Showing posts with label Scott Speedman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Speedman. Show all posts

April 23, 2026

Underworld: Evolution.

Review #2527: Underworld: Evolution.

Cast:
Kate Beckinsale (Selene; Lily Mo Sheen as young Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Tony Curran (Markus Corvinus), Derek Jacobi (Alexander Corvinus / Lorenz Macaro), Steven Mackintosh (Andreas Tanis), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Zita Görög (Amelia), and Brian Steele (William Corvinus) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard, #1916 - Underworld, #2388 - Ballerina)

Review: 
Admittedly, I was a bit hesitant to actually get back to the sequel to Underworld (2003), mainly because I had a funny feeling it was going to sink below the level of the first movie, which surprised me in being average goofy entertainment that was at least endearing for one watch. You've got leather-clad folks, guns, and some war that tries to make werewolves sound cool by calling them "Lycans", how could one go wrong? You might remember there was a vampire assassin and a vampire/lycan hybrid that had to run off because of the death of an elder vampire and the accidental spilling of blood onto a sleeping vampire elder. For whatever reason, now there is a talisman in the proceedings to go along with tombs and family reunions. Len Wiseman and Danny McBride returned to write the story together while McBride wrote the screenplay. The relative success of the film with audiences obviously led to further films. Wiseman and McBride ended up contributing to the next Underworld film, a prequel directed by Patrick Tatpoulos with Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009). The next sequel came with Underworld: Awakening in 2012.

It really does sting sometimes to say that a movie is just not that good. Sure, it isn't in the bottom of the barrel and it definitely has some appeal for those who got really into the idea of leather-clad slugfests with ideas of "lore"...but it just rings hollow in the final result in trying to pursue the series as a "franchise". Beyond the blue filter that basically pervades one's eyes over and over, the movie crashes and burns at the feet of being so scattershot that it actually almost becomes funny in spite of its overblown seriousness. You get a prologue set in 1202 to look at three vampire elders (with only one of them actually mattering for the movie at large, since one of them died in the first movie), with one being the son of an immortal and, oh, the brother of the first big bad werewolf. This wolf is put in what is supposed to be a forever jail to hide away from the immortal vampire. You get further explanations (read: ramblings by a vampire historian that we first see with Lycan women) that make you realize that this is going to be one of those fetch quest type of movies but with less Gothic wannabee fun, where only Mackintosh or Jacobi seem interested. As it turned out, this was the last of the movies with both Beckinsale and Speedman, as the latter did not reprise his role for any further films. Even with the sex scene they share together (or whatever you want to call a scene with the most select type of skin shown), they have about as much chemistry as lettuce on a sandwich (nuke the plant from orbit). You would think having a ship in the film (immortals have to go around on their boat miles) would be really big, but nay. You don't even get to have the air of a respectable actor such as Jacobi* for so long because hey, gotta focus on the hybrid stuff, because Curran sure isn't going to provide menace in hybrid-infused world domination. Hybrid hybrid hybrid, hmm? The movie may be a bit gorier and maybe may work better for those who like to see a few computer creatures that look decent if you actually watch it at night, but calling it a junk movie might almost be a compliment for those who know what they are getting into. Being a notch below a movie that was average as the day that it was created is a negative thing, but at least you can say they tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.


*Derek Jacobi, otherwise known as the only interesting incarnation of the Master in the 21st century, and yes, I'm still mad his incarnation got killed off that quickly. Sorry, I meant Sir Derek Jacobi, famous Tony Award-winning actor. Hey, I don't do the theater.

October 31, 2023

Crimes of the Future (2022).

Review #2132: Crimes of the Future.

Cast: 
Viggo Mortensen (Saul Tenser), Léa Seydoux (Caprice), Kristen Stewart (Timlin), Scott Speedman (Lang Dotrice), Welket Bungué (Detective Cope), Don McKellar (Wippet), Yorgos Pirpassopoulos (Dr. Nasatir), and Tanaya Beatty (Berst) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986])

Review: 
"Crimes of the Future is a meditation on human evolution. Specifically - the ways in which we have had to take control of the process because we have created such powerful environments that did not exist previously."

It was reported that David Cronenberg was considering retirement from filmmaking because of the difficulty in funding his films. Imagine a world where Maps to the Stars (2014) was thought to be his last directorial effort, and it happened that 2014 was also the same year he published his first novel. But here we are anyway with a film done by him that apparently had been in development once upon a time earlier in the 2000s that never got off the ground now and back again. It was reported in 2002 that he would do a film called "Painkillers", which involved a high pain threshold artist that was offered to infiltrate a subversive group. This inspiration came from a fellow student that attended the University of Toronto with him that had wrote a story about a man who cut off his own hand, to the shocked impressment of Cronenberg. Four years of development in script led to ideas of casting (maybe Nicolas Cage for the lead?), but, well, that film never came to be. So yes, to him, the idea of the body being reality could lead to ideas of a changed world because of how one changes that body (with its perceptions coming through said body (he had cited Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation). Producer Robert Lantos asked him to re-consider that old script he had done, which after a couple of years wrangling funds ended up being made as what you see. Now, at 79, here he was with a new film that wasn't exactly an audience hit but it's always good to say one is back (Cronenberg is apparently in development of a new film already), particularly since this is the first film of his involving horror of any kind since eXistenZ (1999); he stated that key references to other scenes and moments from select films of his would be seen here, because it would serve as some sort of "continuity of my understanding of technology as connected to the human body."

