Underworld

This is true. It does boil down to preference. I also believe though (if this makes sense), that there is an absolute truth about the quality about the movie. Because we aren't capable of grasping this truth, or because or personal feeling keep us from it, we disagree. In a perfect world, everyone could tell if a movie was bad, and all movie watching opinions are perfect. It isn't a perfect world, but I will still strive to reach the "perfect" opinions. (I've made many alterations to my rating style...)


Somehow I think I made that WAY too spiritual.....

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

[quote=stiltman]All I know is it's werewolves vs. vampires in the streets on London, duking it out. I believe Kate Beckensale is in this, but not sure. Anyway, you can't go wrong here. I'm a huge fan of the monster movie genre, so this is right up my alley. And I'm pulling for the werewolves. Too many movies about vampires anyway, it's time for the wolves to stake their claim.

If you like the idea of werewolf as hero you check out this ultra-low budget flick: DArk Rose: Feedin' & Breedin'. It was shot like 6 years ago and featured one wolf on a hunt of r the vampires that killed her clan. From what I've read the film is REALLY campy, so it will be cool to see the concept done with some money.

Kate Beckensale plays a master death dealer, she realizes that the lichen are following a doctor name micheal who is the last descendent of the lichens. The lichens have a scheme in mind that will end the war forever. Something taht involves combining the two bloods together.

Just saw it. I like it a lot. The story is a little bit more complicated than what has been mentioned so far though.

__________________

Wow, Underworld really sucked! What a waste of film! The vamps didn't do ANYTHING vampiric, (and enough with the Matrix-esque S&M look!) the soundtrack and sound effects were deafening, the plot incomprehensible, and the effects weren't all that special. Horrible.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

The sound must have been really messed up where you saw it b/c it didn't seem that way to me. I thought that it could have been a little bit faster paced, and more "R" rated feeling but I liked it. Anything having to do with Vamps and Werewolves is cool to me, even if it isn't the best.

Um, the mix-up is understandable, but that'd be "Lycan." As in lycanthropes.

Although something tells me that using lichen in the movie would have made it a lot more interesting:

"Those bastards grow like crazy. We must destroy their breeding ground. Quick, my vampiric brethren--remove all the damp rocks from the city!"

...And wackiness ensues.

__________________
You were a demon and a lawyer? Wow. Insert joke here."

Being the horror film buff that I am, I was scanning the horror movie section of my favorite DVD retail outlet, and found myself cruising the nature-run-amok section. That section contains films like Anaconda, Arachnophobia and Bats..you know what I'm talking about. When I got to the P's, imagine my surprise when I came across the horror classic Plankton! Yes there really is a horror film called Plankton! Eeeeeek!

Synopsis: Five bright young teenagers decide to go for a ride in a small rowboat on the open ocean. Strangely, they come across an abandoned yacht with a mysterious biology laboratory! Bob and Julie decide to make love on the boat, but radioactive plankton from the lab infects them. How will they escape when Bob messily devours Julie and monsters begin running rampant on the boat?


MPAARating: Not Rated

Attachments

 

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Thank goodness they have the widescreen version, I wouldn't want to miss a blob.

__________________
instrumental rock band that I am in.

Though I'll never understand how a clan of vampires run by heads of state who are supposedly over a thousand years old have a figurehead who's frickin American (a cowardly boor, to boot), the film as a whole was quite enjoyable. I liked that they set it in London. What better place to be grey, dreary, cold, skeletal, lofty, and imposing?

I liked the style (yes, yes, they were influenced by The Matrix, but who the f*ck hasn't been? the film was brilliant, and therefore, we must get over the fact that others are trying to use it for good. if they use it for evil, that's another story). Nice flair, particularly the nonchalant way that the vampires go about doing dangerous things calmly and without flair. We're used to seeing vamps and otherwordly creatures do things we'd find dangerous and making a show of it - looky what our special effects can do, or, the character is all cocky about it. Even in The Matrix, Neo was a bit TOO confident when he did things. Or that could have just been the limited acting skills talking.

