DJariya

Trailer:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tUcrbUCWKQc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Synopsis:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1496025/

Story by:
Len Wiseman

Directed by:
Mans Marlind
Bjorn Stein


Will be checking this out this weekend at some point. Big fan of these movies and of Beckinsale. Kind of interesting that she has movies opening 2 straight weekends (last week Contraband)

crazychris88

This was absolutely unnecessary garbage. Everything about this thing is pretty much the definition of bare minimum to classify as a film. Bare minimum effects, story, plot, acting, RUNNING TIME, dialogue, . Just complete and utter dreck.
Ugh.
HATED THIS

Solid Snake

Did it meet the rating requirement?

Patman

Kate Beckinsale returns to the 4th installment of the Underworld franchise after sitting out the 3rd installment, and unfortunately, it's basically a cash-grab exploiting the fans of the Underworld film series, and the film is no more than an exercise in staging repetitive fights between vamps and lycan, with nary a care given to the script for a coherent and engaging scripts, or developing characters, so it bereft of tension and interesting conflict. So it's all flash, and no substance.

I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.

Pizza the Hutt

The first three were garbage. Why in the hell would anyone in their right mind expect this to be in any way different?

RocShemp

How would you compare it to the other three. Is it at least better than the 2nd one?

Patman

I didn't think the 2nd one was *that* bad, and the 4th one is just basically pointless.

RocShemp

I didn't think the 2nd was terrible but I do consider it the weakest of the first three. It's a shame the 4th is pointless, as you say. Though I can't say the trailers made me expect any different.

DJariya

Okay, I'm going to be in the minority here and say that I fucking loved it.

88 minutes of non-stop mayhem with Kate back in leather and guns a blazing. If your a fan of just non-stop bloody violence, then this movie is for you. This was the real Underworld 3. There was also a 2-3 minute recap of the 1st 2 movies.

As for the comments that this movie is pointless. I can see where some of you would think that. The plot is mostly self contained with them bringing back Selene and dealing with a new world threat. It pretty much stays away from the whole Vampire/Lychan mythology that was established in the 1st 3 movies. Considering the movie ended:



The only thing that bugged me was:



One of the things I liked were the Lychan creature effects. They were really well done and quite terrifying in some scenes.

I would give this a B+

DJariya

I did think it was funny that they:

Supermallet

I love the first two Underworld films. They are silly camp, but a ton of fun and have a certain gothic romantic atmosphere that I appreciate. Additionally, while a lot of people rag on Wiseman, he's actually a competent and stylish director. The third, while not nearly as good, benefits from committed performances from Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy.

Underworld: Awakening picks up where Underworld Evolution (my personal favorite of the series) left off. Michael and Selene had gained a temporary reprieve when humans discover that vampires and lycans exist and begin to mercilessly hunt them down. This interesting idea is almost completely abandoned as Selene and Michael are captured and the film jumps ahead 12 years to Selene's escape from suspended animation at the Antigen corporation. From this point on, the film becomes nothing more than a latter-day Resident Evil film, complete with supercharged lycan as the monster du jour.

There's very little to recommend about Underworld: Awakening. The film is far too rushed. Compare the opening of the original film, which spends a good four of five minutes with Selene on a rooftop pondering the state of the lycan/vampire war, to this film, which recounts the events of the last three in about thirty seconds. The few times the film does stop to take a breath opens it up to terribly trite and corny dialogue. All of this could be forgiven if the action were great, but these two directors have no clue what they're doing, and the action comes off as silly instead of thrilling.

It doesn't help that the movie relies heavily on awful CGI. It made me appreciate just how much of the other films used practical makeup whenever possible. Even worse, they couldn't get Scott Speedman back to play Michael, so they wrote him out but still had him in a few scenes, with a shitty CGI face superimposed over someone else's body.

Kate Beckinsale tries really hard to make something out of this borderline retarded film, but she just can't do it. It doesn't help that they turn her into a superhero. She was a badass in the last two, but in this one I felt like they really overplayed her vampiric abilities. The sole bright spot (aside from Beckinsale in her iconic skintight leather outfit) is the actress who played the daughter, who did a decent job when she wasn't made up to look like a crappy horror movie ghoul.

This was a poor, lazy cash-in on the Underworld name. Very, very disappointing.

whoopdido

The movie was garbage. I was bored out of my skull until the end. I'll admit that the last 15 minutes or so were pretty entertaining but up until then it was painful to sit through.

And I get that vampires and such can't go in daylight but if there aren't going to be any day shots would it kill them to at least make the night shots bright enough so I can actually see what's happening? I'm sure a lot of detectives pour over photos and notes in a dark room with just a 10 watt desk lamp for light. Maybe I'm just getting old but between the darkness, all the CGI, ADHD editing and shitty 3D, I could barely tell what was happening most of the time.

RocShemp

Ouch. This is sounding more and more like a rental (or a movie to wait for on USA Network).

Matthew Chmiel

My wife and I finally caught this last night as she wanted to see it in IMAX 3D. I tried to hold out as long as possible as I thought the first two films sucked (I've never seen the third), but it leaves all IMAX theaters today so the inevitable had to occur.

