Underworld: Evolution post release - Page 3

Are you suggesting that Underworld isn't full of tired old cliches?

It's Blade, Buffy and The Matrix crudely blended together with an overwraught role-playing storyline. There's not an original idea in the whole insipid brew.

Of course, if you honestly believe that the first Resident Evil was both suspenseful and exciting then your mileage for innovation may vary.

"Ah yes, the classic "There are worse, so this is good" argument."

It would be if I had made that arguement. I simply said that if you hated this movie, I'd love to see YOUR REACTION to Razor Blade Smile. I didn't say this was good because that movie was crap. I just want to see the venom.

On a side note, I too would be interested in Nick's take, since, IIRC from his article on his set visit, he said he didn't really care for the first but that this one looked to be an improvement.

Underworld is heavily inspired by White Wolf's take on the vamps and werwwolves. Of course it's full of cliches.

Way to twist one tiny part of my post to attempt to make an asinine "point". No, I think that if a film is gonna make a movie about vampires and werwolves going at it, they should make more of the mythos than "they have pointy teeth and look slinky". The vamp mythology in UNDERWORLD extends to "they live forever and are hard to kill" and "they like wearing black which just happens to look cool now thanks to THE MATRIX being released five years ago". And the werewolf stuff barely got a look-in. So instead of dancin' with what brung it to the party-the admittedly cool conceit of a supernatural turf war between two tribes of nasties-it turns to the shitty action cliches of skintight catsuits, implausible gunfights and epileptic editing. Bravo.

Resident Evil and Underworld were both sleeper hits. When the sequel came out to RE. I couldnt believe I spent money on it. As for Underworlds sequel, it wasnt brilliant far from it. Almost like the RE sequel. At least it stuck somewhat to the original. I did enjoy it, yes a bit too bloody and as stated above. Markus flying just didnt feel right. I would have loved to see more of the back story with the father and the two sons. Then what was shown to us. Loved the fact that the father was an immortal hence the vampire's ability to live on as with the Lycan's.

Oh, enough with the whole elitist thing, this is a thread about a sequel concerning itself with Warewolves and Vampires fighting each other. We're not exactly at the heights of Shawshank, here. Blade and the Matrix mixed into a Vampires vs Warewolves film that actually bothered to go and set up a backstory to what was going on - yeah, I enjoyed that and I appreciated it was trying to buck some of the old cliches - in favour of the new ones. What exactly are you defending here, what am I being prosecuted for?

You just have no taste.

The fact that UNDERWORLD is a really poor film, and you seem oblivious to the fact. It's not a subjective thing, the film sucks from every standpoint. I understand if you like it, that's different, but calling it "brilliant" is just wrong.

Oh, I love that. That's both everything that's good and everything that's bad about the internets.

Prosecuted?

loved it

i saw underworld evolution last friday when it came out like at 750 at night and there was a line outside the doors for everyone who were going to see it..all the seats were filled and it turned out to be a good movie. I dont see why people bash both movies so much i liked both of it i think if people dont like genre action movies then tobviously they shouldnt watch it i mean this movie is just entertainment its not supposed to make you go home making yout hink of the meaning of life or some BS like that.

i loved both ones and i liked the story it wasnt spoon fed to the audience it was actually quite intriguing and left me wanting to know more. My boyfriend loved it as well the characteres were great i love Selene, iono about Michael so much because hes soo down played and he doesnt talk much at least in the 2nd film he got some good fight scenes unlike the first where he was just chained, dragged and beaten throughout the whole film LOL

as for the color i loooooved the dark color the Wiseman used it adds to the story i mean it is set in gothic europe and stuff so it would be a tad out of place if there was all of sudden bright yellow and red costumes here and there yeah that would be lame.

mosto f the stunts were done by people and the lycan werewolf actors were just dudes in suits most of the time so iono wat the beef is about CGI i mean yea here and there but again what do you expect its FANTASY= not real exactly so people who want a good indepth movie should go watch something with a lot of dialogue and blah blah blah because its just style.

eh some people like what others dont...for me i thought it was AWESOME come on Underworld 3!!!!

*KELLY*

I liked it. So sue me.

It was everything I thought it was going to be. I didn't expect Casablanca or Rosebud. I expected lots of action and blood and Kate Beckinsale in a leather outfit. I agree that the first one was disappointing with the lack of true vampire vs werewolf action, but this film fixed that and more. It was a fun and entertaining popcorn movie. I didn't think the special effects were bad and I thought the use of the color blue is appropriate, since vampires can only come out at night.

