Review-Underworld:Awakening

Posted on by
Reply


Huzzah!!!! I finally got around to watching the latest entry in the Underworld franchise.  And I liked it.  You’ll recall from my earlier reviews that I liked (but didn’t love) the original movie but saw no reason for the 1st two sequels to exist.  Awakening is pretty close to the original movie in quality, good but not great.

[Possible spoilers ahead.]  You’ll also recall my theory that sequels can go in one of two directions: either remake the original or do something completely different.  Awakening starts off as something very different but switches to more of the same about halfway through.  (That kinda disproves my theory, doesn’t it?)  The movie starts with humanity discovering the existence of vampires and lycans and hunting them to near-extinction.  That creates a completely different feel from the 1st movie in which the vampires and lycans seem like gods compared to humanity.  Generally, I prefer vampire fiction in which the vampires are hidden from humanity but going the other way can also be interesting.  And the way this movie started seemed full of wonderful potential.  By the end, the movie switched back to the old war between vampires and lycans and got less interesting.

Still, there was plenty to like in Awakening.  Charles Dance was terrific as a vampire leader.  (I also love him in Game of Thrones.)  The effects and action sequences were pretty good although some of the CGI figures lacked weight.  I really liked the look of Selene’s daughter in scary mode.  Selene’s CPR technique on a dying vampire was shockingly original.  The big surprise with Stephen Rea’s character genuinely caught me off guard.  Overall, a nice script well executed.

In summary, Underworld:Awakening is a worthy sequel and an enjoyable movie.

Christopher Lee sighting

Posted on by
5

I forgot to mention in my review of Dark Shadows that Christopher Lee has a cameo.  I didn’t recognize him under all the costuming and makeup.  Then he spoke and the voice was REAL familiar.  I thought, “That can’t be Christopher Lee, can it?  But nobody else has that voice.”

Look, I’m not saying you should go see the movie to get a glimpse of THE GREATEST VAMPIRE MOVIE ACTOR OF ALL TIME.  After all, it’s a very small role.  On the other hand, how many new movies do you expect to see him in from now on?

Review: Dark Shadows

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, I confess.  As a teenage boy, I used to watch Dark Shadows with my sisters.  I have no regrets about this although I know it damages my “guy” credentials.  So why did I rush out on opening day to see the new version?  It wasn’t nostalgia since I don’t have very fond memories of the show.  Maybe it was the trailers because they promised a lot of fun.

And the movie delivered.  This movie was a lot of fun.  Mostly, it was non-stop hilarity with just little hints of genuine horror.  Let’s get to some specifics.  Johnny Depp was brilliant and carried the whole movie.  The other performances were good and I have to single out Helena Bonham Carter for bringing out all the comedy and tragedy of her character.  I wonder where director Tim Burton found her?  The script skillfully blended elements of the old series with a more modern sensibility.  And I enjoyed all the musical choices.  I should also say that although this movie seems like a vampire story, it’s actually more of a ghost story.  Generally, I don’t like ghost stories but this one worked pretty well.

Was there anything I didn’t like?  Well, it ran a little long.  The final battle at Collinwood Manor went on forever.  The big revelation about Carolyn Collins seemed completely unnecessary.  But my biggest problem with the movie was the casting of Michelle Pfeiffer.  Her performance was good but she just seemed wrong for the role.  Maybe Burton cast her because she reminded him of Collinwood Manor: once beautiful but fallen on hard times.

But what you really want to know is, how guy-friendly is the movie?  After all, it’s based on a soap opera.  Don’t worry, there’s enough humor to keep you entertained.  You’ll also get the minimum RDA for sex and violence.  The ending gets kinda soap-opera-ish but that shouldn’t stop you from having a good time.

Review: Underworld – Rise of the Lycans

Posted on by
Reply


OK, here’s my last review of the series before I watch Awakenings.  Rise of the Lycans really felt like just going through the motions.  It’s not just a prequel, it’s a prequel to a 2 minute flashback in the 1st movie.  Prequels are always problematic since the viewer knows how it will all turn out.  Filmmakers have to be extra creative to surprise the viewer or even keep the viewer’s interest.  I didn’t see anything in this movie that was particularly creative.

For the female lead, they got someone (Rhona Mitra) who looks like Kate Beckinsale but isn’t.  (BTW, I liked Mitra in The Gates.)  Other than that, they just used most of the cast from the 1st movie.  There were no new ideas or great, new characters.  Was it worth it to expand the 2 minute flashback to a 2 hour movie?  Not really.  I thought the story of tragic love was just as powerful in the 2 minute flashback.  The only positive contribution this movie made to the series is the insight into Lucian’s background.  He went from villain to hero between the 1st and 3rd movies.  Next time I watch the 1st movie, it will be with fresh eyes on Lucian.

