Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Review #2580: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Cast: 

Michael Sheen (Lucian; Alexander Carroll as Young Lucian), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Rhona Mitra (Sonja; Olivia Taylforth as Young Sonja), Steven Mackintosh (Andreas Tanis), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), David Aston (Coloman), Elizabeth Hawthorne (Orsova), Craig Parker (Sabas), Larry Rew (Kosta), Jared Turner (Xristo), Timothy Raby (Janosh), and Tania Nolan (Luka) Directed by Patrick Tatopoulos.

Review: 

Sure, why not make the third Underworld movie serve as a prequel? You might remember that in Underworld (2003), there was this whole thing about everyday life having a group of folks around that don't like each other with vampires and "Lycans" (who among us shortens a word to make up a name), with one particular hunter getting into the funny business of finding out that vampire elders are, well, not much different from Lycans in what you might call a twist on Romeo & Juliet (okay, one person called it that at the time, but hey*). So, with the realization that Lycans were basically slaves to the vampires until they made their fight for freedom, who better to direct than a first-timer? In fairness to Patrick Tatopoulos, the Greek-Frenchman had directed a few music videos and a short before making this film as his directorial debut, having done, well, plenty of work in effects, such as the previous two Underworld films; as it stands, this is his only feature directorial effort. Here's five credited writers: Danny McBride, Dirk Blackman and Howard McCain for the screenplay and Len Wiseman, Robert Orr & McBride for the story. Things returned to normal with Awakening in 2012 (which had Wiseman return to serve as a co-writer).

Remember when the first movie had Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy? Remember when they ended up dead at the end of the movie because, well, they just had to go? It's kind of funny watching a movie with two semi-interesting people in it that can't die here but are trying to make a go of lines such as "You're a credit to your race"* and the ever-developing locale of blue, grey, blue, grey, and maybe a third distinguishable color. So, basically, it's a side-step of quality from Evolution that at least looks like they tried to make you care for the fight of independence (with just a smidge of sex on a cliff*). The cringing of knowing it stinks at least has a smile for what they tried to do in their blue-grey medieval aim. There is a certain type of charm that Sheen brings for a pedestrian type of character that I'm sure had to have been thought of as akin to Moses by at least one filmmaker (you just know someone wanted to say, "let my PEOPLE go!", be honest) that basically keeps the movie afloat with his energy that sells most of what you like to see in acts of defiance that gives some credibility to wanting to see where things are going to go. Sure, you wish there was more time with the dazzling Mitra*, because you want more magnetism to really clear a path for inevitable tragedy, but they are fairly likable to watch in the calamity of forced roles. Nighy makes for a quality adversary in the type of elder arrogance that has both cunning and one-sided vision for what is right within the land of vampires, people, and the ones beneath each (which namely involves money because what else is there to do with castles and horses). I honestly forgot that Mackintosh and Grevioux each appeared in one of the earlier movies and I feel like that indicates the quality of these goofy movies not really rising up to par with the bare minimum presented with the first movie in resembling something cool (vampires, wolves, dark outfits), but I digress. It gives you people getting hit with weapons that aren't just guns and even sees folks hurt by the sun or swords (some of them even live, go figure). You get some decent-looking effects within a fairly efficient runtime of 89 minutes that is sometimes entertaining and may likely give you what you expect in "fill-in things", which I guess is better than nothing. So it goes.

 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day: September 21 edition

*Generally I don't care about gossip and personal lives, but it's kinda funny that Beckinsale met her future husband Len Wiseman when they were doing Underworld (2003)...while in a partnership with Michael Sheen. 

*Not to make a thing about it, but I can't remember if there's even a single black vampire in this film, but the Lycans sure have their guys that decided being one of them is better than being a slave.

*What, too cute of a phrase? Movie Night endorses sex and violence in horror and action movies, naturally.

*Double note: making a reference to The Ten Commandments may or may not sound a bit less cheesy than playing Tony Blair three times. And as for Mitra, hey, I still remember her time on Boston Legal because good golly.

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.

Song of the day!

*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.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Muppet Christmas Carol.

Review #498: The Muppet Christmas Carol.

Cast
Michael Caine (Ebenezer Scrooge), Dave Goelz (The Great Gonzo as Charles Dickens, Waldorf as Robert Marley, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, and Betina Cratchit), Steve Whitmire (Kermit the Frog as Bob Cratchit, Rizzo the Rat, Beaker, Bean Bunny, Belinda Cratchit, Beetle, and Lips), Jerry Nelson (Tiny Tim Cratchit, Statler as Jacob Marley, Ma Bear as Ma Fozziwig, Ghost of Christmas Present, Lew Zealand, and Mr. Applegate), Frank Oz (Miss Piggy as Emily Cratchit, Fozzie Bear as Fozziewig, Sam the Eagle as Headmaster of Junior High Graduates, Animal and George the Janitor), David Rudman (Peter Cratchit, Old Joe, Swedish Chef), Jessica Fox (Ghost of Christmas Past) and Steven Mackintosh (Fred) Directed by Brian Henson.

Review
I've reviewed movies based on the story A Christmas Carol (#076 - Scrooge (1951) and #079 - A Christmas Carol (1984)) before, but this one is a little different, as the Muppets (Last seen by me in #377 - Muppets from Space) intervene in the process, certainly making for a unique adaptation. Michael Caine, while not as good as say George C. Scott, does make a decent Scrooge who is entertaining enough, and he pairs off well with the Muppets. Speaking of which, the Muppets are really entertaining, especially The Great Gonzo and Rizzo, who pair well off each other all throughout the film. The story flows well and the characters are all fine and dandy, and this certainly is a fine way to spend a weekend near Christmastime. Countdown to 500 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.