Saw Underworld yesterday. For those of you in a rush, here's a few phrases that I think describe it: Ultra-violent, stylish, exciting, inconsistent, twisty, and goth.
For those of you still reading, I thought it was worth seeing, even through I almost didn't go after seeing the litany of bad reviewsand some initial lackluster word of mouth. Still, these kinds of movies intrigue me, so I went to a matine. The film excells at what it appears to aim at: Violence featuring a bunch of pretty people dressed up in leather, latex, and fur. It's very stylish and has a look that makes you want to ...well, look. The costume work is great. The plot is also suprisingly interesting, with almost everyone in the movie avoiding typical stereotypes, except for the main villain, who is one giant shambling cliche.
The movie fails, however, to be very compelling as an action flick by being inconsistent. Sometimes the vampires are badass killing machines (when the director want to say "Hey, these guys are badass killing machines"), and sometimes they're just downright frail (when the director wnats to say "OOhh. They're in danger at this time!"). The vampires also seem ...odd. They don't follow "traditional" vampire conventions --they don't feed, they have reflections, they aren't particularly fast or mesmirizing, etc. Don't get me wrong, the writers of Underworld could have their vampires dance and sing showtunes under a big banner that says "Creative License" and that would be fine. Just not very interesting. Likewise, the vampires in this movie don't do anything too impressive or vampire-like except make long-distance jumps. Sure, they shoot guns --lots of guns-- but c'mon. What action hero doesn't shoot guns?
Overall, it was a stylish flick with a halfway interesting plot and a couple of nice action sequences. Not the "Matrix with Vampires" that it was billed as, but not too bad either.