I finally watched Underworld

[stevelabny]

and it had to be the worst movie of 2003.

I saw Gigli last week and it was a LOT more entertaining than this.

I barely ever insult actors BUT this movie had the worst acting I've ever seen.
EVERYONE was brutal (except maybe the guy who played Lucian). The guy who played Craven was so bad, he should never work again. And if he's back to waiting tables, I wouldn't leave him a tip. The person who cast him should also be banished from the industry.

This movie had no redeeming qualities, no original ideas, no comedy, no drama, no action. Everything was done poorly.

The last movie I saw that was so bad I almost didn't want to watch the end of it was the Dungeons and Dragons movie. That's how awful this was.

I think I'm gonna send this back to Netflix with a little note to warn the next renter. Something like "If you watch this while eating, you WILL rip your eyes out with a fork" or "Suicide is a better option."

My mind is still reeling. When will the pain go away? Should I induce vomitting?
Is there a cure to what ails me?

I need to go watch something to wash this bad taste out of my mouth, eyes, ears and nose. Maybe Emperor's New Groove? Demon Llama!

 

[Mistwell]

No redeeming qualities? You call Kate Beckinsale something other than a redeeming quality?

 

[tetsujin28]

Geez, I found UW far better than most of the films I saw in 2003, including the Matrix movies.

And Kate Beckinsale is a way redeeming quality!

 

[TempSn]

Geez, I found UW far better than most of the films I saw in 2003, including the Matrix movies.

And Kate Beckinsale is a way redeeming quality!

Ditto, i loved the movie.

 

[reapersaurus]

This is one of the easier-disproved posts I've seen (as far as an fallacious opinion can be disproved):

no redeeming qualities? Kate Beckinsale's posterior.
DISPROVED.

No original ideas?
Werewolves and vampires descend from a common ancestor, and their bloodlines are due to a virus, that when combined creates another race. Not to mention that it's a werewolf vs vampire war movie, which to the best of my understanding has not been done the same way before at all.
DISPROVED.

No comedy - it WASN'T a comedy. duh.

No action - did you WATCH the movie? Most people that comment talk about how it had too many action pieces.
DISPROVED.

Everything was done poorly - while this is VERY subjective, I'd have to put Viktor's revival up there with something that unequivocably was done very well.

Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, but when their opinion is so devoid of any factual basis, it's hard to respect it.

I think it shows poor form to start a thread about Underworld that basically says "it sucked", with no valid listing or reasoning that it sucked other than Craven's actor's performance.
This kind of baseless criticism easily could have been added to the end of one of the various Underworld movie threads we've had. - it's hardly worthy of starting a new thread.

 

[reapersaurus]

Is there a cure to what ails me?

You're saying you've got a FEVER, and the only prescription is more COWBELL?!

 

[noretoc]

Underworld was pretty original, dark, feely. I loved it. It blew away the matrix movies!

 

[The Serge]

Lame

I was among those eagerly anticipating Underworld, a flick starring Kate Beckinsale and released by Screen Gems. Afterall, for those into comics, fantasy, sci-fi and similar fare, what could be better than a show down between two of gothic horror's greatest iconic monsters: Vampires and Werewolves? Of course, anyone who paid attention to the trailers, previews, and commercials would have known that a new direction was being taken with both creatures. It was obvious that two recent fantasy/sci-fi films, Blade and The Matrix, signficantly influenced Underworld. We had a gun-toting, leather wearing, martial arts film with blue-grey cinematography and a neo-gothic cityscape. With such a look, and an attractive star, and great previews, all that was needed was a good story and decent acting.

Well, half of something is better than nothing, I suppose...

Underworld is an example of a film that captures some elements so well that it goes overboard in other elements and ultimately fails to accomplish its goals. UW is not a bad movie... but niether is it a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.

The concept of this story is there has been a war brewing between two castes of immortals for centuries: Vampires and Lycans (werewolves). No one knows how the war started and, over the past few centuries, Vampires have had the upper hand since the death of a major Lycan leader, Lucien. Selene (Beckinsale), our protagonist, is a Death-Dealer, a Vampire who kills Lycans. As such, she goes everywhere in leather oufits, wears a leather trench, wears high heels, and carries a pair of matching guns. Oh-la-la. Of course, she carries silver bullets. Everyone has cool gothic names (Victor, Selene, Lucien, Craven), which clearly indicates that these are cool characters. In the course of a botched attack on a couple of Lycans, Selene stumbles into a mystery concerning a mortal targetted by the Lycans: Michael. Thus begins a story that ideally would revolve around why Michael's important to the Lycans. Instead, what happens is an attempt to create an epic-style story over the course of 115 minutes and here the film fails miserably.

