On the subject of the action/adventure genre, it has been said that modern action films are no longer about the heroes themselves, but about the special effects. As bitter as that may sound, there may be some truth to that. Effects are no stranger to adventure films, but I can’t help but look at what truly made a lot of those great films, like the original Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, so damned engaging. You know, characters who you can relate to, at least, in some way. Engaging human conflicts and so forth. Not just a-typical plot lines thrown in to justify the 2+ hours of endless effects and slow-mo action sequences either too hard to be cool or modeled too much after video games. Or both.

I watched this movie a week ago and started working on my review roughly about the moment the credits rolled, but I couldn’t get very far. Movies like John Carter are incredibly hard to write about, because you neither love them nor hate them. If it were either or, I could go on and on, expressing why I love or loathe it. To this day, I still haven’t quite worked out what my feelings are exactly. All I know is that John Carter of Mars didn’t blow me away.

But on a much less pessimistic note, when it was fun, it was FUN!

John Carter melds the classic fantasy/adventure style of past decades with the sensibilities of today’s modern “video game-like” action films. And on that playing field, it is successful. It is an entertaining film that, perhaps, falls short in specifically key areas of the film. The opening scene does hit a pet peeve of mine. I hate when a movie gives too much away at the very beginning, leaving us little to no mystery. In all truth, John Carter should have opened, not on mars, but on earth, with Edgar Rice Burroughs. Edgar is an intriguing character, as he is not only the title character’s nephew, but the author of the series from which this movie is based.

I fear that many filmmakers today don’t understand that when you introduce something as grand as the vistas of Mars, it should be done so with the main character, allowing us to “go along on this journey” along with them, experiencing marvelous things first hand together. Sadly, such terms of relatability are lost on modern storytellers simply because they seemingly find them “tacky,” looking to impress upon a more superficial experience, something that you can hear and see, but not feel. This being the case on John Carter is an issue that I have been going back and forth upon.

Director Andrew Stanton is the second Pixar director in the past 4 months to make the transition to live action films. The other, Brad Bird, was far more successful in crafting a lively and suspenseful action/adventure out of Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol. Now there was an action film that had the effects and the over-the-top action, but also had the charismatic characters and crafty staging to go with them. Thing is, I am not quite sure Stanton left the same, personable stamp he did with Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Here is a film that seems like it could have been directed by anybody, starring anybody, and more comparable to a product that can sold rather than a distinguishable work of fantasy.

The major setback for me isn’t the story, but how it was told.

The character of John Carter should be engaging. Sick of fighting, he is a former soldier, who feels contempt for his losses. When he is sent to Mars, he has just escaped  the forceful recruitment by Bryan Cranston’s Colonel Powell, only to be pulled into another war. Taylor Kitsch is a decent enough fit for Carter, but he doesn’t give the character any charisma or wit. Lynn Collins is stunning as Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Helium. In her early scenes, she is built up as a strong, intelligent, and resourceful princess looking out for the interests of both her kingdom and her homeworld. Yet, she is later downgraded to the helpless “beauty in distress” character bound by a marriage she does not want. The film also carries the burden of having fairly un-engaging villains.

I think audiences will be pleased by John Carter, perhaps much more so than I was, but I don’t think they will take the experience with them. A good comparable film is 1999′s The Mummy, a fun, superficial action/horror flick that many people enjoyed. Sequels, spin offs, and animated series were made well within a short amount of time, but the peak of The Mummy’s attention was back in 1999, and even then, it was just one voice out of many. We liked it, but it didn’t rock our socks off. And I think that is what John Carter will be for people now. I don’t think it will carry much weight, even into sequels, as it didn’t have too much to give. Being a film that people have fought to get made for decades, the outcome hardly feels definitive.

Silent House is a rather challenging film to review. If you are the type of person who favors plot and story descriptions, then you are shit out of luck! If you knew anything about what Silent House was actually about, then the entire 85 minute film would be rendered impotent. What I can say is the setup is fairly simple. Yes, a young girl is pretty much alone in the house for the majority of the film.

