# Underworld not getting good reviews...



## Krug (Sep 9, 2003)

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16037

The comments section is absolute anarchy.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 9, 2003)

Underworld not getting good reviews? Hmm. I guess a simple, "Well, duh" sums up nicely.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 9, 2003)

Ya, I agree with Mark.  The trailers look terrible.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 9, 2003)

I just posted that link in one of the lawsuit threads. 
Here is the link for the IMDB page on the film, check out the writer and director credits, how did the assistant props guy from Independence Day and the "2nd Ape Soldier" from Planet of the Apes get to make their own movie?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320691/


----------



## Krug (Sep 9, 2003)

I thought he did it by marrying Kate Beckinsale.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 10, 2003)

So now we have to ask "is the lawsuit a way to get more people to the movie?"  They test and they would know what the general feeling for the movie was, by pushing the o-buzz-a-meter could they generate interest that could be turned into cash?


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 10, 2003)

Does anybody ACTUALLY listen to the "internet buzz" about a film and take it at face value?

The percentage of movies that get negative buzz that I have liked is FAR more than the percentage of movies that have gotten positive buzz that I have liked.

Of course, that statement is skewed by the fact that *almost no movies get positive buzz*, due to the afraid-to-compliment atmosphere on the internet right now.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 10, 2003)

I don't know if buzz really works or not but I know the death of the singer and the buzz generated from that helped *The Queen of the Damn* with ticket sells, though that was more apples and oranges I don't put anything past Hollywood, still think Ben and Jen is pub stunt.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 10, 2003)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> still think Ben and Jen is pub stunt.




I did a pub stunt once. Spilled oatmeal stout all over the floor. Waitress got mad at me.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> I did a pub stunt once. Spilled oatmeal stout all over the floor. Waitress got mad at me.




Ah, all eyes on you too!


----------



## Krug (Sep 10, 2003)

Well if u read AICN you know there's a buzz about Ong Bak Muay: Thai Warrior, as well as Zatoichi. I'd be more interested in watching any of those rather than Underworld.

I do think that there still is a "buzz", but it's effects are less pronounced (compared to say at the time of Blair Witch), since you can get so many legitimate reviews on the net these days.


----------



## uv23 (Sep 10, 2003)

AICN is more of a safehouse for annoying self-proclaimed iflm critics that like to use REALLY BIG FONTS more than anything. Their reviews are meaningless to me and I'm sure to most others. I'll go see this movie regardless and hey if it sucks, thats life.


----------



## Krug (Sep 10, 2003)

Another -ve review.. more complete:
http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2003/sonypictures/underworld/review.html

Also, that AICN review doesn't use *REALLY BIG FONTS*. Just a pity that one has to take the good tomatoes with the rotten ones.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 10, 2003)

Here is a much more positive review from empiremovies.com: 
http://www.empiremovies.com/reviews/brendan/underworld.shtml

Here's a review in French (shame I don't read french or I could tell you if it was a good or bad review):
http://www.filmdeculte.com/film/film.php?id=601

And here is one about a completly different movie called Underworld:
http://www.theonionavclub.com/review.php?review_id=1310


----------



## theT0rmented (Sep 10, 2003)

> Here's a review in French (shame I don't read french or I could tell you if it was a good or bad review):
> http://www.filmdeculte.com/film/film.php?id=601




It's not very favorable. They compare it to a B-movie. They say its narrative style is laborious, and that the rebounds are mostly redundant and useless, and that the combat scenes are less than stellar. They say the movie's theme is much under-utilized; that it could have been much more. They say technically the movie is well done, but the plot / story fails.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 10, 2003)

Bah. I'll watch it. My personal taste does not mesh with the mainstream, anyway, although they do crossed path several times, to my chagrin.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2003)

This sounds like a love it or hate it movie.

Take the scene from the trailer (thus, no spoilerage) where she uses her Uzis to cut a neat little hole through the floor around her feet, thus making a nice escape.

My friends thought it was way cool and were immediately psyched for the flick.

Myself, I think it's just about the dumbest thing I've seen this year.  *shrug*

That said, I'm sure I'll go to see it.  1) I'm a vampire fanatic, so it's a moral imperitive.  2) Kate Beckinsale looks nice in tight vinyl (sure, it's piggish, but at least I'm honest).


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 10, 2003)

theT0rmented said:
			
		

> It's not very favorable. They compare it to a B-movie. They say its narrative style is laborious, and that the rebounds are mostly redundant and useless, and that the combat scenes are less than stellar. They say the movie's theme is much under-utilized; that it could have been much more. They say technically the movie is well done, but the plot / story fails.



Are you sure you didn't accidentally read a review for _Matrix Reloaded_?


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 10, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> I did a pub stunt once. Spilled oatmeal stout all over the floor. Waitress got mad at me.




Was it Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout?

If so, I am mad at you too. That stuff is not to be wasted.


----------



## Krug (Sep 10, 2003)

Chud's review also says it's a dud: http://www.chud.com/news/sept03/sept10under.php3

PS: Just noticed the signoff for the guy at AICN is Strahd. Hmm...


----------



## myrdden (Sep 10, 2003)

theT0rmented said:
			
		

> It's not very favorable. They compare it to a B-movie. They say its narrative style is laborious, and that the rebounds are mostly redundant and useless, and that the combat scenes are less than stellar. They say the movie's theme is much under-utilized; that it could have been much more. They say technically the movie is well done, but the plot / story fails.




Doesn't that summarize a lot of what Hollywood has been producing lately?

Myrdden


----------



## jdavis (Sep 13, 2003)

another bad review at Aint it Cool News. This one was even worse than the last one:  http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16069


----------



## Krug (Sep 13, 2003)

Well after sitting through Charlie's Angels 2 I had enough of the summer explosions/flimsy excuses for a movie, and skipped almost everything else. Only thing I'll see is Pirates. rest of the time it's Simpsons Season 3.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 13, 2003)

Heh!  I'll admit that my hopes weren't high for this movie.  It always sounded a little silly to me... "Yeah, this move is a retelling of _Romeo and Juliet_ featuring vampires and werewolves."

Maybe someday I'll catch this movie when it's on HBO or Cinemax.  It dosen't even sound like it'd be worth a 99 cent rental at Blockbuster.


----------



## takyris (Sep 13, 2003)

You know, Jezter, I think it says a lot about how far your tastes and mine differ that hearing "Romeo & Juliet, but w/Vampires & Werewolves" makes me actually interested in seeing the movie, when I had ZERO interest in seeing it beforehand. 

Ditto on the floor thing.  While I'm no weapons expert, I kind of think that it wouldn't exactly work like that -- and from a style viewpoint, it looks less like The Matrix and more like Yosemite Sam trying to saw the floor out from under Bugs Bunny.  It could look good in the film itself, though -- the re-edits they do for commercials often irk me.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 13, 2003)

I kinda expected it to suck really, but I usually do (I mean, I was sure 
LotR would lick hairy balls, but hey!) expect that from major pictures 
unless I have 100% faith in the filmmakers.