ANYWAY! so in particular I liked the way Beckinsale would jump down from tall spots and keep on truckin like she was crossin the street. I like the plot twist - I wont' give it away, but it definitely complicates the characters, and makes the film delightfully unpredictable. If you think about it in retrospect you're like, ok, yeah, that is a predictable plot line to follow but DURING the film you're like, oho? What's this? something new I didn't expect and hey, I LIKE it.

There were a few unbelievable bits of action - and I don't mean that in a good way. But I think we're supposed to let it slide because every once in a while yes, these guys are going to do something we just can't believe because, after all, we're human. Glaring example would be the end battle and how it resolves. That's all I'll say on that.

I also like that our romantic interests aren't romantic with one another really and thank god they didn't have an embryonic love scene like Matrix 2. That was just sad. These guys are fighting a battle, after all, and gotta do what they gotta do. Ain't got time for sucking face.

I do think plot thread switching was a little lacking in a few places - particularly as the hunt goes on toward the end, all sorts of things are happening to different people and by the end we're not necessarily sure of all their fates. Since they took the time to show us the start of the threads, they should finish them, or, not resolve them in such a quick tangle of switching around that we're left to be like, f*ck it, i'll just concentrate on the heros, man.

I think they could have focused more on the vampire clan and others in it - the little tragicomedies. I like the blonde supporting actress and they needed more (not much more) of a connection so we could see the true situation within the clan rather than just hear about it from different people's pov. "The house is in a state of unrest, they all doubt so and so."

And there's gonna be a sequel and I think i'll see it. goodtimes.

Tada! Miriam makes another post in the same month - shocking!

__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.

Very entertaining movie with a great deal of depth. Well acted--Kate Beckinsale was hot as the cat-woman vampire protagonist of the movie. Scott Speedman wasn't bad in the Romeo role, though he didn't have much of an acting role. And, of course, the back-stabbing bad-guy of the movie--the underhanded bastard we all love to hate--the cowardly vampire leader "Craven" (appropriate name)--a total jerk, if there ever was one! Along with the truly ominous "Viktor", they constituted the main body of the villainous vampires in the movie. And, of course, there were assorted werewolves and mean-looking dogs thrown in for good measure. But the film had a well-executed dark, gothic look-and-feel to it and, while it was a little too loud, it was an entertaining, engaging flick.

I disagree--this movie had no depth. There was depth to be had, of course, but the writers missed the boat. I have nothing against stunt-guys and in no way want to malign their collective intelligence, but when I found out that this flick was made by a bunch of ex-stunt-guys, it kinda clicked for me. Know what I'm saying?

One particular mistake made by the filmmakers: having all the other werewolves look like street thugs and then having your main werewolf look like the vampires, even down to being as effete as all hell... Well, that's a problem. If it had been explained in any way, it might have been a neat characterizing thing: he always felt inferior to the vampires and now tries to ape their appearance.

But nope.

I also had reservations as the hyped-up Romeo and Juliet aspect. While, yes, Romeo and Juliet fell in love "at first sight," they at least had some scenes in the play where they actually spoke at length to one another. The dialogue between Selene and Michael never got beyond exchanges like this:

"What the f*ck is going on?"
"Well, let me explain..."

Plus, I'd have to clock it to be certain, but I'd be willing to guess that they spend maybe twenty minutes actually onscreen together, and less than five of those minutes speaking to one another. They didn't even have a decent kiss, fer crissakes.

But, as Selene's blond vampire friend said, "He's attractive." Which is more than enough of a reason for an immortal to fall in love with a human, I reckon.

I agree about the look; it was one of the few things that made sense to me. However--and this is very much a bitchy gripe that really has no bearing on the rest of this response/review --I've grown a little tired of seeing vampires loll about in fetish-wear and the ultimate in gothic-ennui-chic.

To sum up my feelings: I was mildly entertained. I was never engaged. The best action sequences were in the trailer. I got bored. These stunt-guys did something I thought could never, ever happen: f*ck up a perfectly decent and interesting premise for a vampire/werewolf flick. I give it one-and-a-half stars out of four. And that half-star is simply because I paid money to see it.