To this film, surgery is thought to be the new sex. It makes for a relaxed 107 minutes of weird horror (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's horror) that won't be ideal for everyone, but it makes for a curious experience to sit through at least once. It is the kind of film that looks as dreary as the future it likes to depict, right down to an opening that would be unsettling for anyone to think about: a kid depicted eating plastics who is then smothered by their mother in quick fashion. That's just one of the crimes committed by oneself against the body. Anyway, the film involves a duo of performance artists that do live surgery to remove newly grown organs that arise in one of them while they deal with constant pain. Mortensen and Seydoux do make an elegant pair when it comes to that refined showmanship pair one would hope for in a film that engages more in glances at the body rather than straight stabs, especially when it comes to scenes such as looking at a new thing done to the body, such as say, small horns or a zipper on the waist. I guess there is supposed to be something quite interesting about weird bureaucracy with McKellar and Stewart, but all I can focus on is the latter's whispery voice for seemingly 95% of the time she is on screen that makes me wonder if I was meant to be taking it as a joke. I do like Speedman's pathetic desperation when it comes to trying to make a point about the new type of evolution with what the film is presenting (are you ready for this): people wanting to adapt with a digestive system fit to eat toxic waste. There is something fascinating about watching people's eyes look upon this surgery involving tattooed organs that makes you wish the eventual conclusion reached some sort of meaningful point beyond that mild sort of peace that comes about with the final sequence. It just doesn't feel as confrontational or as pulsating bizarreness as it wishes to be (at least with some of these fools of wavering degeneracy, which even shows a man with many ears at one point), but I did find something worth looking into with the overall experience to appreciate in the long run. Cronenberg may not have had a profound return to form here, but it is still a curious one to watch within the long arm of his general interest of the body and horror regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
We did it! Well, I did it, but you readers got to see 40 reviews in a month, a new record of quality and quantity. Oh, but I have a surprise, one more horror film later tonight...with X.

November 3, 2022

Underworld (2003).

Review #1916: Underworld.

Cast: 
Kate Beckinsale (Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Michael Sheen (Lucian), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Erwin Leder (Singe), Sophia Myles (Erika), Robbie Gee (Kahn), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), Zita Görög (Amelia), Scott McElroy (Soren), and Wentworth Miller (Adam Lockwood) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard)

Review: 
Admittedly, making a movie that looks like it had a tryst with Blade (1998) and The Matrix (1999) (and perhaps The Mummy (1999)) sounds like quite the attraction for people that are curious about horror blend movies or perhaps folks that want to see what the hell can come out of a 21st century movie meant to deliver entertainment. The movie is directed by Len Wiseman in his feature debut. The Fremont native did film work on a number of Roland Emmerich films such as Stargate (1994) in property assistance before he became a music video director. The film began as a script by Kevin Grevioux (who also acts in this film), who was inspired by Romeo and Juliet alongside his study of microbiology at Howard University (which he graduated with a degree in that field before becoming an actor). Danny McBride, formerly a stuntman before being introduced to Wiseman by their mutual agent, was brought in to help with the script by the director, who also co-wrote the story that had each received screen credit, although McBride alone would write the screenplay, with he and Wiseman setting out to make a trilogy of films. Screen Gems. Distributed by Screen Gems on a budget of $22 million, it was a surprise hit that made four times its budget back, which would inspire a cadre of sequels and one prequel: Underworld: Evolution (2006), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009), Underworld: Awakening (2012), and Underworld: Blood Wars (2016), with Beckinsale remaining the constant presence while Wiseman and McBride contributed to two of the follow-up films (with Wiseman serving as producer for the three others). It should be noted that the film was subject to a lawsuit by White Wolf, Inc and Nancy A. Collins, who each claimed that the film's setting was too similar to their respective works (Vampire: The Masquerade and Sonja Blue, respectively), which resulted in a confidential settlement.

You know, I actually kind of dug the film in a weird way. Maybe the idea of combining vampires and werewolves (called Lycans) is a bit on the outrageous side, but I actually find it to my liking. Sure, one is quite aware of what they are getting themselves into with an action/horror hodgepodge like this, which kept my interest through its 121-minute runtime. It may be goofy, and it may not work for everyone, but I found it worth my time, although one would obviously have their hesitation about further films, regardless of how much they enjoy a bit of gun fighting and folks wearing black (leather or coat). The mythology is handled in a manner that invites interest without delving into parody or overt self-awareness, and it at least looks like you can understand this "war" without needing to strain your brain too much (one side was a servant, the other liked swords). Beckinsale is a solid lead to hold it together, steely in composure (perhaps from not getting to enjoy the sun) that can handle the action elements and the ounces of dramatic depth with the patience it all requires from her. A weaker actor would look foolish in that getup and then not make the lines stick beyond what they are written, but she seems to be having a blast with it that results in a worthwhile time. Speedman isn't as fortunate, but then again, he plays the part about exactly what you would think it involves in reserved patience when dealing with effects and some sort of story to get him along with a bit of chemistry shared between him and Beckinsale. Nighy may have a bunch of makeup on him, but when he does show up, he makes an engaging presence with an aura of arrogance. Sheen chews up the material handily when on screen for voracious effect that makes a useful adversary worth smiling about, while Brolly makes a quality cad for the proceedings, confidently pathetic in all the right ways along with Leder. As silly as it might sound to present werewolves as "Lycans", I did find that the story presented of them and their beastly defiance semi-compelling enough to go against the usual presentation of the wolf, and it also makes a useful contrast to the aristocratic vampire presented here (it has its own touch of cliche, but it is expected cliche). The conflict of trying to create extinction within endless warfare (in modern society, hidden to others or not) does execute itself with the right balance of cliches and flourish, with effects and action sequences that are handled to adequate effect. As a whole, it does all the little things to useful effect in terms of entertainment value without flubbing up in pale depth or pale mood to make the general target: something to watch if it suits your fancy, silly or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.