I'll still see it. I can't not.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 14, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ditto on the floor thing. While I'm no weapons expert, I kind of think that it wouldn't exactly work like that -- and from a style viewpoint, it looks less like The Matrix and more like Yosemite Sam trying to saw the floor out from under Bugs Bunny. It could look good in the film itself, though -- the re-edits they do for commercials often irk me.



"I'm the rootenist tootenist vampire north south east and west of the Pecos" If she could fire her guns straight down fast enough to lift herself off the floor then I'd really be impressed, "you darn werewolf galoot".

I'm sure I'll eventually end up seeing this movie, of course the professional media reviews have not come out yet, I'll have to wait to see what Roger Ebert says. Whether I see it at the theater or rent it later will depend on what kind of buzz the movie has after it has been out for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Hackenslash (Sep 14, 2003)

*....Werewolves and Vampires ?.....gotta watch !!*

Come on ENWorlders, this is an RPG Website and you're telling me that a Vampire and Werewolf flick is gonna be Pants !!! and not many people will watch it. I doubt it. I will definitely see this movie if for no other reason than to see a Werewolf fight a Vampire and kick it's butt. 'Nuff Said. Cheers All


----------



## Chain Lightning (Sep 15, 2003)

jdavis wrote:







> check out the writer and director credits, how did the assistant props guy from Independence Day and the "2nd Ape Soldier" from Planet of the Apes get to make their own movie?





Well, I think its a bit unfair to judge them based on the fact that they only did 'little stuff' before making this movie. Everyone has to start somewhere. I mean, I would'n't have seen "Aliens" if I based how good a movie is going to be off the director's previous credits. At the time, (IIRC), Cameron had only done art design on "Battle Beyond the Stars" and directed "Piranhha 2:The Spawning".

A lot of these guys may have mundane credits under their belt, but it doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing. Everyone needs a day job till they can break into the bigger arena of movie making.

Now, I'm not saying these guys who did "Underworld" are good. They could actually suck. But I'm just saying....you probably shouldn't judge them off the fact that they've never directed a major motion picture before.

However, you can get a sense of how bad a film might turn out to be if the credits of the core people (writer/director/producer) has a long list of bad films. But if they haven't done anything before....it doesn't mean they'll be bad.

M. Night Shaylaman's "The Sixth Sense" was pretty cool. That was his first major picture right?  Yes, true....they're ones that prove that first time can mean crappy quality. Courtney Solomon on "Dungeons&Dragons" and Mark Dippe on "Spawn".  

Just saying that it doesn't mean its an 'automatic crap'.


Mercule wrote:







> Take the scene from the trailer (thus, no spoilerage) where she uses her Uzis to cut a neat little hole through the floor around her feet, thus making a nice escape.




By the way, just a little FYI.  Oliver Grunner in the straight to video movie "Nemesis" did that move first! [or at least before Kate did it]  Not that I think anyone would care to know that bit of useless info. But just in case you want to know who came up with that move first....I think we can thank the team on "Nemesis".


----------



## jdavis (Sep 15, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> jdavis wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, I think its a bit unfair to judge them based on the fact that they only did 'little stuff' before making this movie. Everyone has to start somewhere. I mean, I would'n't have seen "Aliens" if I based how good a movie is going to be off the director's previous credits. At the time, (IIRC), Cameron had only done art design on "Battle Beyond the Stars" and directed "Piranhha 2:The Spawning".
> ...



Yea but it's not a good sign either. It's not like I want this movie to be bad I was looking forward to it, but when you see bad reviews, a lawsuit and it being their first movie you have to wonder. 

By the way Cameron made Terminator before he made Aliens (and yes I did go to see Aliens because the guy who made Terminator directed it).


----------



## Chain Lightning (Sep 15, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> By the way Cameron made Terminator before he made Aliens (and yes I did go to see Aliens because the guy who made Terminator directed it).




oops, ....sometimes my head is so messed up. I meant to say, "Terminator" not "Aliens"....

You're right.

So take my above comment and replace the word "Aliens" with "Terminator".  Then that's what I meant to say.


----------



## Krug (Sep 15, 2003)

Well I've seen it and I agree with most of the reviews. It's pretty crap. Speedman is one of the most colorless actors I've ever seen, and the acting is horrifyingly bad. Even the Romeo and Juliet story is botched. 

Only saving grace is some of the cool transformations, but hardly enought to rescue this stinker.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 16, 2003)

Sci Fi is doing a show on Underworld Thursday at 9

http://www.scifi.com/inside/


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 16, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> M. Night Shaylaman's "The Sixth Sense" was pretty cool. That was his first major picture right?



I agree with your above post but I just wanted to point out that *The Sixth Sense* was not M. Night's first film.  He directed *Praying With Anger* and *Wide Awake* prior to it, both of which no one has heard of.  I had to check IMDB for the titles so I didn't even know...


----------



## Krug (Sep 18, 2003)

even though the buzz and reviews on the web are overwhelmingly negative (Bloodi Disgusting calls it "a disaster from the get-go"), Creature Corner says there's goign to be a sequel. *RETCH*
http://www.creature-corner.com/news3/sept18underworld.php3


----------



## Jarval (Sep 18, 2003)

There's a (somewhat) positive review on the BBC Films page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/09/11/underworld_2003_review.shtml

I have to say I rather like the sound of this movie, but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 18, 2003)

Jarval said:
			
		

> There's a (somewhat) positive review on the BBC Films page:



Heh.  "It sucks but it holds your attension."  Hardly the praise I'd want for my film.  Makes it sound a lot like watching someone be disembowled.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 18, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> I kinda expected it to suck really, but I usually do (I mean, I was sure LotR would lick hairy balls, but hey!)



Darn! Wish I was there to make a wager: either the film lick hairy balls or you would. 



			
				Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> expect that from major pictures unless I have 100% faith in the filmmakers.



* Scoffs * I have HAD 100% faith in George Lucas to do the next set of _SW_ Trilogy despite the fact that prior to production, he spent most of his time building up and refining his special effects studio, ILM, none of the time spent honing his directing skill like his buddy Steven Spielberg, who have moved from the _Goonies_ to award-winning _Schindler's List._

The result: He introduced Jar Jar Bink to the world. 

I didn't have faith in Bryan Singer when he did the first _X-Men_ film, nor did I have faith in Sam Raimi (prior to _Spider-Man,_ he produced _Hercules_ and _Xena,_ popular to many but below my taste for fantasy).

In summary: I stop acting like a purist and stop placing faith or no faith on filmmakers. If it's a good movie, then it's a good movie, despite what sophisticates and critics think.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 19, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> I kinda expected it to suck really, but I usually do (I mean, I was sure
> LotR would lick hairy balls, but hey!) expect that from major pictures
> unless I have 100% faith in the filmmakers.
> 
> I'll still see it. I can't not.



 I don't think there is anybody that I have 100% faith in, heck I doubt there is anyone in Hollywood I have any faith in at all. With movies you just have to risk disappointment. Ok so you might be taking a big risk seeing Underworld but there are no sure bets in movies.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 19, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I don't think there is anybody that I have 100% faith in, heck I doubt there is anyone in Hollywood I have any faith in at all. With movies you just have to risk disappointment. Ok so you might be taking a big risk seeing Underworld but there are no sure bets in movies.



