Underworld 3--worth my time?

Bmeansgood · January 31, 2009, 10:41:59 PM

I have never seen any of the Underworld movies but I have heard some buzz about Underworld 3. I was under the impression that the first one was absolutely horrible, so I neve got around to seeing it. Should I find the first 2 movies or is this much ado about nothing.

jimmybob · January 31, 2009, 10:55:40 PM

A friend of mine has seen all of the films and has told me that the third movie is by far the most entertaining. I still don't know if it's worth a cinema ticket.

-Jimmybob

Rat-Bat-Spider · February 01, 2009, 01:29:12 AM

I just saw it last night, friend. I liked it not. If you are a fan of the first two, then you have really already watched this movie. The scene in the first Underworld where Lucian's character is given exposition, that's the whole damn movie in a nutshell. It doesn't add anything to the mythology, therefore there is no real redeeming quality, and it merely exists to suck 8 more dollars out of Underworld fans. I reviewed it on my site, but all the movie had seeped out of my brain by the time I had come home to write about it.

My thoughts: rent it if you are a fan, ignore it if you're not. This one is not worth it, considering all the good Oscar noms out right now.

ognatam · February 02, 2009, 02:09:02 AM

I'm just going to chime in and give you a big fat no. Not worth watching. Not worth your time.

Hammock Rider · February 02, 2009, 10:11:31 AM

I saw it for 3 bucks at a run down theater and believe me when I say was ripped off. It's like Spartacus with Werewolves, except there are hardly any werewolves, and hardly any excitement, scariness, suspense, fun or humor.There are CGI werewolves but their appearence is limited, probably due to budget. Rhona Mitra isn't even very sexy in it. How they pulled THAT off I'll never know. It's just a bland mess.

Jim H · February 02, 2009, 02:20:19 PM

It depends on what you want out of it. I will say, that while on some levels it is less polished then the first film, it has more soul. That's the big thing about the first Underworld movie - there's no passion in it. None of the characters seem to really matter, or care about much of anything. It's not to say Rise of the Lycans is a film with brilliantly written characters with great motivation, but there's a little bit of heart there. Not having Kate Beckinsale and Scott Speedman, and instead having leads played by Rhona Mitra and Michael Sheen, really helps. Bill Nighy overacts, but he's always entertaining. All of this makes it a better film than the other two.

I'd say on the whole it is kind of a bad movie. The action scenes are kind of a mess in the modern style of shake-tastic photography. The writing is lackluster, there are some very poorly developed ideas and sub-plots throughout, and several things happen for no apparent reason. It also feels like a number of scenes were cut out of the film. Like the fate of Bill Nighy. The film has a 92 minute run-time, and I'd guess 10-15 minutes of cut footage.

But, I like werewolves a lot, and seeing them chow down on vampires made it worth the price of an admission ticket to me. Your mileage may vary.

HarlotBug3 · February 02, 2009, 02:55:48 PM

I justified watching it yesterday because I had just rolled 5 bucks in pennies and wanted an excuse to hang with the friend who invited me.

Either this movie was supposed to be a lot more epic and interesting than it became after the marketing/consulting people were done, or it really was just a rushed eye-candy exercise.

It was not unwatchable, it looked cool, neither the story nor the characters overreached, but it also didn't reach very far.

For a straight to video it would have been good enough. For a theatrical release it was not as bad as it could have been.

You're going to watch nifty gothic action, and that's what you get. The clever moral ambiquity of which monster is more sympathetic gets tossed out.

WingedSerpent · February 10, 2009, 10:01:13 AM

Quote from: Hammock Rider on February 02, 2009, 10:11:31 AM
I saw it for 3 bucks at a run down theater and believe me when I say was ripped off. It's like Spartacus with Werewolves, except there are hardly any werewolves, and hardly any excitement, scariness, suspense, fun or humor.There are CGI werewolves but their appearence is limited, probably due to budget. Rhona Mitra isn't even very sexy in it. How they pulled THAT off I'll never know. It's just a bland mess.

Rhona Mitra-not sexy? IMPOSSIBLE!

Hibbins · February 19, 2009, 03:37:55 PM

I thought the movie was kinda bad the actors were not good either. I liked the first and second movie better.

Psycho Circus · February 19, 2009, 03:41:17 PM

My buddy loves these movies. I think Underworld is his favourite film ever, but I can't stand them. It's just the Matrix for Anne Rice fans....

Doggett · February 19, 2009, 07:13:41 PM

Quote from: Circus_Circus on February 19, 2009, 03:41:17 PM
My buddy loves these movies. I think Underworld is his favourite film ever, but I can't stand them. It's just the Matrix for Anne Rice fans....

It's also the favourite film my best buddy.

It tries way to hard to be cool. It's laughable, really..

Wag · March 01, 2009, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: Circus_Circus on February 19, 2009, 03:41:17 PM
My buddy loves these movies. I think Underworld is his favourite film ever, but I can't stand them. It's just the Matrix for Anne Rice fans....

Ha ha - you can't stand them but still I overlook that fact.

I'm a little dissapointed in the comments about the new one - I am generally wary about prequels but was wanting it to be good; it doesn't look hopeful. Fate (well, a friend's exploding stomach ulcer) conspired against me seeing it on the big screen. I think I will wait for the DVD to hit the bargain bins after reading these comments.

The Burgomaster · March 02, 2009, 07:37:44 AM

If a movie has "3" or Part 3" in the title, it's hardly ever worth your time.