SPOILER WARNING***Then at the end the sun comes up and they use red for the last scene where she can stay in the sun.***

Edited to add the SPOILER WARNING for people who were dead-set in not liking the film in the first place. I figured A)it's a POST release thread and B)judging from how much knowledge you seem to spew about the film, I figured the haters would have at least seen it.

there is nothing to make me doubt a poster's opinion more than peoples who can't know to sentence construction punctuation or capitals letters or even knowing the putting sentence together for to making any sense and with run-on sentences that don't end and i think its real cool when part sofw ords are runinto part sof othe rwords that makes posts easy tu read tu

Well now you've gone and ruined the ending. So thank you for giving us even less reason to see it.

I think the point is that if THIS is what you consider to be good, one of the bets of its year, even....what the fuck do you say about films like SIDEWAYS, or BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN? How do you hold such a vacuous, braindead piece of "entertainment" up against films that are TRULY brilliant and say "yeah, this is also excellent"?

Thats why, as an opinion, I think you have no taste.

I must have missed where this movie was held to the standards of Brokeback Mountain and Sideways.

If the only movies you think are good are the upper echelon art movies, you have very few movies you must actually like.

You call it "vacuous and brain dead." I feel bad if you can not enjoy popcorn movies for what they are. It is entertainment, and if someone enjoys it, or even if someone loves popcorn movies and calls it excellent, you saying they have no taste is elitist and ignorant on your part.

Your tastes have no more value then anyone else's. If you think they do, you are an arrogant person. And a dick.

Underworld Evolution had a $26.9 million dollar opening weekend in January. Pretty damn good. Out of 3,342 votes on IMDb at this time, it is rated 7.0 out of 10 (although all those people probably have no taste, because they are not you - and you are the God of taste <in your mind>).

In Variety's review, they say the plot is incoherent but "still, overall package is potent. A few rock-the-house scenes of slam-bang derring-do -- including Marcus' aerial assault on a truck driven by Selene and Michael -- are nothing short of sensationally exciting. And the first-rate f/x artists manage to bring a few new scary twists to the familiar man-into-wolf transformations. All of the sound and fury signifies relatively little, but genre fans likely will thrill to the breakneck momentum and the literal overkill."

I mean, look, it is not Citizen Kane. It is not Casablanca. It ain't even The Fight Club, Shawshank Redemption or The Matrix. It is a dumb action movie about werewolves and vampires. And there is nothing wrong with dumb popcorn action movies. If someone likes it and thinks it is a good movie, there is nothing wrong with that.

For you to look down upon their tastes because you only like highbrow art movies makes you a jackass.

Those are all valid points. However, what was being addressed was that the movie was described not just as a fun, effective, popcorn movie, but as one of the best movies of the year, and "brilliant".

As Lewis Black would say, there's a big fuck difference.

What elitist thing? If you honestly thought Resident Evil was suspenseful and exciting then I can see why you'd be more favourable to Underworld, as they're cut from the same cloth.

It annoys the tits off me when people get all bent out of shape defending a mindless movie, and then start crying about "elitism" when people point out how mindless it is.

If all you want is to post "I kind of liked it. It was sort of fun" and have everyone agree with you, then you're in the wrong place.

So you're giving it a pass for "bothering" to set up a backstory, as if that's some bonus extra, and for swapping old vampire cliches for new ones?

Hey, if you enjoyed it then more power to ya. But even you seem to admit that it's a pretty flimsy movie, so why get all pissed off when some people fail to be overwhelmed by its distinctly undemanding brand of "fun"?

Doesn't make them haters or elitists. If you want to discuss the relative merits of the film then go ahead, but if your only response is variations on "Well, I liked it so it doesn't matter and leave me alone" then why even post?

Why is it always the most forgettable middle-of-the-road movies, the ones that are little more than colourful distractions, that provoke such weeping martyr defenders?

That doesn't make any sense. You're the one defending a movie - a movie that even the people who enjoyed it can't seem to muster more than faint praise such as "liked it" or "fun".

Seems to me you know that there's no grounds to defend Underworld other than "it was fun, I liked it", so you turn to the persecution complex instead.

No, I think those films are ones that should be described as "brilliant" and "best of the year", and I can't see how UNDERWORLD can be held up in comparison to them.