Other than that, there is no reason for this movie to exist and no reason to watch it.  I know there’s only one reason movies get made, to make money.  The 2nd and 3rd movies really didn’t make any at the domestic box office (per IMDB).  Unless they were huge overseas and on DVD, I wonder how the franchise has stayed alive this long.

Review: Underworld-Evolution

Posted on by
Reply


I’m still working my way through the Underworld canon in anticipation of Underworld:Awakening on DVD.  Here’s my 2nd review.

There are 2 basic approaches to sequels.  You can make the same movie over again or make a completely different movie.  (Each is a kind of cheat to some moviegoers.)  Underworld:Evolution takes the first approach.  It’s pretty much the first movie with more action, sex and needlessly complex plot.

Instead of Kraven, we get Marcus in the role of uninteresting villain.  And instead of Lucian’s backstory explaining his motivation, we find out why Marcus is willing to kill any number of humans, lycans and vampires to bust his brother out of prison.  None of it makes much sense and none of it is very interesting.

Was there anything to like in this movie?  Derek Jacobi is always good and provided some gravitas and believability as Alexander Corvinus.  And there were lots of explosions…..and that’s about it.

Review: Underworld

Posted on by
1


The latest entry in the Underworld franchise, Underworld: Awakening is scheduled for DVD release on May 8.  I should have a review shortly thereafter.  In the meantime, I thought I should refresh my memory on what’s gone on before so I’m rewatching the previous 3 movies.  And why not review them while I’m at it.

Let’s start with the original Underworld.  Rewatching it gave me a completely different perspective on what was going on.  I originally thought this movie told the story of Selene and Michael, tragic individuals and maybe tragic lovers.  The background story of the Lycan/Vampire war was just a context for these smaller stories.  In other words, just window dressing.  It’s now clear that the whole Lycan/Vampire history/mythology is the real story.  Selene and Michael were just entry points into that big story.

But was it any good?  Yes, I liked it the first time and still do.  First, Kate Beckinsale is great.  Setting aside how good she looks in leather (or maybe vinyl), she just has a  presence that kept my eyeballs riveted to the screen.  If anything, her performance was a little too strong.  Selene is supposed to start strong but gradually show more doubt, indecision and weakness as the story goes on.  That seems to be in the script but Beckinsale doesn’t always show the vulnerability the story calls for.

Now let’s talk about the worst performance in the movie.  Shane Brolly really didn’t get the job done as Kraven.  No subtlety, no nuance, he was just a mustache twirling villain from central casting.  The other performances were fine and particularly Michael Sheen as Lucian was very good.  They all made Brolly’s performance look even worse by comparison.

I thought all the special effects, makeup and transformations were fine.  Honestly, those things don’t make or break a movie for me.  I’m willing to suspend disbelief on production values but not on story or character.  And the story worked.  Underworld isn’t one of the great movies of all time, or even one of the great vampire movies.  But it’s a fun way to spend a couple hours.

Look for my review of Underworld:Evolution shortly.

Being Human – Season 4: Review

Posted on by
Reply


Back here, I mentioned that Being Human (the British version) is going off in a weird new direction and I wasn’t sure if I liked it.  Well, season 4 just concluded and…….I’m still not sure what I think about it. [spoiler alert- if you haven't seen the last episode, you might want to stop reading this post.]

The creators completed the transition to an all new cast.  Mitchell was replaced by Hal as the vampire of the group.  I don’t think that change was for the better.  Mitchell just seemed so much more interesting than Hal.  I suspect that’s the result of casting and acting.  In other words, the actor playing Mitchell is more than interesting than the actor playing Hal.

The change in werewolves is not so clear.  Tom is a pretty interesting character.  Heck, he’d be an interesting character if he weren’t a werewolf.  He’s a semi-feral guy with no social skills raised by a man he thought was his father but wasn’t and given no direction in life other than to survive and kill vampires.  Compare that to George who was a routinely neurotic nebbish.

To me, Annie was the real star of the show.  Her backstory was only interesting for an episode or two but the actress just lit up the screen.  And now, she’s been replaced by Alex who is also played by an interesting actress.   Is she charismatic enough to carry the show?  Maybe.

What about the season long story?  It’s kinda hard to tell the story of trying to prevent an apocalyptic future that may have already happened in just 8 episodes.  Generally I prefer shows with season arcs over standalone episodes.  I much preferred when Buffy did that and I preferred when Angel did that.  But Being Human was generally better at episodic storytelling.  This season’s story felt rushed.  And I generally don’t like time travel stories of trying to prevent a future that’s already happened in another reality.  So I wasn’t thrilled with this season.

Is there hope for the future (of the show)?  Can the new cast hold my interest?  Yeah, I’ll give it a try when the show comes back.  But I’m not breathless with anticipation.

Zombies? No, thanks.

Posted on by
Reply


This post started as a book review of “City of the Lost” by Stephen Blackmoore.  I picked it up because there was a mention of vampires on the back cover but  it turned out to be a zombie book with about a half page of vampires.  So the book really isn’t suitable for my review page.  (Pssst-it isn’t very good).