I can say with total confidence that whenever I walk into a Pixar movie, I KNOW I will be very entertained.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 19, 2003)

Roger Ebert's review or Underworld:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-underworld19f.html


----------



## Volaran (Sep 19, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Roger Ebert's review or Underworld:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-underworld19f.html





For some reason, it greatly amuses me that he referenced a Castlevania site.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 19, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I can say with total confidence that whenever I walk into a Pixar movie, I KNOW I will be very entertained.



You do realized you have just put all moviegoing parents in Connecticut on alert.  

Just Kidding.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 19, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Roger Ebert's review or Underworld:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-underworld19f.html



 Ooops I forgot Pirate day, the post should of read 
Avast ye mates Pegleg Ebert do be keelhauling Underworld: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-underworld19f.html


----------



## jdavis (Sep 19, 2003)

E online puts a broadside into Underworld: http://www.eonline.com/Reviews/Facts/Movies/Reviews/0,1052,88224,00.html

USA today makes Underworld walk the plank: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2003-09-18-also-opening_x.htm

The Hollywood Reporter scrapes barnicles with Underworld: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1972532

The New York Post sends Underworld to Davy Jones Locker: http://nypost.com/movies/6166.htm

The Chicago Tribune gives it a not so hardy Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of Rum: http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-030918movies-review-rke-underworld,0,955813.story?coll=mmx-movies_top_heds


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 19, 2003)

How about "I just saw the movie, and I thought it was excellent" - Mistwell

Seriously, this is a pretty good movie in my opinion, and I tend to be harsh on movie reviews.  The actor who plays the character Craven really sucks.  But beyond that, it's a solidly good movie.  Quite entertaining.  Go see it and judge for yourself.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 19, 2003)

New York Times (I've run out of pirate stuff): http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/movies/19UNDE.html


----------



## reiella (Sep 20, 2003)

Arr them lilly livered lampey spawn been darned near worth a watching.

[ Blah ]
It was a fun movie to watch, the romance is 'mediocre', but it isn't the point of the movie.  Nice cinematography, combat was soso (not gun-fu like matrix, and no real showmanship in general, just nice flips), the effects were nice (the wereform change is nice to watch).


----------



## jaldaen (Sep 20, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How about "I just saw the movie, and I thought it was excellent" - Mistwell
> 
> Seriously, this is a pretty good movie in my opinion, and I tend to be harsh on movie reviews.  The actor who plays the character Craven really sucks.  But beyond that, it's a solidly good movie.  Quite entertaining.  Go see it and judge for yourself.




What yonder lady said tis true! Underworld shivered me timbers me only complaint is that the scallywag Craven din't walk the plank... and twas not enough flurry and daring-do to dueling... needed more flash! The story twas what carried this there movie home to habor... Three and a half hooks up! The captian can't wait till the next skirmish with Underworld 2! Aye!

Argh!
Joseph "The Fish" Miller, Esquire the III'd of Her Majesty's Auxiliary Fleet.


----------



## Pants (Sep 20, 2003)

My local newspaper critic gave it 3 stars and I usually agree with his analysis of movies.
Ebert, however, I rarely agree with.  Sometimes, he just doesn't 'get it' with some movies.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 20, 2003)

Sounds like everybody hates this movie.

You know what this means:  Harry Knowles of AICN will post a glowing review of it, the first portion of the review will be a list of all his favorite vampire movies and werewolf movies, the middle portion of the review will be a rave about how hot Kate Beckensdale is, and the final portion of the review will be his typical nonsensical rambling.


----------



## Pants (Sep 20, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Sounds like everybody hates this movie.
> 
> You know what this means:  Harry Knowles of AICN will post a glowing review of it, the first portion of the review will be a list of all his favorite vampire movies and werewolf movies, the middle portion of the review will be a rave about how hot Kate Beckensdale is, and the final portion of the review will be his typical nonsensical rambling.



And all in REALLY BIG FONT?   
I've never understood this fascination with AICN, the reviews tell me nothing, and they sound like they were written by an 8 year old.  I just don't get it.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 20, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> And all in REALLY BIG FONT?
> I've never understood this fascination with AICN, the reviews tell me nothing, and they sound like they were written by an 8 year old.  I just don't get it.




I feel the same way.  I haven't read them very often but I've never been impressed.


----------



## blindrage (Sep 20, 2003)

The movie was alot better than I thought it was going to be.  It was cheesy but it was fun to watch. Some nice twists and turns.  If you are bored one afternoon, go see it before the night prices at the movies kicks in.  Blindrage gives this moive a thumbs up.


----------



## gregweller (Sep 20, 2003)

The three other people I saw it with and myself, we give it ...counting...two thumbs apiece ...okay, that makes 8 thumbs up. The cinematography was gorgeous--very reminiscent of 'Dark City'. With the exception of the actor that played Kravin, the acting was good. The plot was consistent and made sense. The pacing was relentless. And the best thing about it was that it took itself seriously. There was none of this 'oh let's lighten it up and put some comic relief in' nonsense in it that has ruined so many movies (the reason that 'Conan the Barbarian' is a great movie, and 'Conan the Destroyer' sucked). If the people that made the 'Dungeons and Dragons' movie had showed the same respect for their material, maybe it wouldn't have been so godawful. Just a wonderful movie that left me (no pun intended) bled dry.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 20, 2003)

Eh it was ok. There was a lot of promise there but just when I would get into one of the characters would say or do something stupid. Everything looked real good the story wasn't that bad, but the dialog was horrible and there was some moments in there where the acting was so bad I just had to put my head down. A better director could of really made this a good film, it still was better than I expected though. All and all I would have to say that this movie was absolutly the worst retelling of Romeo and Juliet ever (and before you say oh yea what about ______, if the lead characters showed emotion, any emotion then yea it was better), of course I was never a big fan of Romeo and Juliet to start with. There was a lot of promise here and at times it was very good, but at times it got so bad I couldn't watch. Not good enough to recommend but also not bad enough to warn people about either.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 20, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> And all in REALLY BIG FONT?
> I've never understood this fascination with AICN, the reviews tell me nothing, and they sound like they were written by an 8 year old.  I just don't get it.




Frankly, I can't stand Harry Knowles.  I think the man is an idiot who likes to tell everyone his life story in every single review, and there is no rhyme or reason to his tastes in movies; he'll sing praises of mediocre movies because he likes one or two elements about them, and then he'll write long rants about great movies because there was a scene or two he felt should have been left out.  Not to mention that his articles read like they were written by an excitable seventh-grader who got hold of an HTML book and web space.  

The only AICN reviewer I really respect is Moriarty; his reviews are actually coherent, and generally right on the mark.  Granted, I don't agree with every review he writes, but I do agree with enough of them that I regard him as a trustable source.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 20, 2003)

Wow.  Saw it earlier tonight and was blind-sided by how good it was.  I'm glad I was just in the mood for this kind of movie, otherwise all the negative buzz might have steered me away from a surprisingly well done film.

Kate Beckinsale was stunning in every scene, the Lycans were nicely established as the bigger "bad asses", and it actually had a _story_.  Nothing mind blowing like the original Matrix (which Underworld greatly emulates in style), but just enough to give actual meaning to the many action sequences.

