I'm all for verisimilitude in fantasy movies, but whoever thought it would be clever to shoot a film about a war between dark-clad vampires and dark-furred werewolves almost entirely at night clearly didn't give much thought to how difficult it would make the finished product to watch.Although the story of Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans only runs for a mere 80-minutes, with 99 per cent of the action taking place in gloomy shadow or various degrees of darkness, this unsubtle reworking of Romeo And Juliet can seem almost a chore to sit through at times.
Which is a pity because this type of B-movie monster flick needs all the good will it can foster and that's a pretty large tick in the negative column before we even begin to think about the plot and performances.
I like dark movies as much as the next guy, but I mean in tone rather than visual appearance - a black and white, film noir reimagining of The Dark Knight would be easier to follow than Rise Of The Lycans.
In this prequel to the previous two Underworld movies, Rhona Mitra steps in as the leather-clad lead, Sonja, as the plot revolves around her illict affair with Lucian (Michael Sheen), the young werewolf slave of her father, Viktor (Bill Nighy).
It's only when, towards the end, you begin appreciate that Sonja's relationship with Viktor foreshadows his connection with Kate Beckinsale's Selene (who has a brief cameo in Rise Of The Lycans) that you can really see the justification for this film.
There are several solid fight sequences - the vampires' castle being overrun by werewolves is a stand-out moment, although it's no "siege of Minas Tirith" or "storming of Gondor" - with plenty wire work and dramatic slow-mo to heighten the superpowers of the combatants.
I also found Michael Sheen's uncanny similarity to Simon Pegg - both in appearance and voice - slightly off-putting and had to wonder if director Patrick Tatopoulos had actually somehow cloned the Shaun Of The Dead star.
Like the other Underworld movies, Rise Of The Lycans is ultimately mindless entertainment, but it is so entangled in its own jumbled mythology that I can't see it really appealing to the casual viewer.
Didn't someone in the vampire hierarchy think, early on, that they were asking for trouble by putting their daylight security into the hands of a force-bred army of angry, superpowered, bestial slaves?
Posts
7 persons have something to say about this!:
"Didn't someone in the vampire hierarchy think, early on, that they were asking for trouble by putting their daylight security into the hands of a force-bred army of angry, superpowered, bestial slaves?"
It's the same thing I say about all fiction (and one of the reasons I have such a strong negative reaction to Dan Brown's writing): a work's characters can only be as clever as the real-life person writing of their exploits. (Helpful hint to would-be writers: people lacking in the wit department should avoid attempting to write witty characters.)
But what makes this case all the more unforgivable for me is that films are a collaborative - not a solo - effort and someone, somewhere along the line, surely, must have said: "Wait a minute... this isn't logical..."
Then perhaps I should clarify my standpoint: "A work's characters can only be as clever as the real-life person or persons writing of their exploits."
To make matters worse, a story written by a committee is going to be as good as anything else created by committee. (Having seen a good number of business decisions made in this manner, I think I can safely state that in such a decision-making process, the voice of reason does not always win the day.)
I would presume that somewhere along the line, rational concerns are raised - but probably not by the people who have the power to direct changes to the story. Of course, seeing the steady stream of drek that issues constantly forth from Hollywood, I could be mistaken in my presumption. :P
I quite enjoyed the film, but I also enjoyed the first two.
It is fairly mindless action. The plot is thin and somewhat forced (arn't most prequels?), but lets face it, this film series was always about visual style over plot substance.
What do people remember about the first two movies? I bet the first thing that comes to mind is Kate Beckinsale in that leather number, not the intertwined complex plot!!!
Lets just be thankful they never made a sequel to Kate's other vampire movie, Van Helsing....
I really loathed the first one when I saw it at the cinema, but was won round when I saw it on DVD.
The second I had no such problems with and really enjoyed at the cinema.
It was just a question of getting my head in the right place to appreciate them for what they were.
Don't get me wrong, Rise Of The Lycans I enjoyed as well, but its flaws were just harder to overlook :-)
And yes, as much as I enjoy Kate Beckinsale in these trashy B-movies, the world does not need Van Helsing II!
I was able to catch this and Outlander last weekend and Outlander was surprisingly good (and much better than this Underworld offering). Ron Perlman as the psycho with two war hammers was a pleasant surprise as well. But then, one expects Perlman to do something weird.
I was all ready to go and see Outlander at our local multiplex and then they never screened it. Another one for the DVD list!
Post a Comment