Actually, Viktor was, indeed, the head vampire dude. Lucian was the big bad werewolf. Other than that, I agree with the above: how on earth our good friend Uday could classify this movie as having "depth" is something I can't fathom (no pun intended). I could probably tolerate them having no specific or compelling reason for falling in love, if only they'd at least shown it happening. They didn't, really.


Glad I'm not the only one. How about a flick full of abstinent vampires who drink Coors and wear corduroys? The pale, passionate vampire thing's been done to death.

Okay, we get it: the blood sucking is a sexual metaphor. Terribly clever. Now please, move on.

Well, dammit. Second time in two days I've made a mistake like that. I'm laying off the crack as of... well, tomorrow.

Apologies, Django. You were right. My previous post is hereby edited to preserve the last vestiges of integrity and credibility I possess. If I had any to begin with.

This is one of the reasons I love Near Dark and would most definitely cite it in a list of my top five vampire flicks. It takes the cliches and blows them all to hell. Plus, Bill Paxton!

"Underworld 2
Despite so-so reviews for the original, a sequel has already been green-lit. The folks at Sony Screen Gems decided to jump the gun after the world premiere audience at Toronto went wild for it. Critics were much less kind, although audiences were drawn to it; the film earned $22 million its first weekend to open at No. 1. Kate Beckinsale and Scott Speedman are rumored to be returning, although nothing is official yet.
"

From Movie News Online

__________________
Many blessings, Polite

Actually, this movie was more of a remake of the Jet-Li action flick Romeo Must Die than of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. I kind of liked that Jet-Li movie. Regarding depth--I thought the whole vampire-werewolf allegory was pretty profound--the blood-feud/blood-lust bit and Viktor's obsession with blood--very profound--a lot of depth--if you knew where to look for it. This was a movie not so much about romance as about racism and racial/ethnic barriers. Like I said, very profound, very well executed, loaded with tons of depth and messages, if you know where to look.

Romeo Must Die was also loosely based on Romeo + Juliet, so how can you say it was based on a movie that wasn't very popular.

Because both Romeo Must Die and Underworld were both loosely based on Romeo and Juliet, Underworld is not a remake of Romeo Must Die.

Believe me, I know where to look for depth. It's my bread and butter. Vampires and werewolves (and ghosts, Frankenstein's monster, etc.) are symbols of humanity's fears about itself--that's where they came from, what the cautionary folktales were all about. When you delve into the mythology, yes, that can be profound.

However, it's all been done before. This movie raised no new profound ideas in that mythology--rather, it simply re-used all the things that had been done before, right now to the stereotyping. And then it just mishandled all the ways in which the vampire/werewolf racism storyline could have been interesting by falling back on the old "he married my daughter/he killed my wife" conflict as an explanation for everything.

I've already addressed this, I think, but, yes--on the surface, you're right. However, I don't think any racist person who watches Underworld is going to be made to think, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't hate so blindly." To be considered "profound", a movie should contain some element of that.

Sure, if you've never seen any other version of Romeo and Juliet--excluding Jet Li's magnum opus, of course--or a film like The Believer, which actually does look at racial/ethnic barriers in an interesting and profound way.

It's an action movie, Django. Action movies can often have depth to them, but this one doesn't. And you can argue until you're blue in the face about Underworld being profound, but simply having a racial element to the plot does not make it so.

You may be right, of course. It's just that I enjoyed it and I found some important and interesting messages in it. Sure, it isn't Shakespeare, any more than Romeo Must Die, but for a gothic action movie, it isn't bad.

Hi Mary Lo!
I was anxious to read your thoughts on Underworld since you are my werewolf watching friend....

I did not think this movie was as good as I hoped it would be... Jesus we have been watiting to see it for what like a year now or something....

but with that being said, it was not as bad as everyone is making it out to be either....

If I had to categorize it, I would say one to rent not one to see @ theatre.

I agree with you on alot of your qualms. But the question I propose to you is what would you have rather seen in the movie? The Romeo/Juliet factor to me was OVER emphasized in prior monthes...

I guess I want to know either what would you had rather happen in this film and what would you like in Underworld2. Assuming of course this one hasnt turned you off so completely that you wont even go see the sequal....

__________________
it's better to have loved and lost
than to live with the psycho
for the rest of your life