Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 04:33:15 PM
538190 Posts in 40746 Topics by 5133 Members
Latest Member: FireryMomma
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Information Exchange  |  Movie Reviews  |  (over) Analyzing a review of UNDERWORLD 3 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: (over) Analyzing a review of UNDERWORLD 3  (Read 1610 times)
Kester Pelagius
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 95
Posts: 908


Not a Time Lord!


WWW
« on: February 15, 2009, 01:56:17 PM »

Every reviewer brings their own unique baggage to the table but when you're setting out to write reviews to fit into an religious or political agenda, platform, or whatever doesn't the review suffer?  How can you honestly appraise a movie if you go in (meaning: start your review process) with a set of predisposed opinions?  To be honest I thought long and hard about those questions.  It is a fact reviewers and critics bring their own unique views to reviews.  Sometimes we may not even be aware of the fact.  I know my likes and dislikes, which form my own predispositions, thus even though I try to appraise movies without bias the truth is there are no reviewers without bias.  If we were truly unbiased we'd not have a critical remark to make about any movies we watch and, honestly, that would make for some boring reviews.

That said I may have stumbled across one of the funnier things I've read on the net in a while.  It's a review of UNDERWORLD 3 (haven't seen it yet) from a site called movieguide dot org.  They are very upfront about who and what they are, which at least makes them honest.  But what's interesting is, according to the site mission statement, they are: "A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment a Publication of the Christian Film & Television Commission(tm) ministry and Good News Communications, Inc., a Not-For-Profit 501(C) 3 Donor Supported Publication dedicated to Redeeming the Values of the Mass Media of Entertainment. Good News Communications is a ministry dedicated to redeeming the values of the mass media according to biblical principles by influencing media executives to adopt higher standards imbued with Christian and traditional family values, and by informing and equipping moral people in America and around the world, especially parents, families and Christians, to make wise media choices based on the biblical worldview."

I like how they're not merely a movie review site with an agenda but a "ministry".  Movie reviewing as a ministry?  Halleluiah!

Also, you'll note, nowhere in their mission statement does it saying anything about bringing insightful critical acumen to the movies reviewed.  How refreshingly unpretentious!  I wont even open the whole: "Whose Christianity?" can of worms.  Too, I fear the bit about "redeeming the values of the mass media" may be a fools errand as the values of mass media is the bottom line, which, in biblical terms, means they worship Mammon.  Wink But I digress.

There's a very nice, and brief, synopsis provided before the core review of UNDERWORLD 3 that states: "[This is] a prequel of how the vampires, humans, and werewolves went to war with one another. UNDERWORLD 3 is well made, as action fantasy movies go but is filled with extremely graphic violence and scenes of depicted sex, with a very strong fantasy pagan worldview about vampires and werewolves."

And so my confusion began.  Now on to my over thinking analysis. .

I'm not sure what "scenes of depicted sex" are, perhaps they mean "scenes depicting sexual subject matter" because, even though I've not seen it, I'm fairly certain you don't see any genitalia in this move much less scenes depicting intercourse.  What was the rating of UNDERWORLD 3?  XXX?  No.  Then it must be NC-17?  No.  Hmm.  Let's see, oh, it's rated R.  Uh-huh.

Doesn't "depict" mean "that which is portrayed" or "to show" thus the above would mean, literally, "scenes showing sex".  Do we really see "sex" in R-rated movies?  Ah, but "sex" is one of those words we have in the English language that's imprecise and open to wild and far ranging interpretation.  Some use the word to mean "sexuality" others use it to infer "eroticism" and always there're those that use the word vaguely in order to leave the context inferred by the reader.  But, as I said, of one thing I am certain: There's no coitus in UNDERWORLD 3.  Thus no "sex".  Then again this is one of those instances where the word is intentionally left vague and open to interpretation.

What is truly curious is the summation of the movie as containing an "very strong fantasy pagan worldview" because without Christianity there would be no vampire folklore.  In fact modern vampire folklore sprang out of the paranoia and witch hunts engendered, in part, by medieval Christianity in Europe.  I'll save you the long boring essay explaining the history but, suffice it to say, that oversimplified summation is (potentially) factually erroneous.

However one thing I find endearing is how this site provides a rather comprehensive "content" list which includes loaded phrases like: "Pagan worldview with revenge motive" and "extreme violence with much blood and gore; martial arts fighting" and "depicted sexual scenes of unmarried couple".

Considering the reviewer already slammed the movie for depicting an "pagan worldview" that last statement seems like a superfluous barb.  Why not just write: "scenes depicting expressions of sexuality between unmarried non-Christians"?   To use the word "couple" insinuates a relationship and that can't be bad, can it?  I mean since they're "pagan" but are a "couple" that means they are involved in a relationship, as opposed to merely having casual sex with random partners, and that should have some socially redeeming quality, right?  Yeah.  Sounds ridiculous to me, too.

However the following isn't just confusing it's cuckoo nonsense: "upper male nudity, implied female nudity, female cleavage".