Beckinsale's love interest isn't a throw-away male-modelish character (as randomly they tend to be in female action hero films, ie Tomb Raider et al), but he had a fair degree of charisma, complimenting Kate without stealing the show at the end.

And _finally_ we get back to the glory (or should I say gory) days of American Werewolf in London and The Howling with bone-popping prosthetic werewolf transformations.  Oh there was a little CGI, but it was very sparing, and used quite appropriately, such as when the Lycans were running along the walls.  Everything else was convincing and cool on-set make-up effects.

I was also apprehensive that they'd go off on death metal guitar riffs to play up the intensity, but nope, even the soundtrack was cool.

I liked almost everything about this movie.  Beckinsale was established nicely as an almost Neo-like force, yet wrestling with emotional vulnerabilities and facing much more menacing adversaries on both sides of the war.  Melodramatic to the core, but I loved every minute of it.

By far the best vampire OR werewolf movie ever made, and one of the year's most surprising discoveries.  Very nice.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 20, 2003)

I liked it too. It's not an Oscar-winner, and the guy who played Kraven was a positively awful actor, but other than that I found this movie to be enjoyable. And that was a good twist at the end!


----------



## Welverin (Sep 20, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> I've never understood this fascination with AICN, the reviews tell me nothing, and they sound like they were written by an 8 year old.  I just don't get it.




With the name _Ain't it Cool News_, what would you expect?


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2003)

Needed better characters and screenplay.  The plot itself wasn't bad, and the acting was pretty solid.  The CGI was fairly fake, though.  Kate Beckinsale reminded me a lot of Trinity in the Matrix, except she was actually hot.  Hubba-hubba on that one, at least.

I liked it well enough.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 20, 2003)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Frankly, I can't stand Harry Knowles.  I think the man is an idiot who likes to tell everyone his life story in every single review, and there is no rhyme or reason to his tastes in movies; he'll sing praises of mediocre movies because he likes one or two elements about them, and then he'll write long rants about great movies because there was a scene or two he felt should have been left out.  Not to mention that his articles read like they were written by an excitable seventh-grader who got hold of an HTML book and web space.




So, yesterday I slept quite long, and then I went shopping. I bought some of these crackers that I like to eat when surfing, because today I was gonna plunge right into the swampy depths of AICN, a website that has been getting some nice reviews in the past.
Ever since I got my first computer in 1976, I have been fascinated with the concept of the internet. People coming together, talking and communicating from all over the world. Today, in the time of spam e-mails and sex sites, this dream has made way for a slightly sleazier reality. Gone is the dot.com hype, and with it numerous sites of futuristic prospect.
So, make of AICN what you will, I have formed my opinion.[/SIZE=4]

You mean like that?


----------



## jdavis (Sep 20, 2003)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I liked it too. It's not an Oscar-winner, and the guy who played Kraven was a positively awful actor, but other than that I found this movie to be enjoyable. And that was a good twist at the end!



Kraven was awful but I think a better director could of made him look better, he just came off all wrong. The guy who played Raze came off like a big goffball but since the character was supposed to be that way I guess he did a good job of acting like a musclebound idiot. The two werewolf police officers were awful too but I sort of liked the creepy little scientist werewolf. I'd call Bekinsale and Speedman's performances flat but I really liked the head werewolf.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 20, 2003)

I just got back from seeing it. Fairly good, but I probably will not buy it when it comes out on DVD. The scenes were good, very evocative at times, and really did capture much of the 'Gothic Punk'  atmosphere; I'll have to remember a lot of them when I run Vampire next time. 

Nope, didn't like Kraven. The actor.. just didn't give me that sense of ambition mingled with fear at losing his position that I thought he'd have. And I didn't really like some of the scenes with Victor; all stately elegance at times, others, just.. odd. The final combat scene was... somewhat anticlimatic to me.

I like Michael, I like Selene. 



Spoiler



The #1 thing that keeps it from being more that 'that was cool' in my opinion was that they break their own rules. They go to all the trouble to get the Elder blood, but then Selene's bite does the same work. Selene says, when she still thinks Micheal is human, that biting him would just kill him. Yet she was made a vampire by Victor (Unclear on this; maybe only Elders can turn people, but the blonde chick seems to think Selene is capable turning him when Mike is first brought to the mansion). The lycans forget their amazing 'UV bullets' in the final battle. (OK, I could give them that if they were truly using the WoD; WoD werewolves are not great tacticians).


 
Again, like several other movies I've seen, it looks like about five minutes of exposition got left on the floor somewhere.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 21, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The #1 thing that keeps it from being more that 'that was cool' in my opinion was that they break their own rules. They go to all the trouble to get the Elder blood, but then Selene's bite does the same work. Selene says, when she still thinks Micheal is human, that biting him would just kill him. Yet she was made a vampire by Victor (Unclear on this; maybe only Elders can turn people, but the blonde chick seems to think Selene is capable turning him when Mike is first brought to the mansion).





Spoiler



They didn't break their own rules.  Michael's blood was to be merged with the Elders' to help the conspirators augment themselves, or create a new race.  They didn't want to augment _Michael,_ he was just a donor.  Selene's bite just completed the process for him.

And Selene told him a bite would kill him because to her knowledge, no one had ever survived a bite from either species.  She just guessed wrong.  That doesn't mean the film broke its own rules.  Selene's feelings were growing for Michael anyway, so you'd expect her to err on the side of caution.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 21, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Lucian said the blood was to turn Michael into a Abomination, Michael already had the pure bloodline as the decendent of the "third son", but he needed the vampire blood of a elder to become both Vampire and Werewolf (he got the were wolf part when Lucian bit him). At the end Selene bit him because he was going to die otherwise, they didn't break a rule there the people involved got desperate, being as Lucian and Michael were both dying, they had to risk it). I don't know if they eventually said they were going to try to turn all the werewolves but I am pretty sure it was stated that the elder blood was to turn Michael.

When Selene told him a bite would kill him in the car she already knew he was bitten by a werewolf, she said that nobody could survive being bitten by both (she didn't know anything about bloodlines or history at that time). In the movie a bite from either group turned you into that group a bite from both groups would be fatal, unless you were of the original bloodline, like Michael was (also like the ancient vampire who was awoken by werewolf blood at the end, they made a point in the movie to say he was a direct decendant of the original vampire).


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 21, 2003)

jdavis:

I went ahead and posted my response in the spoiler thread to keep this one from being blacked out any further.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1133619#post1133619


----------



## Droogie (Sep 21, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And _finally_ we get back to the glory (or should I say gory) days of American Werewolf in London and The Howling with bone-popping prosthetic werewolf transformations.  Oh there was a little CGI, but it was very sparing, and used quite appropriately, such as when the Lycans were running along the walls.  Everything else was convincing and cool on-set make-up effects.




I'm pretty sure the werewolf transformations were CGI. That said, i think they're the best werewolf transformation effects I've seen so far. 

I liked the movie quite a bit, too. I was pleasantly surprised. Kate B is gorgeous, the cinematography was cool, and it had a nice juicy story. Thumbs up.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 21, 2003)

Droogie said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the werewolf transformations were CGI.



