|
Alright, I was a pretty big fan of the first one and I wondered why this one didn't have its predecessor's hype. I assumed that it was just me being out of touch, and that the dumping ground month release had nothing to do with the film. I am sad to report that I was too optimistic. Not to say that this is a bad vampire movie, just that it was a letdown. What I liked about the first one was that it explained the Vampire/Lycan world in history but never got bogged down in it, and avoided the prophecy heavy and ÜberVampire plot of Blade and its lovely sequels. This one takes both of those points and makes them almost central. Where as Underworld 1 had a few cryptic flashbacks done at just the right times, this one seems to go back to the childhood flashbacks in every other scene. At least there were no Vampires in suntan lotion.  The movie starts out interesting enough. Eastern Europe has a monster problem, and the new big character suffers a betrayal that will shape his future. All empathy you feel for him is lost, however, when you see what a shallow villain he makes. Even the trials of Michael, with his newfound powers, are boring in this one because of inplausibly stupid minor characters, and the focus on the boring bad guys. Things worth seeing it for: One sex scene that seems to drag out way past what it should be able to, but if the chick's your thing then live it up. Chase scenes are actually very good, even if the action is seperated by long periods of mundane backstory. Every Lycan fight scene, especially the last one, is really good. The weakest character in this movie is Alexander Corvinus. The problem is that you spend the first half of the movie guessing as to who he is, what his powers are, and what purpose he intends to play. Unfortunately, he turns out to have no apparent powers, is apathetic to the whole situation, and is is boring until the very end. Bottom line: More Blade now than Anne Rice, but still better than Blade. 3/5 C+
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2006 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:10 |
|