There are a number of flaws in the film. First, the power-relationships between Vampires and Lycans. Vampires really got the shaft here. Sure, they're stronger than mortals, but they're no stronger than a Lycan while the latter's in human form and certainly no match for a werewolf physically. Hell, half the time when the two meet, the Vampire stands around, hissing and spitting like a rabid cat, while the Lycan transforms and then rips the Vampire to shreds. What's confusing about this is that there are a few Vampires (the omnipresent Elders that we find in every modern Vampire story or game) who can take out a Werewolf effortlessly regardless of form... Oh, wait, I'm wrong; apparently only one Elder can do this. Which begs the question, why are the vamps winning? Well, because there are more of them. Which leads to other problems once you learn about the backgrounds of both groups. Powers fluctuate and some of the actions taken make no sense (like, we find out that Vampires can jump really high and stick to ceilings... but then they take the elevator or the stairs to get around). These inconsistencies were bothersome.

Another flaw is the breadth of the story. We are introduced to a lot of information in a short period of time. There are some interesting turns regarding motivations and goals, but these happen throughout the film at the worse times, introducing characters who end up being important but would have been better off in a sequel. It's clear that the writer(s) have a great background story here and I was intrigued by that story, but too much was introduced too soon and it diluted the characters. By the time I began to become interested in one character, another one was introduced who changed everything. This became a distraction and a bad one at that.

And then the obligatory love connection. An utter waste of time. In a trilogy, Selene and Michael would have been cool getting together. Instead, they just are horny for each other for no good reason and the film is cold as a result. There are other tensions that just make no sense, but it's this one that really annoys.

Finally, the fight scenes are uninspired. Towards the end of the film there's a fight between an Elder and another monster and it looks ridiculous. It's obvious that punches aren't connecting. In fact, in the theatre I watched the film, people laughed throughout that fight. Pair that with the Vampires kindly giving Werewolves time to transform, and it's enough to freeze the brain. Everyone carries a gun. And herein lies a final problem.

For whatever reason (actually, I have some suspicions), recent Vampire-type movies seem to frown upon the idea that these beings are supernatural creatures. Since Blade, the likes of Vampires have become increasingly "human." They don't fly, they don't change into anything, they don't control minds, they cast shadows and reflections, they don't move with preternatural speed, and they're not outrageously strong. I suppose this is a nod to contemporary sensibilities. Whatever. Afterall, if the audience can accept immortal creatures that drink blood and can be killed by sunlight, why can't they accept these other elements. In this film, which really boils down to an issue of classism and racism, it's all too human and robs Vampires and Werewolves of their supernatural overtones, the things that make them so cool. I'm all for revamping (no pun intended), but not at the expense of many of the core elements to a character-type.

Still, Underworld is not an utter failure. It does have some shining moments, and these come from the story if you're willing to accept that too much information is given away in one film rather than in two. This would have done better as a maxi-series on Sci-Fi channel because it would have been far more enjoyable and sensible. The look is slick and imposing and some of the effects (particularly the Lycans) are really cool. Beckinsale is not bad, and most of the acting, while not spectacular (aside from the Lycan leader, who's great!), is serviceable.

This is a renter, but not a keeper unless you just like to by DVDs (like me). Underworld is like a person with a great body covered in too much fat. We all know too much of something can be detrimental. This movie solidifies that notion.

C-

 

[stevelabny]

there will be spoilers below in my full dissection of the movie. I would've made this a spoiler thread if I thought it was going to be necessary.

This is one of the easier-disproved posts I've seen (as far as an fallacious opinion can be disproved):
no redeeming qualities? Kate Beckinsale's posterior.
DISPROVED.

Steve Peeve #1.
To you and the other poster's telling me about her rear.
If I want to enjoy myself to hot chicks, I have a large collection of magazines and videos specifically with that purpose in mind.
Like chocolate and pizza, porn and regular entertainment don't go together. Liking a movie/tv show/ comic book/ video game for no other reason than hot chicks is sad. Just go buy porn.

No original ideas?
Werewolves and vampires descend from a common ancestor, and their bloodlines are due to a virus, that when combined creates another race. Not to mention that it's a werewolf vs vampire war movie, which to the best of my understanding has not been done the same way before at all.
DISPROVED.

I read the White Wold lawsuit thread, and it seems that Vampire+Werewolf= something else has been done before. Modernizing old stories by turning mutations into viruses or providing other scientifc reasoning has been done many times (and almost always badly, see Hulk) This movie could try to claim originality by saying it takes bit and pieces from lots of other stories and throws them together in a new way, and SOMETIMES that's enough, but this flick really felt like a mish-mash of other parts. The entire "look and feel" of the movie was based on the Matrix. (see Serge's post)

No comedy - it WASN'T a comedy. duh.

EVERY movie benefits from comedy. DUH. This is why all "action" movies try to be funny and why even Saving Private Ryan attempted levity after one of the most sick and depressing opening scenes ever. Comedy is a part of life. I find it impossible to believe immortals wouldn't have a sense of humor.

No action - did you WATCH the movie? Most people that comment talk about how it had too many action pieces.
DISPROVED.

Standing still firing a gun is NOT action. Almost every combat in this movie involved a bunch of people standing still firing guns with bullets that had no effect. Ridiculous.
Towards the end of the movie, we get a Werewolf vs Vampire with two whips fight. Did I mention that BOTH combatants are completely irrelevant to the plot?
Here's the scene. Werewolf transfroms slowly because I'm supposed to think it looks cool. Whip-guy swings his whips four times, really slowly. Then, werewolf eats him. If you want pointless fight scenes, I suggest at least having ONE main character in the battle and since you've stolen from so many other sources, why not steal Indy vs the Swordsman from Raider of the Lost Ark and at least put ONE smile on my face?
The final battle was the only thing remotely resembling an action scene.
"remotely" being the key word of course.
Like the rest of the action, it was poorly filmed and worsely choreographed.
(See,this movie sucks so bad, I have to invent new words like worsely)

Everything was done poorly - while this is VERY subjective, I'd have to put Viktor's revival up there with something that unequivocably was done very well.

His awakening spent way too much time lingering on the fact that these vampire's had a heartbeat. Just like the whole movie spent way too much time lingering on the fact that these vamps have reflections. My friend was POSITIVE that the reflections were going to play a part in the plot because the filmmakers insisted on having every vamp stare into every piece of glass, but it went nowhere.
After awakening, Viktor needed a portable IV to feed him blood. Good idea to make the villain seem so weak and un-threatening. Filmmaking 101 is down the hall.
If by his "revival" you meant his makeup shifting from corpse to human then yes, the makeup crew did a good job with Viktor. So I'll amend my statement to EVERYTHING IMPORTANT was done poorly, some of the makeup looked good.

Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, but when their opinion is so devoid of any factual basis, it's hard to respect it.

And its even harder to respect this statement. Looking for facts in opinions? Riiiight.

I think it shows poor form to start a thread about Underworld that basically says "it sucked", with no valid listing or reasoning that it sucked other than Craven's actor's performance.
This kind of baseless criticism easily could have been added to the end of one of the various Underworld movie threads we've had. - it's hardly worthy of starting a new thread.

I went back and read the original threads before I posted.
I chose not to resurrect the spoiler thread because I just wanted to bash the movie without getting into details so as not to spoil it for those who still wanted to see it. Are movie reviews of "It rocked" or "It sucked" no longer allowed? If so, I didn't get the memo. My apologies. Is sarcasm still ok?
I chose not to resurrect the non-spoiler thread because it was started BEFORE the movie came out and had pages of chatter about what people were expecting and hoping for. IF I would have used that thread, new readers would never have read my post.
BUT this movie was so god-awful that I felt OBLIGATED to warn everyone who might be interested to stay away.
Pretentious? Of course. But thats what posting opinions on the net is all about.
It seemed within board guidelines to start a new thread four months after the original posts. Many topics get many more threads than that each time a new user shows up on the boards. There are dozens of LOTR threads discussing the same exact things. Such is the nature of the geek.

But since you asked, here's a whole bunch of things that are wrong with this movie.

-Vampires and werewolves in name only. They had no special powers of fighting ability. So why bother?
-I've seen this movie before: Leather, guns, and the same feel as Matrix.
-The acting was abysmal across the board. (except maybe Lucian)
-Whatever the guy called Craven was doing, I wouldn't call it acting.
-Fixating on minor details (like the vamps reflections and heartbeat) but leaving major details mostly untouched. (like the backstory see below)
-Werewolves have daylight bullets, then never use them in the final battle.
-Wolves seem stronger and have less weaknesses than vamps, but somehow were losing the war
-Vampire elders are more powerful than regular vamps, but one gets taken out off-camera.
-Young Selene has her family butchered, than some vampire shows up and blames werewolves and makes her a vampire.... she believes him WHY?
-Slene, Viktor, Craven, Lucian, Kahn, Raze: Someone shoot me.
-Most importantly: the exposition was in all the wrong places. We start with a fight scene where we have no idea what's going on. And then we're spoon-fed details seconds before the become important. All of the expostion was so poorly written and delivered that I could actually hear an announcer's voice say " Oh, yeah, here's something else you should know before the next scene".
The revelation that Viktor killed Selene's family is tacked on as an addition to the revelation that Lucian is the victim in the piece and both come at the absolute last second. With Michael having "flashbacks" why not clue us in beforehand so we don't have to keep pausing the climax of the movie for exposition? BRUTAL.
-I'm sure I'm missing more things that irritated me the first time through, but its time for football.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just like the whole movie spent way too much time lingering on the fact that these vamps have reflections. My friend was POSITIVE that the reflections were going to play a part in the plot because the filmmakers insisted on having every vamp stare into every piece of glass, but it went nowhere.

That annoyed me.

If they had taken five seconds for Michael to say "Hey - you have a reflection!" and Selene to reply with "That's a myth", it wouldn't have bothered me.

But they really went out of their way to show reflections, and never even acknowledged that legends of vampires say they don't have any.

-Hyp.