Has anyone seen Underworld?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuopaolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tuopaolo

Guest
I read the USCCB review and it gave it an O for “excessive violence.” I’d like to know if that is the only problem with it. (I don’t have a problem with violence in films and I don’t understand why the lay reviewers at the USCCB do)
 
I saw it when it was first released a couple of years ago. I don’t remember there being anything other than violence and some swearing. I really enjoyed it. The sequel is due out in January.
I don’t have a problem with violence in films and I don’t understand why the lay reviewers at the USCCB do
That is probably worthy of a topic all in itself. The South Park movie from a few years ago was a statement to the fact that the majority of Americans are against swearing and sex in their popular media, but are indifferent to violence.
 
The concept of Underworld was great – probably the most interesting version of the vampire/werewolf mythos to be produced in a long time. The basic outline of the plot is also very well thought out and some of the individual elements of the production design indicate that they were really trying to create a serious movie (Romeo & Juliet derived though which is a black mark against it in my book).

They had a great idea, they had a great plot, they had good initial character designs and a great concept behind the supernatural aspects of the movie. The problem was that they did a really lousy job of bringing all of these great things to the screen.

The acting is all over the map, from well-done to absolutely awful. The dailogue sounds like it was written either for or by a 12 year old. The vampires are so gothic as to be parodies of the gothic (the costuming director needs to watch fewer Tim Burton movies). The werewolf special effects are embarrasingly bad (they’re not hairy so much as they just have really dark colored skin and only a little bit more hair than a person). The production design is inconsistent and seems to me like they ran out of money part of the way through the production.

As for objectionable material, there is violence and there is a little bit of gore. Some foul language too. I don’t remember anything sexual, but honestly, I didn’t like the movie enough to remember that much detail. It’s worth a rental if you can look past the objectionable stuff. If you can’t, you’re not missing much.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
I read the USCCB review and it gave it an O for “excessive violence.” I’d like to know if that is the only problem with it.
Pretty much everything was the problem with it. Lousy acting, lousy writing, contrived and boring plot, mediocre (at best) effects. The film has very little to recommend it.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Pretty much everything was the problem with it. Lousy acting, lousy writing, contrived and boring plot, mediocre (at best) effects. The film has very little to recommend it.

– Mark L. Chance.
Yeah, it has all the qualities of a good, rainy Saturday afternoon B movie.
 
I liked the film but I am easy to please. It wasn’t high drama and seemed a bit cartoonish. But for a light adventure movie it was okay.

I watched it with my son and didn’t find it particularly offensive.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
I don’t understand why the lay reviewers at the USCCB do)
Probably because they’re a bunch of liberal post-conciliar pacifists. This has been an unfortunate epidemic since the Council.
 
I thought it was pretty bad. Lousy special effects and some of the acting (well, actually most of it) was painful. The plot idea seemed relatively good, but the execution was awful.

I do like the actor who played Viktor, though. He’s in Love, Actually and Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top