Reviews

I saw this movie once on TV, quite a few years ago, and I honestly don't remember whether it was on a pay channel or if it perhaps aired on USA's Saturday afternoon "Creature Features" or something like that. Anyway, point is: once was enough, and "quite a few years ago" is still too recent. This was (and remains to this day) one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen. I remember feeling embarrassed for Jack Palance and Martin Landau; this had to have been the low point of the careers of each actor (if not, I'd hate to see what rates below this disaster). With regard to a discussion of this flick, the only thing more shocking than the depths to which these fine actors sank has to be the comments on this website calling the film "underrated" and comparing it favorably to "Predator." I half-suspect that all of the positive comments made herein must have made by one person under different names (and that person must be the director's mother). The concept of an alien using humans as game is certainly older than this film, and Greydon Clark is no John McTiernan. It's no oversight that this movie hasn't been made available on home video. It STINKS. If for one moment it seems like I'm judging a movie from 1980 too harshly by today's standards, just remember that 1980 was also the year of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RAGING BULL...

"The Matrix" features a half-baked science fiction premise that's only there to provide a framework to hang a lot of completely insane action upon. "Underworld" is much the same thing, though it's a thin horror premise that's even less baked than "Matrix" -- and given that "Matrix" came first, "Underworld" suffers from the added burden of drawing comparison to a better film.

First off, Len Wiseman's not a very good action director. A story revolving around vampires and werewolves is going to necessarily take place largely at night -- but is it EVER daytime in this movie? An occasional little light on the subject would have worked wonders.

Second, if you're going to use vamps and "lycans," then how about...oh, I don't know...ACTUALLY USING THEM? Who on Earth goes to a movie about monsters to see them having gun battles (none of which, BTW, is apparently ever investigated by law enforcement, no matter how public and noisy they are)? If memory serves, there were a total of 2 werewolf transformations in this movie, and it was the same character both times. Even the leader of the werewolf clan never got to show his stuff.

Kate Beckinsale provides some sexy eye candy (even if her entire outfit is "borrowed" from Trinity of "Matrix"), but her character's extremely underwritten. She's a vampire, but we only see her using her fangs once -- and that's to SAVE the life of a character. Does she have no bloodthirst? Do any of the vampires?

There's a bit in "Matrix Reloaded" where the character Persephone explains that ghosts and monsters are rogue subroutines in the Matrix. If you think of everything in "Underworld" as happening inside the Matrix, it helps to explain some of the incredible lapses in logic. But really, you're better off not thinking about it all.

I am currently suffering through this wretched waste of celluloid as it airs on one of HBO's various channels. I can't believe that its IMDB rating is as high as it is. It's just another "boyfriend from hell" movie that only works if each of the characters behaves in ways that no rational adult ever would. The plot holes are big enough to steer the Titanic through, and the real shame is that decent actors like David Keith and Charlotte Rampling are mired in this slop. The only redeeming value of this disaster is that it proves that ANYONE can get a movie made.