Underworld: Awakening

Topic started by Rorie on Jan. 20, 2012. Last post by Watcherg44 2 weeks, 1 day ago.
Post by Rorie (3,214 posts) See mini bio
Staff

There’s a moment late in Underworld: Awakening where a good dozen security guards are confronting a vampire with a shotgun. They all have guns, of course, but after a perfunctory fusillade of shots aimed his way, they simply give up on bullets and decide to run at him, despite the fact that a: he still has a shotgun and b: he’s a vampire and thus much stronger than they are. He, of course, slaughters them to a man, eventually running out of shells and using his shotgun as a bludgeon. It’s ridiculous, but possibly looks somewhat cooler than a firefight would. In that, it’s a decent summation of this latest Underworld movie as a whole, in which nothing can ever be done simply or efficiently if the alternative is to do it elaborately or as over-the-top as possible. It’s a deeply silly movie, and largely seems to function as a bit of a reboot for the series as a whole, but fans of werewolves and vampires ripping each other to shreds will likely wring at least some marginal amount of thrills out of it.

That reboot factor comes into play when you consider that Awakening takes place a full twelve years or more after the events of Underworld: Evolution; humanity has suddenly become aware of the existence of lycans and vampires, and has almost completely hunted both species to extinction. The bulk of the familiar faces from the first two films in the series (Rise Of The Lycans having been an entirely pointless prequel tale) were of course slaughtered by the end of Evolution, leaving just Selene and Michael as the remaining prominent characters. Having been captured and kept in a science facility for the bulk of those years, she’s unfrozen from her cell and escapes, alongside a daughter who she never knew existed. On the run from the whatever, she has to fight a battle against the forces of yadda yadda yadda to preserve a future for both vampires and etc., etc.

Shakespeare this isn’t, of course, but it’s a little weird to admit that even the Twilight films establish an ecosystem of vampires, humans, and werewolves more intelligently than the Underworld movies have. Still, Awakening luckily acts as something of a corrective for Evolution’s penchant for reach-exceeding-grasp backstory-weaving; after the obligatory recap at the beginning, Selene's let loose to fight against humans and lycans and hybrids and whatever else is set against her, with the plot being about as thin as Kate Beckinsale's outfits and mostly established as an excuse to quickly move from one fight scene to the next. Even the details are silly: this is a movie where someone hotwires a car by sticking a knife into the dashboard. Oddest of all is the psychic connection between Selene and her daughter, which allows each of them to see out of each other's eyes, but only, of course, when it's convenient to the plot for that to happen.

You can forgive a lot of stupidity if a film's fun to watch, though, and Swedish co-directors Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein at least try to lighten up the relatively dour proceedings with a buckets-of-blood approach to the action scenes, although the emphasis on 3D effects often winds up being more of a distraction than a boon, as when a character picks up a whip in the middle of a gunfight and starts flailing around for no real reason. The direction is stylish but unoriginal, wasting no opportunity to show off Beckinsale's ass. It's a nice ass, to be fair, but the combination of her outfit (somehow even shinier and tighter than it was in the first two movies) and repetitious shots of her from behind as she squats down to place bombs or crawl through a vent, etc., leaves you walking out of the theater unsure if you just watched an action movie or a softcore ass fetish flick. Points, however, are due for stripping out most of the padding from the film; in a world where trifles like 2012 and the Transformers films can be over two and a half hours long, Awakening manages to do away with most of the needless exposition and devote what seems like almost half of its 90-minute running time to straight-out action. If you want to see vampires fight werewolves, you came to the right movie.

Still, It doesn't help that Awakening follows in the footsteps of its predecessors by being relentlessly dour. Even the Matrix films, which Underworld has always used as a crutch when it comes to stylistic matters, managed to throw a few instances of humor into the mix, but Awakening is a creakingly self-serious film. Beckinsale continues to prove her prowess at the fine art of scowling, and her daughter Eve (India Eisley) is little better. If this was a movie that cared about making you care about it, there'd be some kind of mother-daughter back-and-forth, but the single scene they share is stiff and awkward. It's probably telling that even Scott Speedman gave the script a whiff and opted out of reprising the role of Michael. He's played here by another actor, although it says something about how memorable Speedman is that I had to actually Google that later on to be sure.

