narrative and little substance. He praises its powerful imagery, especially its depiction of hell and Tilda Swinton’s angel Gabriel. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2005/film/markets-festivals/constantine-1200528185/) ## The New Yorker — David Denby Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 27 February 2005. Denby condemns Constantine as a tawdry, exploitative spectacle. He singles out its use of Catholic doctrine and imagery as schlock. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/07/devilment) ## Eye for Film — John Gallagher Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 30 March 2005. The critic finds the film enjoyable and engaging despite a couple of irritating, clichéd elements. They praise the special effects and the chemistry between Keanu Reeves and Rachel Weisz. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/constantine-film-review-by-john-gallagher) ## Den of Geek — Tony Sokol Rating 2 Out of 5 Stars. 6 March 2013. The review finds the film overloaded with clumsy gloom and ultimately too dingy to leave a bleak impression. It praises Rachel Weisz’s multilayered performance and Tilda Swinton’s morally ambiguous Gabriel. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/constantine-2005-lookbackreview/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/constantine.md