I do believe that some CGI was used during the transformations, but only to morph from actor to various degrees of prosthetic make-up, as opposed to the full CG transformations of an American Werewolf in Paris or The Hulk.  Underworld benefitted from some fantastic live-action make-up with CGI only used to make the transformation seamless.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2003)

Another review:

Grade: B+ 
Verdict: A riveting fantasy film, drunk with Gothic stylings and dripping with bloody battles between vampires and werewolves. 

By BOB LONGINGO
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

It might be enough that Kate Beckinsale struts through some of the dour netherworld of “Underworld” in the sexiest, tightest, blackest, leatheriest cat suit you've seen this side of “The Matrix's” Carrie-Anne Moss.
But this movie is more than that. The surprisingly fine, involving “Underworld” echoes the muscular feel of “Aliens,” the relentless speed of “The Terminator” and the architectural colorlessness and operatic anxiety of “Dark City.”

To boot, it's got vampires fighting fang to claw with werewolves. How cool is that?

The ultra-Gothic “Underworld,” from first-time director Len Wiseman, far surpasses the bloodier, vampire-riddled “Blade” and is just plain artfully cool — as cool as a movie can be that imitates “Matrix” battle scenes as much as this one does. That will bother many a special effects fan.

Like Keanu Reeves and crew in “Matrix,” the svelte, ice-tempered vampires do walk resolutely in dark leather and sport super-long overcoats. They fire terrifically sleek revolvers that spit monster bullets in slow motion at their hulking prey. They do slo-mo back flips. They leap off skyscrapers to land gently on their metropolis' dingy streets.

Like too many action-adventure movies, all this could be way too much “Matrix”-ology. But “Underworld” is wilier than most, sidestepping all its obvious connections to the modern-day mother of all action films.

Partly, that's achieved with its first on-screen transformation of a human figure into a ferocious werewolf. Many may be reminded of “An American Werewolf in London,” but, simply put, it's awesome.

There's more. A vampire simultaneously flicking two whips. Bloody massacres in a sewer and on a train. Secret human experiments. “Underworld” just keeps churning and bellowing and swirling, flipping its Shakespearean story line and hurling violence, until a viewer simply can't stop watching.

Beckinsale, in a role that's the exact opposite of her unsure nurse in “Pearl Harbor,” is often mesmerizing as the stalwart Selene, the vampiric la femme executioner. She hunts werewolves who sneak about in human form.

Her story is wrapped in centuries of conflict between vampires and werewolves. For both sides, genocide appears to be the final solution. Into the fray falls Michael (Scott Speedman of TV's “Felicity”). He's simply a man, but he's being tracked by the werewolf hierarchy for mysterious reasons.

As Selene investigates, she develops a relationship with Michael that threatens her own vampire coven.

Sounds very comic book, doesn't it?

“Underworld” is. It's mythic and medieval, a deep, dark graphic novel wrapped in the filmy veneer of celluloid.

Director Wiseman sometimes does overstate his movie, in which human characters too often conveniently disappear. There are too many full-of-itself close-ups, too many operatic enunciations from its tortured characters. Even too much length. (At just over two hours, the movie seems slightly stretched.)

But there's more to say about a film that, after its opening narration, begins with a riveting subway shootout and gripping chase that closes with a seamy character spouting, “You're acting like a pack of rabid dogs.”

Fans of “Seven,” “Fight Club,” “Aliens” and the Orcs of “The Lord of the Rings” will likely chant, “Show us more.”


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2003)

And another review still:


'Underworld': The horrors of war
By WILLIAM ARNOLD
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER MOVIE CRITIC
The most interesting thing about the splashy horror film, "Underworld," is that, despite the claims of its publicity campaign, it's not really a horror movie at all -- nor is it the horror/erotic Romeo and Juliet story that's been billed in the fall previews.

Yes, there's a whiff of a star-crossed, Ann Rice-ian love story at its core. Yes, every character in the movie is either a vampire or a werewolf. And, sure, there's plenty of blood-letting, ghoulish attacks from dark corners and morphing, Lycian transformations. 

But the thing is more properly a war movie. Its mythic horror characters fight each other not with fang and claw but with blazing machine guns and high-tech pistols firing bullets loaded with light-beams (against the vampires) and silver nitrate (against the werewolves).

The drama of its scenes deals not with suspense and creeping terror but with strategy and the legacy of ancient history. It's Shakespearean in its political machinations and closer to "Saving Private Ryan" and "Starship Troopers" than to "Dracula" or "The Howling." 

As such, there's an epic silliness about it that the movie never quite overcomes. But it's also completely true to its style and sensibility, and it builds a furious, absorbing momentum that gradually just sweeps you away, almost against your will.

Set in some unnamed, rain-swept European city (it was filmed in Budapest), the movie takes place at the climax of a thousand-year-old blood feud between a coven of vampires and a pack of werewolves, and its story opens with a blistering shootout on a subway.


The main character is Selene (Kate Beckinsale), a beautiful young vampire with an itchy trigger finger, who stumbles upon and finds herself attracted to the object of this opening melee: a closet Lycan (Scott Speedman) who unknowingly holds the fate of the war in his bloodstream.

On this premise, first-time director Len Wiseman constructs a macabre combat movie that is essentially one long action sequence: a single adrenaline rush, punctuated by only a few tense breathing spaces that don't really serve as down time. 

It's the kind of movie that, if you fail to get with it from the start, can be absolutely agonizing to sit through -- especially with a two-hour-plus running time. And if you blink, you can get lost in the complexity of its hastily established but narratively vital back story. 

But, if you do get aboard, it's all strangely engrossing, and the film works as an exhilarating celebration of the gothic style. Indeed, it may be the first major film aimed primarily at the modern goth subculture -- with no concessions or condescending humor for the rest of us.

At the center of all this mayhem, Beckinsale makes a most stunning focus. With her flowing black coat and steely Taoist confidence, she may be a bit too obviously a female version of Keanu Reeves' Neo, but she's poetry in motion and she projects an exquisitely soothing intelligence and determination. 

As the calcified elder of the vampire clan, Bill Nighy is even more effective. In fact, he creates a character of such awesome, malignant power that he single-handedly centers the movie and pulls off (considering he's best known as a comic actor) what could well be this movie year's most dazzling change of pace.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2003)

It may also be worth noting that Yahoo lists the following for reviews:

The Critics: C+
13 reviewsYahoo! 

Users: A-
2422 ratings

And also is listing it as the number one box office movie for this weekend.  This movie very well may turn out to be a box office hit, and well liked by the fans, but have only a mediocre opinion from the critics.


----------



## Ariddrake (Sep 21, 2003)

I thought the movie was beautiful and deserves better then getting smashed by the critics. I liked that it took it self seriously (Someone earlier compared why Conan the Barbarian was so much better then it's sequel). I heard there are already talks of a sequel I hope they leave the jokes out (ex. Werewolf sticks a stake into a vampire and pins her to the wall "Stick around").