Given the low standards set by Evolution and Rise Of The Lycans, it's not saying much that Awakening feels like a better film than they were, but there it is. Again, this is a movie that exists almost wholly as an excuse to watch a woman in tight leather (and a fucking corset!) fire automatic pistols at a series of CGI-enhanced enemies which then shed copious amounts of digital blood. It's more Underworld, and by now you should probably know what you're getting into when you sign up for that tour of duty.

Post by kwyrt (10 posts) See mini bio

"It may be a decent excuse to watch a woman in leather fire automatic weaponry, but that doesn't mean that Underworld: Awakening isn't also pretty dumb."

I'm alright with that.

Post by PieINyourFACE (122 posts) See mini bio

But the big question: How's the nudity? If any?

Had to go there, sorry.

Post by Napalm (319 posts) See mini bio

I'm always befuddled when a reviewer goes into a movie such as this, expecting more than what the movie will actually be.

Post by skrutop (679 posts) See mini bio

Well this review is hardly a surprise. The Underworld series has always been rather stupid. I do like Beckinsale's ass enough to sit down and watch it for 90 minutes.

Post by Rorie (3,214 posts) See mini bio
Staff

@Napalm said:

I'm always befuddled when a reviewer goes into a movie such as this, expecting more than what the movie will actually be.

Who's to say I expected it to be more? I mean, it's not a sliding scale here. If someone makes a bad movie, "Well, they meant to make a bad movie!" isn't really an excuse, unless we're talking meta-bad movies like Black Dynamite or something.

Post by Hot_Karl (768 posts) See mini bio

Is anyone really like "Yeah man, fucking Underworld! Can't wait!"? I hated the first film & decided to opt out of the series there, but this just feels like the Resident Evil films- self-serious, totally stupid, but tolerated (rather than revered) by its fans.

Post by Neverpraying (59 posts) See mini bio

I'm still going to go this movie, and will probably like it.

Also Rorie you have said over and over how much you hate the underworld series, and how dumb you think it is.

Why did you review it? Just so you could call it dumb like every other movie in the franchise and then give it a shit rating? That seems highly illogical in my opinion.

Only reviewers I have respect for are ones that go into a movie and have a decent hopes for it, or are completely neutral. Rather then...well I hate this entire stupid franchise but hey I'm going to into this movie expecting it to be dumb and crap, then I will get paid for reviewing it.

I'm sorry to say but that's just generally offensive, you people could deflect with you're trolling bro. No I'm not, there are a good amount of reviewers that are just neutral even and say this movie is not for me, it's an alright movie, but not something I am personally into but I bet you'll find crowds for it, for those who like highly stylized vampire werewolf action movies.

Also yes you could go into BLABLABLA THIS MOVIE IS CRAP, but then again I have seen reviewers do the same thing for the entire lord of the rings movie trilogy, and I personally loved those movies...

Maybe if you eased off the passive aggressive and sarcastic statements this review is full of I could take it seriously, but I'm not sure.

Post by Landon (84 posts) See mini bio

I still really like the first Underworld movie. It's a shame they can't seem to put together a decent sequel to it.

Post by HKZ (2 posts) See mini bio

All I care about is Kate Beckinsale crawling in an air duct and wearing leather. The rest is just filler, and I like crappy story movies where people get eaten and ripped apart. They are good pointless date movies and there's eye candy on the screen, what's not to like? I go to see movies like this to be entertained and they are all low brow enough to satisfy that need without getting all retarded serious and ruining the fun. Can't wait to see this one because I've enjoyed all the other ones and Kate is as perfect as a woman can possibly be. Helps she's not a bad actress either.

Post by keegan (225 posts) See mini bio
Hey guys, pssst over here....they have free porn on the Internet. Tell your friends.
Post by DXmagma (125 posts) See mini bio

@kwyrt said:

"It may be a decent excuse to watch a woman in leather fire automatic weaponry, but that doesn't mean that Underworld: Awakening isn't also pretty dumb."