I do enjoy popcorn movies, you conclusion-jumping moron. I love the Hell out of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. I really enjoyed FANTASTIC FOUR. I own THE ROCK on DVD, fer cryin' out loud! UNDERWORLD is a BAD popcorn movie. It was boring, badly acted, pretentious and waaaaaay too serious for its own good.

Fair enough, I'm a dick. My opinion is that this guy has no taste if he says that UNDERWORLD is an awesome film and deserves end-of-year "best of" plaudits. So if you're calling me a dick due to my opinion, then I guess you're a dick too, right? See how we can go in circles here?

Oh for fuck's sake. MEET THE FOCKERS had one of the biggest opening weekends of last year. Does that mean its a brilliant, best-of-the-year movie too? And don't ge tme started on using IMDb as a gauge of quality.

And for you to start hurling insults after barely digesting what I said makes you an even bigger one.

Saw it yesterday.

The first film is ass. So is its sequel.

Glad to see Len Wiseman's a Soul Reaver fan, though.

IMDB people have no taste because it's the fucking IMDB.

Here is some future reference for posters. Any movie with no political or social sense will be shit on by members of this board. So if you post your opinions on said genre of movie, you are setting yourself up for an attack. If you like these kind of movies, enjoy/discuss them with friends, not people on this board.

Demonstrably wrong, but thanks for playing.

Interesting how you've nailed what everyone here is all about after 15 posts.

Oh come on. There is such thing as a shitty popcorn movie, and having shitty taste in films. No one is saying you can't like what amounts to crap, just don't pretend it's anything but what it is.

Van Jones really liked Mission Impossible 2. That's ok. Just don't try to tell me that Mission Impossible 2 was anywhere near a good film just because you have a soft spot for it. So goes for Underworld/Underworld 2.

This is the kind of post that I want to hear as a response.

Don't tell people that they have shitty taste for thinking that Underworld Evolution is a good film (which only means that they liked it).

The problem with a couple of previous posters is that they attacked a persons taste for liking the films.

What JuddL says is true, to a point, except that i think that saying it is a good film is saying you liked it.

As for the top 10 of the year post that someone made earlier, can you not see the humor in that I saw? The year is only 3 weeks old. Brokeback Mountain was one of last years movies and Sideways was a 2004 film for God's sake! Looking at the releases for the calender year 2006, there is not a lot to choose from yet.

JuniorMint - read the response by Dan to see a good way to respond to someone who likes the movie without insulting the person's personal taste in movies. It was well thought out and critical, without really insulting the person.

*Pure semantic argument*

And that is the opposite of what people are saying here. Saying something is good implies objectivity. Saying you like that something implies subjectivity. It's not the same.

I liked The Matrix Revolutions, but I don't think it's a good movie. Hell, I love Tango & Cash, and that movie is terrible.


Also, this really isn't even the argument, since people ARE arguing that <film of interest that I haven't seen> is objectively good (brilliant?), not simply good in their own opinion.

Let's see; in one thread, I'm discussing my affection for the Dolph Lundgren Masters of the Universe. In another, we're referencing Godzilla Final Wars and Gamera. On the Best of 2005 thread, I've listed Sin City and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Yes, clearly, sociopolitical commentary is all that I value in film.

You tool.

Disagree completely. When you state a film is "good," you're immediately making a statement about a film's quality, as opposed to when you say you "like" it, which is more about how you felt about the film and how much you enjoyed it.

For example, FLASH GORDON. Terrible movie, but I love it to death. The same with REVENGE OF THE SITH. I've come to love the film, but I wouldn't exactly say it's full of quality.

How many times must this be repeated? He said it was a "brilliant" film and that it was one of the "best of the year". He was talking about the original UNDERWORLD. He was objectively stating that he found it to be of the same cinematic value of-hmm, let's see what movies were released in '03-CITY OF GOD, IN AMERICA, LOST IN TRANSLATION, MYSTIC RIVER, KILL BILL VOLUME ONE, etc. etc. And ya know what? If he is truly saying that, in his objective critical opinion, UNDERWORLD belongs in the same breath as those, then in my opinion.....He. Has. Bad. Taste.

Yes, after he made posts saying such tihngs as "those of us who know it's good", implying that there's something wrong with those of us who think it's a steaming pile of dreck.

Those were meant as comparable "best of the year" selections from years gone by, and considering that his post was talking about a film from 2003 I'd say it was fair to draw on olde rfilms to make a point.

I didn't insult him. I said I thought he had bad taste in movies, which in my opinion holds true. Like Charlie, E.C. and so many others have said in this thread, there's a difference between saying something is the best of the year and saying you liked it. I enjoyed THE ISLAND on a camp, kitsch, ludicrous level last year. I wouldn't rank it amongst the year's actual GOOD films, but I'd defend my enjoyment of it. Oh, and I certainly didn't call him a dick, or a jackass, which is what you resorted to.

I stumbled upon this promo reel of the fx company for Underworld: Evolution. I haven't seen the film, but I'm guessing the reel is filled with spoilers. The cgi looks really nice for the budget of the film. There's also a pretty gory decapitation in the end.

http://www.warproductions.com/reel/Lquicktime_reel.mov

I can see where you are coming from, and agree to a point. But, still, when someone asks me how a movie was and I tell them it was pretty good, I am only talking about my enjoyment of it, which is the only criteria I base it on, whether or not I liked it.

But on a state of actually reviewing it, yes it does have some big problems. I pointed out some after seeing it in an earlier thread, and I do agree with you that it is FAR from brilliant. So, I can see why you judge movies the way you do as well, good being based on technical quality, as opposed to enjoyment factor.

I agree with you about the poor directing, but I actully did enjoy the story to a point and thought some of the CG was quite good (while other - the flying - was quite bad).

Maybe instead of saying the movie was good, it would be better to just say, I enjoyed the movie for reasons listed. And instead of just saying a movie was bad, the person could say they did not like the movie based on the following reasons. It is all a basis of a person's tastes, and while you never really told anyone their taste's sucked, other's did. That just makes me mad.

Your (Charles) responses have all been pretty intelligent and non-insulting. And I agree with almost everything you said.

Yes, that's true. It was, and still is, really surprising to see the very negative reactions to the movie - the same movie that I saw. The question becomes "do I publicly disagree with the popular opinion or do I just enjoy it quietly." And since it's generally impossible to change peoples opinions on things maybe I should just stick to enjoying it quietly.



See it's really odd when you say that because I consider Underworld to be quite a different film to what would be expected - not a middle-of-the-road movie at all. If it was just a normal kind of action film then I wouldn't really be bothered to defend it, especially not against the huge numbers of those who hated it.

Pretty bad film. I didn't like the first one -- seemed to be trying to hard to do The Matrix with vampires and werewolves and sort of ignored the fact that they had vampires and werewolves -- and this one is definitely worse. Just jaw-droppingly awful CGI in the opening werewolf fight, and not much else to recommend it past that (aside from Kate Beckinsale's gloriously leather-clad form). And the male lead still looks like the guy from Creed.

Sherlock Holmes should definitly be played by Danny Devito. Who cares if it fits the character or not. Why can`t people have some damn humour?

Bill Nighy trying to talk through fake teeth made me laugh.

Well...yea.

Admittedly, that was pretty great.

Revisited this one on dvd (due to part 4's recent trailer). God help me, I like it, especially the finale. Guys in monster suits punching, slashing, throwing, and shooting each other. Kate B in a catsuit and less. Decapitations & gore, dank castle keeps, etc. The 12 year old DARKMITE8 inside is too strong to resist sometimes. WARNING: Baiting ahead... The UNDERWORLD franchise is more interesting, coherent, and better directed than the SW prequels.

 

I'm also a sucker for monster FX featurettes, so...

 

 

Ah, the good old days.
 

 

 

 

I was shot yesterday, it was better than being stabbed the day before.

Yeah, I read the thread and the aggressive pile-ons and apologist hyperbole. It's basically a SyFy flick with more budget and talent involved. It's a junk flick that entertained me. Nothing more than that. But the battling in this thread seemed fairly unnecessary for such an inconsequential franchise, especially from the veteran posters. I'm shocked at the length of some of the posts and amount of effort defending and decrying popcorn trash. Blood in the water, I guess.

 

And I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Been here too long to ever expect that.

Oh, yeah, I know, some chewers could be fucking piranhas when they wanted to. I still cringe when thinking about some chewer, maybe it was Desslar or whatever his name was, who got shit-kicked for several pages for "comparing" Transformers to Animal Farm, which he didn't actually do, he was just illustrating a point. But that didn't matter, as you say, blood in the water.

 

Still, I look back at some of the stronger voices that used to be and get a little nostalgic.

I miss Greg David.