Personally, I enjoyed it. Why? Because it didn't have all of the nonsensical bullshit the first two films had. The film was literally 80 minutes of shit blowing up, people getting their fucking throats ripped out and Kate Beckinsale kicking ass and taking names in her tight leather outfit followed by 10 minutes of end credits. Seriously. I've rarely encountered a movie that just screams out, "FUCK YOU AND YOUR PLOT!" and just delivers 80 minutes of non-stop action. There's probably less than 10 minutes of dialogue in this film when all is said and done. I also said screams out as this also happened the be the loudest film I've ever watched; let it be in any IMAX, SDDS or Dolby 7.1 auditorium. I nearly went deaf before the film was almost over.

It also helps that it was one of the best IMAX 3D presentations I've ever witnessed.

If you're a fan of the franchise, you'll probably hate this film as it throws out information in a pretty lackluster way. In fact, I don't think anyone making this cared about the plot. The film is just an exercise in making a film that is non-stop action.

If you're not a fan of the franchise, enjoy the 80 minutes of non-stop action. Personally, these are the films the franchise should've been making since the first one. I would've loved to see a franchise as chaotic and noisy as this single entry rather than the post-goth/pre-emo sci-fi/romance drama bullshit that was the precedent.

Now I understand why this entry cost $75 million to produce and the others cost under $30 million.

DJariya

Totally agree with your review. I made similar points in my comments earlier. But the others who did see it seem to think otherwise and that it's a piece of junk. Oh well to each there own. Personally for me I liked that it was more of a standalone plot with blood, guts and Kate being a badass.

Terrell

LOL! You talking about a story? That usually is a pretty important part of a film. I thought it was okay. I certainly enjoyed watching Kate kick ass. But I think the original is a far better film. I also feel the weaker second entry is also better. In spite of the massively increased budget, the first two films are far better looking films, and better shot to boot.

But still I found myself enjoying it well enough.

I'm not trying to form your opinion for you, but might I suggest this colored your opinion of the film somewhat.

As for this film and the franchise, it gets more shit than it deserves. I find it to be harmless fun, and it's far superior to the Resident Evil films. Although I wouldn't call that a high bar. Kate Beckinsale makes these films for me, and the third entry just wasn't as good without Kate. Being a prequel probably didn't help matters.

As for box office, this will easily be the highest grossing film and it has show good legs.

Giantrobo

Saw it tonight and dug it.

My Other Self

I liked the first two but I walked out of the 3rd one. I was beyond bored to tears. A friend of mine saw this one sand said it was just an hour and a half of awesomeness. I'll have to check it out so I'm sure the crowds have died down by now.

TheMovieman

No review (though I saw it today and thought it was just OK, better than I was expecting, however), just seemed this thread needed this image (spoilerized for size)...

Solid Snake

Well..what do the judges think of this post?

Osiris3657

watched this today courtesy of Netflix. It was boring and I didn't care what was happening, but goddamn if I don't love me some Kate Beckinsale in latex. It's shamefully the reason I'll probably watch more sequels.

RocShemp

First, I must say...

Second, I still can't bring myself to watch this movie. I love the series (even enjoying the weak second movie) but can't bring myself to watch this one. The ads made it look like absolute crap. A friend telling me it was so terrible it could almost make for a solid drinking game didn't help either.

Why So Blu?

Loved the first three films, but they absolutely destroyed the franchise with this. It's like Wiseman and McBride could not be bothered with upping their game. Yeah, I know Mr. Beckinsdale is busy being Mr. Beckinsdale and directing Total Recall, but what came before has been completely sullied beyond repair. I'm even a fan of the Norwegian directing team that directed the film (Shelter fucking rocks), but they sleepwalked right through the whole thing.

Daytripper

Agree with everything you said. "Awakening" was absolutely abysmal. The story, acting, direction and special effects.

Paul_SD

Wow.
Had the absolute polar opposite reaction to this one than the last three posters.
Awakening was the first Underworld movie I can truly say I enjoyed. Maybe its because I avoid the Resident Evil movies (which I've heard this negatively compared to)- whatever it was, I was happy to see the universe for this one advance well beyond the one note conflicts of the other films. And with the films brisk run time, I could barely catch my breath. This thing was nearly wall to wall action (and imo, almost all of it very well conceptualized and lensed- the antithesis of something like Quantum Of Solace for example). I didn't expect much and it vastly exceeded those expectations.
It's pulp material done with a minimum of pretentiousness and a maximum of efficiency.
This is from Richard Corliss' review (who also thought it was entertaining for what it was)
I also thought the imagery was sensational. I'm usually not a fan of the slick HD look (not to mention the one note coloring)- but I found this one ravishing despite what was obviously a lower budget than several of the previous ones.
Hell, just remembering the scene where

I can't remember but is there any sequence in the previous three film that over the top? To me this is just quality 21st century grindhouse material.
But what do I know- I thought Jennifer's Body was a blast in the same vein too.