I'm alright with that.

You don't need no excuse to see that.

Post by Brendan (190 posts) See mini bio

@Neverpraying: I'm going to do you a favour: This is a bad movie, and you like bad movies. Since there's probably enough people on this site with bad taste and will be interested in watching it, Rorie did them the courtesy of re-telling them that it's right up their alley and not any worse than the others. Instead of justifying your enjoyment of these bad movies by lashing out at someone with an intelligent opinion, shut it.

Post by Moviemaniac (317 posts) See mini bio

@Rorie:

What's that suppose to mean? Black Dynamite was a considered a really good movie.

Post by LoktarOgar (40 posts) See mini bio
this is a movie that exists almost wholly as an excuse to watch a woman in tight leather (and a fucking corset!) fire automatic pistols at a series of CGI-enhanced enemies which then shed copious amounts of digital blood.
 
That's 4 stars by default, done.
Post by Rorie (3,214 posts) See mini bio
Staff

@Moviemaniac said:

@Rorie:

What's that suppose to mean? Black Dynamite was a considered a really good movie.

I mean it was intentionally parodying bad movies, e.g. when he stands up too quickly and the boom mic was in the shot for a second or two. It's a great movie, but it pretends to be bad.

Post by Rorie (3,214 posts) See mini bio
Staff

@Neverpraying: I hope every movie is good; I said that very clearly on the M. Night Shyamalan Premium thing we did this week. I'll give anything a chance. I mean, I'm the guy who gave positive reviews to Footloose and Burlesque, of all things. Films sometimes surprise me and I'm the first to admit it when they do.

This isn't one of those movies.

Post by Napalm (319 posts) See mini bio

@Rorie said:

@Napalm said:

I'm always befuddled when a reviewer goes into a movie such as this, expecting more than what the movie will actually be.

Who's to say I expected it to be more? I mean, it's not a sliding scale here. If someone makes a bad movie, "Well, they meant to make a bad movie!" isn't really an excuse, unless we're talking meta-bad movies like Black Dynamite or something.

I meant the style of movie it is and what it delivers on. People get shot up, there's lots of blood, Kate Beckinsale probably looking really good, and neck-biting. It's a bit like the Resident Evil films: they may not be fantastic, but they hit the same notes with every movie, (I don't mean Underworld hits the same as Resident Evil. I mean the general notes Resident Evil goes for rarely change between movies). Expecting it to be more is just counterproductive, in my opinion at least. To go back again, that's why I've given up on the Resident Evil film series. I already know that no matter how many characters they throw in there, or the shift in location or scenario, the movie is going to hit the same beats as all of the other movies in the series.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out that I'm not debating with you on your review. This is your opinion, not mine. I'm just giving my two cents.

Post by NateSaint (29 posts) See mini bio

Everything about the Underworld series depresses me. From the who gives a crap story to the direction and cinematography. I can see better asses than Kate Beckinsale's elsewhere anyway. The best thing mentioned in this review is the running time: 90 minutes. That is a step in the right direction for this franchise.

Post by VaizD (26 posts) See mini bio

@PieINyourFACE said:

But the big question: How's the nudity? If any?

Had to go there, sorry.

Beckinsale is briefly naked on the floor, strategically shrouded by steam. Otherwise, nada.

19 votes, 2.8 avg.
General Information Edit
Name Underworld: Awakening
US Release Jan. 20, 2012
UK Release Jan. 20, 2012
AUS Release Jan. 26, 2012
Runtime 88
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating R
Alias(es) Underworld 4
Underworld: New Dawn
Top Rated Lists
My Top Movies of 2012 a list of 11 items by Mr_skeleton
Movies I'm Looking Forward to seeing a list of 18 items by RogueStryker
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $62,248,769
    Foreign +97,791,632
  • = total worldwide gross $160,040,401
  • - a reported budget of $70,000,000
  • = a 128.6% net profit of $90,040,401
Top Editors

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel