Underworld

As this film is about to be released on DVD, I thought I would post my feelings about it to warn people (who might be unaware of what lies beneath the glossy packaging) against it. To save yourself the agony, watch the trailer, imagine what the rest of the film would be, and it will be better than the actual finished project. If you see the trailer then, like me, you probably think this is a film that you would want to watch. Vampires, werewolves, a strong lead female character in an action film, mood, atmosphere, special effects; it all looked so promising. But then I watched the film.

I should point out that I don't want to hate films and slag off creative people (as they seem to take it so personally). I appreciate the effort necessary to make a film, and the fact that, even though film-makers might have some notion of making money and being famous, I believe that they genuinely want to entertain us. But in this case, I'll make an exception. I want to help people by telling them about it, and letting them know what they'll be in for if they go to see the film.

The story had me groaning and wishing they had spent a little more time on the script. Plot Problems? - Let me list the ways. Why does the head vampire have to be cocooned in a coffin for a century at a time, handing over control to a lesser vampire, when they are immortal, powerful beings? Answer - because it does, apparently. Why are werewolves a problem, when they used to be servants for the vampires? If they were the servants, surely they would have a way to deal with them? And why would vampires have werewolves, who are powerful at night (and then only at full moon) as their day time protectors? Why does a vampire, who has been alive for centuries, only have one daughter? (The point of him having a daughter is seemingly important for the plot, and only because they thought it would be 'resonant' in a mawkish, adolescent way.) Why do vampires, creatures by their nature are not subject to authority, allow themselves to be ruled by councils and rules (not laws, it should be mentioned) and by anyone else? Why are vampires, who are resilient enough to jump off a tall building and land with ease, move with grace, and fight werewolves, not able to catch a human being when they are running away from them? And why does the film have to be so loud? Apart from taking your mind off the fact that the film is lacking in story. It was deafening on occasion, for no particular reason other than to be loud.

I had hoped that the film would have more bits like in the trailer, showing vampires moving gracefully and quickly, much like The Matrix allowed humans to appear super-human, giving us a balletic blockbuster of action, because vampires should be better than humans, otherwise, what's the point? But all the good bits are in the trailer, even clips of the denouement of the film, showing the new vampire/werewolf that is supposed to be a surprise. There is nothing more in the film, visually, that you can't see in the trailer. That's not the way it should be.

The first sign of trouble is having the temporary leader of the vampire clan being Irish (or someone doing an Irish accent - it was hard to tell when the vampires had these false upper set of teeth, even when they weren't sporting fangs, that made it difficult to understand some of the characters) as if that makes it 'interesting' when it doesn't. (For professional reasons, I should point out I'm half Irish, btw.) Worse, he is supposed to be the man behind the plot, his 'Godfather' machinations and power schemes supposed to be a flimsy attempt at some sort of depth to the simple tale. (But, if this is the case, why is he being so deferential to the werewolves when his top vampires could kill all the annoying lycans and be done with it? Because then we wouldn't have a film, obviously.)

Having the lead character doing voiceover to explain the situation of the film right at the start is a sure sign that things aren't going to get better. I mean, I'm not going all Robert McKee or anything, as voiceover can work, but having exposition done so early got me jittery. But it's just another botch repair job for the gaping holes in the plot that the film-makers can't explain. For example, to clear all the history that is supposedly the crux of the troubles between the clans, our lead character wants to look at the vampire records to establish what is going on (much like us). Unfortunately, that would mean understanding the plot, which nobody can, so she is told, "Don't look at the history books." Pathetic.

It's just the little things that annoy. Why, if they are trying to develop their vampires, do they have certain rules apply, but not others? Such as the vampires being able to see their reflections. Everything else is the same, but we have to let our pretty people check themselves out, in case they went out looking silly, I suppose. They also play around with the way vampires make other vampires, just so it makes them appear as if they have thought about the biological intricacies of vampirism, but they haven't.

And, to jump to the end, I was embarrassed by the blatant 'This Is A Franchise' ending of the film. Some hope. They might have just well said 'This is the first in a hoped-for series. Thanks for watching a prologue.' Quite insulting. And depressing, as they have been given the go ahead for another film. Who makes these decisions, God, who?

I think I've gone on enough. It could have been something. But it wasn't. I remember when I did film reviews for my student newspaper, I was in a London cinema with other film reviewers (although not talking to them: I was a nobody student, so I would have been shot for going near them) and overheard their conversation. One said to another, "The script could've done with a few rewrites" which I thought was such a critic thing to say. But I know what they mean after seeing Underworld. It isn't as bad as Bulletproof Monk, but it is bad. You have been warned. This has been a Public Health Announcement.

Rating: D