Upper male nudity?  What, you mean a guy took his shirt off or  there was a scene at a beach or something?  Sorry.  That's just plain stupid.  But not as stupid as this: Female cleavage. O-M-G it's FEMALE CLEAVAGE run for the hills RAGNAROCK is upon us, ARMAGEDDON hath begun and wormwood hath turnéd thee waters bitter heralding the beginning of the END TIMES!

Sorry.  Bit of a overreaction that.  Yet I can't help wondering if we're suppose to infer that these people think women ought to be wearing burkhas?  Makes you wonder if they have a listing for "butt cleavage" for comedies in which guys butt cracks are shown.  Somehow I doubt they do.

But, wait.  What was last one:  Implied nudity?

Either a person is nude or they are not.   In the old B&W movies of the 40s and 50s the camera would cut away to a shadow on a wall.  I guess that would qualify as: implied nudity and implied depicted sex?  Is it just mere or does there seem to be a debit of common sense here.  Makes you wonder how this site would rate a movie like THE BLUE ANGEL or MOULIN ROUGE.  But, hey, at least there’d be "no obscenities or profanities" just a lot of implications.

 BounceGiggle

You can read the full UNDERWORLD 3 review here.
Logged

Cosmic Cinema - SF articles and reviews.

Mise-en-scene Crypt - Rants, reviews, & more! (10% NSFW)
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 967
Posts: 8391


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2009, 03:42:35 PM »

Oh, you gotta love 'em.  Wink
Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1812
Posts: 14657


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2009, 07:30:59 PM »

I really have no problem, in theory, with people "reviewing" movies for moral rather than artistic content.  There's a market for that sort of thing, I suppose.  I'm just not part of it. 

As you point out, they're often not very perceptive reviewers, though.

If that site bothers you I bet this guy will make your head explode:  Child Care Action Project.  Not only does he have a convoluted writing style, not only does he have a paranoid ability to find pagan symbolism in the most innocent episodes... but he's also developed an incredibly complicated moral movie scoring system that almost takes a degree in calculus to understand.  And, he holds his audience captive, demanding that they donate money to the "ministry" before he will review a film! 

There's also a "Communist movie reviewer" somewhere on the net, who rates films according to how well they promote the Maoist philosophy.
 
Just to be fair, not everyone who approaches film review from a Christian perspective is a nutcase.  This guy is very thoughtful and considers the artistic value of secular films, using them as a launching pad for his own ruminations on faith.  And he reviews some cool films, like BEGOTTEN and NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, instead of the usual Hollywood trash.  It's too bad that he doesn't seem to be keeping up with it.
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
Kester Pelagius
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 95
Posts: 908


Not a Time Lord!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2009, 11:58:42 AM »

I really have no problem, in theory, with people "reviewing" movies for moral rather than artistic content.  There's a market for that sort of thing, I suppose.  I'm just not part of it. 


BINGO!

You pegged Goliath right between the eyes with the first stone out of your slingshot.

Keyword: "market"

The site I found this review on requires a $40 registration fee, though they probably call it something silly like a "love gift", to gain access to their database of reviews.  Funny how all these self-proclaimed "ministry" folks seem more interested in collecting money than spiritual matters.  Just saying: (Mt 6:24) "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

Which, in modern parlace, should probably read: Religion and business don't mix.  This is a running theme in the NT gospels.  Remember the turning over of the money lenders tables?  But what do I know.  I'm just a humble movie reviewer.   TeddyR

If that site bothers you I bet this guy will make your head explode:  Child Care Action Project



W-T-F was that?  That whole sidebar thing with the gauges looked insane.  Sure I have a scorecard system that I, sometimes, use.  But that was. .

 Question  Buggedout

Just to be fair, not everyone who approaches film review from a Christian perspective is a nutcase.  This guy is very thoughtful and considers the artistic value of secular films, using them as a launching pad for his own ruminations on faith.  And he reviews some cool films, like BEGOTTEN and NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, instead of the usual Hollywood trash.  It's too bad that he doesn't seem to be keeping up with it.


I just glanced over the WICKER MAN review.  That was interesting.   Especially his choice of screen caps.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 12:00:31 PM by Kester Pelagius » Logged

Cosmic Cinema - SF articles and reviews.

Mise-en-scene Crypt - Rants, reviews, & more! (10% NSFW)
Javakoala
Unsung Hero Of The Whimpering Trilobites
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 120
Posts: 2715



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2009, 08:29:51 AM »


But, wait.  What was last one:  Implied nudity?

Either a person is nude or they are not.   


I think what they may be getting at is what TV has done for years. They show a person dropping a towel, robe or whatever. You never really see nudity, maybe a bare patch of back or belly or uncovered shoulders. Thus, they imply the person is nude but never explicitly show the nudity.

Or you can just watch Peter Griffin's Side Boob Show:

Small | Large
Logged

I have been told that I crap on everything everyone else loves. Just be thankful I can't give you an Oklahoma Nipple Twist through the Internet.
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Information Exchange  |  Movie Reviews  |  (over) Analyzing a review of UNDERWORLD 3 « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.