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2003)

Yup, Underworld took the #1 slot, and it was not even in the most number of theatres (and was in fact in fewer theatres than two other top 10 movies this weekend).

Underworld SONY $22,000,000


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 22, 2003)

My friends took me to _Underworld_ today, and while it had some neat moments, on the whole I found it to be mediocre.  I'd describe it as Blade meets The Matrix, but not as good as either.  I didn't even like it as much as _Once Upon a Time in Mexico_.

I can also say that, having seen the movie, White Wolf is grasping at straws with their lawsuit against Sony.  The similarities between the two universes are small at best.  I'd even go so far as to say that the vampires in _Blade_ have more in common with White Wolf's vampires than the vampires in _Underworld._


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 22, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yup, Underworld took the #1 slot, and it was not even in the most number of theatres (and was in fact in fewer theatres than two other top 10 movies this weekend).
> 
> Underworld SONY $22,000,000



Not bad for a movie that cost...22 million.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 22, 2003)

My wife and I saw it 1 and 2/3rds times today - we both really liked it (OK, she loved it, but she's a pushover for vamp anything) 

ANY gamer, or any vampire or werewolf fan owes it to themselves to see this movie in the theater before hearing too much about it - I don't see how many of those fans couldn't enjoy it, or find something to like from it.

It was better than I was expecting - I'm fairly critical of films when they don;t work, and I think the makers of this film should get much more props than they have so far for putting something like this together and actually having it work.

It worked better than Blade, both 1 and 2, it worked better than .. well, there really haven't been too many movies with Vampires at war.
And that's what this movie was - a war movie, set in a Gothic backdrop of vampires and werewolves, with political machinations and romantic undertones.

I enjoyed the maneuverings by the characters, and how they revealed the backgrounds, only to flip them on its ear later on. I thought those elements worked quite well, even better than drama/action movies that try the same kind of things but don't have the benefit of vampires & werewolves.

Kai Lord is right on in his review, and I didn't see any jarringly bad FX or performances by the actors.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 22, 2003)

One member of our gaming group saw it last week in a sneak preview and warned us that the movie was bad. Dispite his warnings I am a vampire fan and still wanted to see the movie. I will have to have a talk with my frend when we game next because I have no idea how he could call it bad. I normally am very harsh on action movies and effects driven movies for thier giant plot holes, surprisingly I found few things to complain about and all of them minor enough that they did not take away at all from my enjoyment of the film (compared lets say to LXG). The CGI blended into the movie and the Matrix efects were subdued enough that I didn't mind them. I even enjoyed some of thier background concepts and found them to be an original take on legends without hurting the genre, plus I have no idea how WW thinks this is based on WoD. I will agree that the actor playing Kraven was bad, but not not so much as to reduce my enjoyment, and really good acting/casting from others more than made up for this one bad choice. Surprisingly it has made it into my top 5 Vampire movie list, and since it has already paid for itself a sequal will be welcomed (at least until I see what they do with it).


----------



## jdavis (Sep 22, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yup, Underworld took the #1 slot, and it was not even in the most number of theatres (and was in fact in fewer theatres than two other top 10 movies this weekend).
> 
> Underworld SONY $22,000,000



It will be interesting to see how much drop off it has next week. It got released at a good time when there wasn't a lot of direct competion coming out at the same time (once apon a time in Mexico and Cabin Fever both came out last week and they were probably it's biggest competition for young adult and teen $). It was also the most downloaded film trailer from Sony ever and actually had a pretty good buzz going (it's target audience isn't really one that is influenced by critics anyway, I heard several people talking, and many of them showed up just because the commercials were cool (one guy didn't even know it was about vampires, he just thought the commercial was neat). Mexico dropped 50% from last week, I wonder if this movie will have any better lasting power?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 22, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I wonder if this movie will have any better lasting power?




This is the first movie I have been tempted to see a second time in theaters since FotR.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 22, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> This is the first movie I have been tempted to see a second time in theaters since FotR.



It's funny I was thinking about going to see it again until the discussion in the spoilers thread where it was pointed out I missed part of what was going on, me missing part of the plot made the movie better for me, I really doubt I would go back and see it again now. It's rare that I go back and watch anything twice anyway (I'll probably rent it on DVD when it comes out).


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I wonder if this movie will have any better lasting power?



Underworld won't be a sleeper hit on the level of the original Matrix, but I hope word of mouth gives it some legs.  Even if it has a 50% drop every weekend it'll make over 50 million dollars domestically, and this is the type of film that translates well over seas.  With a budget of 22 million, and another 20 million spent on advertising, their take home should justify doubling the budget for a sequel.

I'm there as long as Kate sticks around, though it would be cool to see what a different director (say David Fincher or Gore Verbinski, oh hell I can dream) would do with the material.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 23, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'm there as long as Kate sticks around, though it would be cool to see what a different director (say David Fincher or Gore Verbinski, oh hell I can dream) would do with the material.



If Fincher ever directed a Vampire/Werewolf movie you could just kill me right then and there.  My life would be complete.  He may be the one person in the world who could convince Pitt to be in another vampire flick...


----------



## Welverin (Sep 23, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> My wife and I saw it 1 and 2/3rds times today - we both really liked it (OK, she loved it, but she's a pushover for vamp anything)




1 and 2/3rds?


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 23, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> 1 and 2/3rds?



Yeah - the film broke 2/3rds of the way thru, and we had to move to another theater where it was 1/3rd of the way thru.

BTW: Underworld kicked all over Blade's (hindquarters), no doubts about that.


----------



## Elemental (Sep 24, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> If Fincher ever directed a Vampire/Werewolf movie you could just kill me right then and there.  My life would be complete.  He may be the one person in the world who could convince Pitt to be in another vampire flick...




Kill you right then? You sure you wouldn't rather we wait till the film had been released or something?


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 24, 2003)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Kill you right then? You sure you wouldn't rather we wait till the film had been released or something?



It's a deal.  Wait till the credits finish then you can do me in.  Just make it quick.


----------



## apoptosis (Sep 25, 2003)

my friend gave me the best review of the movie (dont think he liked it much)

"The conflict between the vampires & the werewolves was
nearly as riveting as the war between the farmer & the
cowman in "Oklahoma", but not as clever."


----------



## Pants (Sep 25, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Yeah - the film broke 2/3rds of the way thru, and we had to move to another theater where it was 1/3rd of the way thru.
> 
> BTW: Underworld kicked all over Blade's (hindquarters), no doubts about that.



That's fairly easy as Blade II pretty much blew.


----------



## danbala (Sep 25, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> How about "I just saw the movie, and I thought it was excellent" - Mistwell
> 
> Seriously, this is a pretty good movie in my opinion, and I tend to be harsh on movie reviews.  The actor who plays the character Craven really sucks.  But beyond that, it's a solidly good movie.  Quite entertaining.  Go see it and judge for yourself.




Yep. I liked it, too. It can't compete in the special effects department with bigger movies. (it only cost 22 million to make). But it looks pretty nice for a low budget movie. I found the plot entertaining, too.


