|
Title: Underworld (2003) Post by: InformationGeek on January 02, 2012, 12:56:25 PM With the fourth film coming soon, let's us take this time to remember this 'classic' piece involving the battle between vampires and werewolves. It maybe not be great, but it's better than what Twilight nowadays has left us with. The plot is this:
Selene, a vampire warrior, is engaged in a war between the vampires and werewolves. Although she's with the vampires, she falls in love with Michael, a human turned werewolf. For those of you who have seen it, what do you think of the film? Also, interested in seeing the new film? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMYyhBtQ1PU Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: claws on January 02, 2012, 02:23:59 PM I've seen it and don't think it's a "bad movie".
Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: Flick James on January 02, 2012, 02:47:41 PM I enjoyed the first one. However, once I saw the second I lost all interest. Kate Beckinsale is freakin' hot.
Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: WingedSerpent on January 02, 2012, 06:08:44 PM I saw it, I kind of liked it-but I also found it pretty generic. Or at least closer to what the Bloodrayne should have been.
None of the rest of the series really thrilled me, and I don't plan on seeing the fourth in theaters. Maybe a rental, or cable. Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: akiratubo on January 02, 2012, 06:13:42 PM What entertainment value Underworld has is almost completely due to Bill Nighy as Viktor. The man completely and utterly owned the entire movie as soon as he crawled out of that coffin. I also enjoyed the battle between him and the werewolf/vampire. The hybrid monster was obviously more powerful than Viktor, but Viktor's superior skill and experience gave him the edge, anyway.
Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: LilCerberus on January 02, 2012, 07:39:42 PM Hot Chick + Rubber Outfit = No Contest
:tongueout: Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: Doggett on January 03, 2012, 01:15:58 AM Am I the only person who thought it was bland, generic non sense???
:question: Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: Hammock Rider on January 03, 2012, 11:00:58 AM Hot Chick + Rubber Outfit = No Contest :tongueout: (http://www.wvau.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/thumbsUp.jpg) Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: xupernaut on January 03, 2012, 05:37:05 PM I thought it was kind of a fun cheesy movie that was more fun and cheesy because it took itself pretty seriously. Didn't care for the sequels though they have they're moments. Have to admit the pretty boy vampires in Twilight would most likely crap themselves if they saw the Lycans.
Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: akiratubo on January 03, 2012, 05:54:14 PM Am I the only person who thought it was bland, generic non sense??? :question: Of course it was ... but it was bland, generic nonsense with Bill Nighy! The man almost made it possible to sit through Pirates of the Caribbean 3, so making Underworld tolerable was peanuts for him. Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: Dr. Whom on January 06, 2012, 06:24:22 AM Hot Chick + Rubber Outfit = No Contest :tongueout: not to mention the guns Title: Re: Underworld (2003) Post by: InformationGeek on January 07, 2012, 05:03:19 PM Hot Chick + Rubber Outfit = No Contest :tongueout: not to mention the guns What kind of guns? :wink: |