The New York Times Magazine has a weekly “meh list” described as “not hot, not not, just meh”.  That’s how I feel about zombies.

Horror fads come and go.  Sometimes vampires are hot.  Sometimes, it’s werewolves.  Right now, zombies seem to be the big craze.  I know there are people who think if you like one, you like them all.  And I know that some people do like them all.  Not me.  Werewolves are OK but I’ve never been a fan of mummies, succubi, ghosts, poltergeists or creatures from various lagoons.  And I’m not very interested in zombies.

There are 2 zombie formats.  The protagonist can be a survivor during a zombie apocalypse.  Or the protagonist can be a zombie.  The first isn’t all that different than the post-nuclear apocalypse stories I grew up on and got fed up with.  The second is generally uninteresting but is always too creepy.

However, when something is great, it’s great regardless of genre.  So there are great zombie books and movies just like there are some great mummy movies, etc.  The original Night of the Living Dead was great.  Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead were hilarious.  And Max Brooks’ “World War Z” was just brilliant.  So, I don’t seek out zombie fiction and I frequently avoid it but there are rare occasions when it’s irresistible.  Wow, I almost made it thru this post without mentioning “Walking Dead”.

Review: Stake Land

Posted on by
Reply

Back in this post, I discussed a list of “bad vampire movies” on Gunaxin.  That list included “Stake Land” but it looked pretty interesting.  So I decided to check it out (from my local library).  It turned out to be a good (but not great) movie.

This movie is pretty easy to describe.  Think “Zombieland” without the humor.  Or think “Walking Dead” without the soap opera.  Of course both those stories have zombies and Stake Land might as well.  The vampires are shambling, feral, eating machines.  They only differ from zombies in that they can be killed by sunlight or staking.  This movie could just as easily have been made with zombies and nothing would have changed, not even the makeup.

An orphaned boy is mentored by a survivalist vampire-killer as they wander a desolate America reduced to anarchy and barter.  The movie adds a little political/social spin by featuring a group of redneck white-supremicists called The Brotherhood.  These guys are the real villains while the vampires are just a force of nature, like a tornado or a flood.

So far, that description might not sound very good and you’re wondering why I’m recommending this movie.  It’s well made.  The story is intelligent.  The direction is solid and the actors (mostly unknown) do a fine job.  And the movie looks good despite a very modest budget.  Give it a try.  The link above is to Amazon’s “instant video” version but they also offer several DVD options.

And my next post will talk more about zombie movies.

Review: Sonja Blue

Posted on by
3

Nancy Collins left a comment on this blog that I should try her “Sonja Blue” series.  So I did, ……. and I like it.  You can read my review here.  As usual, I have a few extra comments.

Let’s start with the author’s comment that she is rewriting and revising the series.  I wonder why she would do this.  OK, the books are supposed to be contemporary but some of the ambiance is a little anachronistic.  The 1st book was written in 1989 so characters don’t use cell phones and Sonja walks by the World Trade Center in one scene.  Is that a reason to rewrite?  Or is she motivated by writer’s remorse?  She’s clearly developed as a writer. Does she look back with regret at her early works wishing she were as good a writer then as she is now.  Just curious.

Speaking of weaknesses in her early work, I mentioned in my review that the 1st book wasn’t my favorite.  One of the things I didn’t like was her using 2 writing styles in “Sunglasses After Dark”.  The contemporary scenes were in a hard-boiled style.  Then she does extended flashbacks for Sonja’s origin story in a flowery style that seems a little gothic.  Part of that is the setting.  The contemporary scenes are set in mean streets and urban lofts.  The flashbacks are in formal parties in European salons and mansions.  It feels like I’m bouncing back and forth between Martin Scorcese and Anne Rice.  The style changes were just too jarring.  Don’t get me wrong, I still recommend the book and you’re going to want to read it before going on to the rest of the series.

Let’s talk a little about how innovative this series is.  I mentioned in my review that there is a strong psychological underpinning to the stories.  It starts with the issue of how much of a person survives the transformation into a vampire.  This theme continues as the human and vampire sides of Sonja’s personality battle for dominance.  This turns into a full blown case of multiple personality disorder.  And then we have the “daddy issues”.  Sonja doesn’t get along well with her human father but is obsessed with killing her vampire father.  This seems pretty creative in 2012 but must have been stunningly innovative when Collins created the concept in 1989.  In those pre-Buffy, pre-Twilight days, there wasn’t the same variety of vampire paradigms.  (Did I really use that word?)

I also liked Collins’ handling of other supernatural creatures (generally referred to as “Pretenders”).  I usually like to limit the supernatural population in vampire fiction.  But Collins puts an interesting spin on the various other creatures including ogres, angels and demons.  They enriched rather than distracted from the vampire story.

To sum up, I’m really late to this party but having a great time.