----------



## Krug (Sep 26, 2003)

I still think it was pretty awful and deserves to sink after this weekend.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 26, 2003)

Looks like Underworld may become a trilogy: http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/article.php?news_id=4134


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 26, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Looks like Underworld may become a trilogy: http://www.411mania.com/movies/news/article.php?news_id=4134



Nice.  I could see this being a cult favorite on DVD and a sequel opening big.  They've got the style and the actress, hopefully they'll dump Kraven and go all out for a kick ass story.  Director Wiseman better be nice to Beckinsale (I believe they were recently engaged) because she _is_ the franchise.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 26, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Nice. I could see this being a cult favorite on DVD and a sequel opening big. They've got the style and the actress, hopefully they'll dump Kraven and go all out for a kick ass story. Director Wiseman better be nice to Beckinsale (I believe they were recently engaged) because she _is_ the franchise.



I thought they were already married, I also read she is pregnant again. 

I wonder if Raze will be in the next one? The guy who played Raze was the guy who came up with (or plagerized, depending on how the lawsuit turns out) the story, he is also buddies with Wiseman and associate producer on Underworld. http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0340485/


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 26, 2003)

Was just reading on Sci-Fi Wire, that they are making a second one already!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 26, 2003)

Was just reading on Sci-Fi Wire, that they are making a second one already!


----------



## Corinth (Sep 26, 2003)

They'd better hurry if they want to make their money before the lawsuit eats it all.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 28, 2003)

More interesting information, MSN interview with Kate Beckinsale: http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=134432


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 29, 2003)

The lawsuit's not going to go anywhere, and Sony's got a lot more money than WW. Anyways, I thought the film was a hoot.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 29, 2003)

Well, I just saw it today.  Before seeing it I really wanted to like it, even though I was fairly certain that werewolves were going to get the shaft . . . again.

It failed to live up to any of my expectations in a manner so spectacular that I was at a complete loss for words when asked what I thought by my friends as we left the theatre.  I had became more and more irritated as the movie went on - It bugged me that I had wasted my money and time seeing this.

Its late now.  I might post in more detail tomorrow, or I might just try to scrub this afternoon out of my brain and deny I've ever seen it.


----------



## Krug (Sep 29, 2003)

Not looking forward to Underworld II, by any means.


----------



## reapersaurus (Sep 30, 2003)

OK, Krug, since you posted your needless opinion on Underworld 2 (hint: since you've mentioned at least 4 times you're distatse for Underworld, why would anyone assume you are looking forward to U2?), I'll needlessly say that my wife and I are looking forward to Underworld2.

It's funny how the longer it's been out, people are now coming and basically saying "Underworld wasn't what I think of when I thjink of werewolves and vampires...  it SUCKED so bad, It was an utter waste of time."

Newsflash: Movies are NOT going to be copies of what you dream up and want in your head. Take the movie for what it presented and rate it on those merits, otherwise your review is baseless.

*For example:* I've repeatedly heard that Underworld sucked because the vamps and wolves used guns, and didn't use much of their natural weaponry. 
Wahh Wahh.
I would have loved to see them go at it mano-y-mano also, but it didn;t get in my way of watching the movie. There are 3 major reasons why they didn't have them go claw-to-fang:
1) it would have been hard to do.
2) This was a fairly low budget picture.
3) They presented a world in which guns were more effective than natural weaponry.

Everybody who has complained about the lack of claw use has completely missed point #3.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> In summary: I stop acting like a purist and stop placing faith or no faith on filmmakers. If it's a good movie, then it's a good movie, despite what sophisticates and critics think.



I'm not really sure if you're calling me a purist or not here, but 
my point was meant to be an anti-purist one, even if it didn't
come across very well.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 30, 2003)

Well, since I was the one who said it was a waste of time I'll just assume some of this is directed at me.  If not, oh well.

Since I didn't see it until sunday I couldn't post anything about it until after it had been out a while.

As for it not living up to expectations - well, since I like B scifi and horror movies - I expected to like it.  It didn't live up to that expectation, not because it violated some self imposed ideal on what vampires and werewolves should be (actually the vampires and werewolves acted pretty much like I expected them to), but because it was bad.

First let me list the few things I did like.
1) Viktor and Lucien.  These are the only two characters I thought worked at all.
2) Viktor's transformation.
3) The general "look" of the movie.  I like these types of weird lighting effects.

Without giving any items away to spoil it for those who still want to see the movie I can sum up why I thought it was bad like so...

The plot wasn't strong enough to make a good movie.
The acting wasn't good enough to cover the weak plot and make it a good movie.
The action (except for a few key scenes) was too silly to cover the acting or weak plot.
The inconsistancies were too glaring to overlook to just enjoy the show.
I felt the ending was lame - I'm just plain old tired of the effect they use at the end

All the eye candy and special effects in the world wouldn't cover up what I thought was bad about this movie.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 30, 2003)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> OK, Krug, since you posted your needless opinion on Underworld 2 (hint: since you've mentioned at least 4 times you're distatse for Underworld, why would anyone assume you are looking forward to U2?), I'll needlessly say that my wife and I are looking forward to Underworld2.
> 
> It's funny how the longer it's been out, people are now coming and basically saying "Underworld wasn't what I think of when I thjink of werewolves and vampires... it SUCKED so bad, It was an utter waste of time."
> 
> ...



I didn't miss point 3 at all I just wanted them to "_Hook it up Old Skool_". They went way way out of their way to make guns more effective than claws (then failed to have them use the guns properly in the end , go figure), they went well out of their way to make it a movie about shooting each other, that's fine and good but I wanted a movie where being a vampire or a werewolf actually meant something (the few fights they had were very good), see they got the bullets so destructive that they could of trained monkeys to shoot each other (or humans). See when you get right down to it the whole premise of the movie breaks down where they tried to out cool themselves with the special bullets. If the guns were more effective than natural weapontry what was the point of trying to create a super hybrid? Why did they need a Vampire/Werewolf combo to kill the elder vampire when they could of just shot them full of "_sunlight_" bullets (heck they killed the other elder). See here is a plan, all the werewolfs get together (they already were together) and attack the big mansion during the day, nuse a couple of rocket propelled genades and bang your in, when you get deep enough into the compound that the vampires can stay out of direct sunlight then you let them have it with your super cool bullets. Another couple of rocket grenades into the tomb area, drag the beef jerky elders out in the sun or set them on fire or shoot them with your guns. So why do you need the the super combo vampire/werewolf? What's the whole point? The guns are much more powerful than even the vampire/werewlof combo (heck I still don't understand how he recovered being shot? He was still half werewolf and now he is half vampire too, if he had both strengths wouldn't he have both weakensses too?). Sunlight bullets? Why don't they just use big UV lamps everywhere?

I just wanted to see some vampires and werewolfs being vampires and werewolves in the movie about vampires and werewolfs. It's not like I want to sit down and punch holes the size of school busses in the plot (which is suprisingly easy) I just wanted to see them fighting instead of shooting, that's all. I really don't care about Underworld 2 either but this Underworld prequal sounds like a good idea (before the guns stuff may be fun).


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 30, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I didn't miss point 3 at all I just wanted them to "_Hook it up Old Skool_". They went way way out of their way to make guns more effective than claws (then failed to have them use the guns properly in the end , go figure),



The film established that the Lycan's wolf forms are very capable of taking out machine gun wielding vampires.  Since 90% of the werewolves couldn't change form at will, it isn't a great leap to assume that the special UV bullets were for them to use while in human form.  The night of final fight was a full moon, so all bets were off and all the Lycans changed.

This is in addition to Lucien clearly reprimanding them early on for their tendency to ignore tactics and behave "like rabid dogs."  There's a big difference between characters having flaws and the filmmakers making mistakes.



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> If the guns were more effective than natural weapontry what was the point of trying to create a super hybrid?



It was made very clear that for the vamps, guns weren't always more effective (Selene fleeing from Raze at the beginning, her shooting through the floor, etc.)

Now replace all those Lycans that had the gun toting Selene on the run with much stronger and faster Hybrids.  There you go.  And again, if Lucien was going to lead a force prone to behaving like rabid dogs, then obviously he had determined they would be the best damn force of rabid dogs he could possibly make.



Spoiler



Then there's also the point of what started the entire war.  The union of Lucien and his vampire lover, and their failed attempt to conceive a hybrid out of love.  Viktor felt the mere concept of hybrids was a threat to the vampire society, and after Lucien's unborn child was murdered, he obviously wanted to make a Hybrid out of principle, and to spite Viktor's way of thinking, in addition to just being able to kill the vampires easier.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The film established that the Lycan's wolf forms are very capable of taking out machine gun wielding vampires. Since 90% of the werewolves couldn't change form at will, it isn't a great leap to assume that the special UV bullets were for them to use while in human form. The night of final fight was a full moon, so all bets were off and all the Lycans changed.
> 
> This is in addition to Lucien clearly reprimanding them early on for their tendency to ignore tactics and behave "like rabid dogs." There's a big difference between characters having flaws and the filmmakers making mistakes.
> 
> ...



What I was talking about in the end was the fact that the werewolves were using guns all over the place yet not the special ammo that they showed laying around on a table. I liked the end more because they did fight rather than shoot. My whole point was about guns being more powerful, more powerful guns took away for the need to be a vampire or a werewolf. Heck a werewolf who changed in the movie rather than using the super ammo was actually weakening himself as the ammo was much more likely to kill instantly. It's not a director flaw or a loophole it's just the way the movie was designed that took away from the need to change forms or use their supernatural powers.


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (Oct 1, 2003)

My two cents:
I saw the movie and liked it.
It could have been better...but most movies fall into that category.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 2, 2003)

http://www.moviehole.net/news.php?newsid=2426



> Last week it was officially announced that Screen Gems are planning two sequels to “Underworld”, the werewolf-vampire actioner starring Scott Speedman and Kate Beckinsale. Cinema Confidential caught up with Director Len Wiseman, who revealed what constitution they might take.
> 
> "There’s actually a sequel and a prequel that was mapped out when we sold this film. [Co-writer] Danny McBride and myself – there was so much that we wanted to tell in this story that it was getting a bit confusing for us to map out all the history and the wars. We said, 'You know what? Let's map out a long story that would maybe span out three films and let's then be able to tell our film in the middle.' But we had to kind of map out the whole thing to get to the point where we are now because it does have a lot of layers in it. But we do want to tell a lot of that back story and I'm obsessed with going back to the Dark Ages and showing the war when it was legions of werewolves fighting an army of vampires on horseback, invading their castle. I think that would be insane visuals! So that's a bit of what the sequel is. We are already in the deal for the sequel and the studio's incredibly excited about it. I think the 15 minutes [of the sequel] will be a prequel for the sequel, much like an 'Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade' type of situation."
> 
> According to the director, Speedman and Beckinsale are likely to return.


----------



## reapersaurus (Oct 2, 2003)

Boy, that Dark Ages prequel idea sure sounds good.
It would solve the "gun problem" that people had (including me, to a small extent), and would be much more unique in film history.

I REALLY hope they get to do that with Underworld2.


----------



## MarauderX (Oct 2, 2003)

I kinda liked the flick, with the "low" budget and decent story line portrayed really well.  It was interesting to me how the director protrayed first the werewolves as the 'bad' guys, then followed up with an introspective look at the vamps.  Towards the end I didn't want either side to lose, but didn't want either side to win either.  

And I can't see them backtracking into the past much if there is an Underworld II, as it will probably be focused on Kate Beckensdale's brooding character as she runs from her former pals with her new boy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 4, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure if you're calling me a purist or not here, but my point was meant to be an anti-purist one, even if it didn't come across very well.



You're right. It didn't come across well. Consider my message as an agreement to your assessment.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 4, 2003)

Oh, and I saw it yesterday evening and I liked it for the most part.
Didn't like Kraven (man that actor got on my nerves) and the final
combat was less than inspiring. 



Spoiler



So the Abomination we've been 
hearing so much about in the movie gets slapped around by Viktor? 
And the whole head-cut-in-half thing was quite disappointing after 
seeing them get ready for a swordfight. 

"Yes! Yes! Swords! Booyah! Ye--no! No! NoNoNO!! Damnit!"


----------



## jaldaen (Oct 4, 2003)

Spoiler



So the Abomination we've been hearing so much about in the movie gets slapped around by Viktor? And the whole head-cut-in-half thing was quite disappointing after seeing them get ready for a swordfight. 

"Yes! Yes! Swords! Booyah! Ye--no! No! NoNoNO!! Damnit!"



Spoiler reply to above spoiler... ;-)



Spoiler



Actually I think that if Lucien (sp?) had made himself an Abomination you would have seen him wipe the floor with Viktor... which is why he needed to be betrayed (by a few silver bullets from Kraven) b/c as a writer you never want your main character (aka Selene) out shown by secondary characters... Thus Lucien was dealt with in such a manor to take him out of the equation and allow him to give Selene the idea to make her bo the Abomination... Of course this too has its problems in the fact that the Abomination is clearly meant to be a superior race... however without the experience (which Lucien would have had) to back him up the Abomination holds his own for only a short time... whereas Selene who does have the experience (and the newfound motive) to finish Viktor while he is distracted (seeing as I think its safe to assume Viktor would have been to much to handle mono-y-mana ;-) is in the end the one who deals death to her former master. The focus of the film was IMHO not the search for the Abomination, but the awakening of Selene from the underworld of her own soul... which I was convinced of by the end.



I think they did the best they could with the premises they had and I would have felt robbed if it had turned out otherwise... of course don't get me wrong there were plenty of things they could have done better, but knowing they only had a 22 million dollar budget helps explain why the special effects weren't flying as I thought they would at the end... I only hope they get a bigger budget next time... if there is one ;-)

My 2 cents,
Jaldaen


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 4, 2003)

Spoiler



Lucien was trying to make himself the Abomination? That 
was totally lost on me. I was under the impression that 
he was simply trying to create 'A' Abomination, in this 
case, Micheal.


----------



## jdavis (Oct 5, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You and me both but that was gone over in the other Underworld thread and they convinced me I had missed that part. http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64249


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 6, 2003)

Yeah, I bow down to their superior logic and argument.

That flew way over my head.

It kinda makes the whole Lucien part of the plot fit much better in.


----------