Even before you’ve seen the film, you are yelling “why doesn’t she just get out of the house?!” Well, actually, she does. And that is probably one of the best scenes in the movie. And if you weren’t able to guess before, this is also the scene that clues in the film’s conclusion.

The serious problem with this film is that there is not a whole lot that actually happens. There isn’t much going on with the other characters, at least, nothing any more complicated than what we already know and can easily guess. The story of Silent House is painted by numbers. We’ve seen this film before, but on the bright side, it is fairly well acted. Elizabeth Olsen, sister of Mary Kate and Ashley, is a talented actress who carries the film well. Plus, she is easy on the eyes!

The allure of Silent House is that is made to appear as if the entire film was shot within a single take. Now, that gimmick is just a trick, as there are various places where edits could have/probably were made (i.e. dark shots and quick turns). The film is a remake of La Casa Muda, which used the same technique and was quoted by many as being the first “long take” horror film. The gimmick does works for a time, but isn’t as effective as some would hope.

Silent House does manage to be successfully creepy for a short amount of time, sometimes making your skin crawl and delivering a couple good “jump” moments that are played subtly, and not too “in your face.” But it fails to keep this going long enough for the film to actually be an effective horror story. But I do suspect that the Twilight crowd may find it more scary than I did, as they did with Paranormal Activity back in 2009. That film was praised by many “wussies” as one of the scariest films ever. I was the guy laughing at the audience when they jumped at the door budging open.

There is a score, but I wouldn’t call it music. The horror scores of yesteryear, such as Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm St., were a great way of establishing mood and atmosphere, but are now a thing of the past, sadly. Today’s scores are a dead giveaway for horror, keying us in to the exact moment of a “jump.” The music swells for a bit, trying make us think that is when something will jump out at us, but we all know that happens a second or two after the music stops. Given the “long take” technique in place, I actually think it would have been better for the film had music not been used at all.

Attempting to be an artistic character endeavor, Silent House gets points for trying not to be the generic horror film. But it manages to be only slightly more effective than the stylistically dead remakes of A Nightmare on Elm St. and Black Christmas. There are very few things for the characters to do, not enough spooks and frights, and the film is very predictable. Sadly, there is little else to be said about this film. Only that I hope Ms. Olsen goes on to bigger and better things.

  Click Here to add Radioland Murders to your Netflix Instant Queue!

Radioland Murders is a movie that George Lucas tried to get made for a LONG time! Lucas was shopping it to studios roughly about the same time he was for Star Wars. Despite talk of it being made in 1978 with Cindy Willaims (American Graffiti, Laverne & Shirley) and Steve Martin as the two leads, a divorcing married couple with a humorous love/hate relationship, Radioland Murders lingered in developmental hell for a couple decades. When it was finally made, in 1994, it completely fell off people’s radar, and has pretty become that lost gem no one remembers or has ever heard of.

Radioland Murders has a hell of a cast, including Christopher Lloyd, Ned Beatty, Michael McKean, Bobcat Goldthwait (the Police Academy films), and Mary Staurt Masterson. You might also recognize Dylan Baker (Dr. Conners from Spiderman 2 & 3), Heroes’ Stephen Tobolowsky, Peter MacNicol (Ghostbusters II, Dragonslayer, Ally McBeal), and Joey Lawrence, who was famous at the time for saying “whoah!” on Blossom.

The plot is rather simple. It takes place in the late 1930s, during a live radio event. As one can assume with the title, people start to die. But murder is just one problem of many, as scripts race to be finished, mishaps are made on air, and a man desperately tries to rekindle his romance with his wife, all while trying to solve the murder and clear his name at the same time.

A major flaw in the film is Brian Benben is a bit over the top, and his characters makes it so damned easy to frame. But the botched script scene alone makes the film totally worth it. In the scene, two scripts from two different shows are given to two actresses, with one being on the intended show, some sort of mother/daughter sitcom, while the other has a script for adventure story. The comedic timing of the scene is pitch perfect! Goldthwait also has a couple of great lines in the film! “What if the wife smashes him over the head, with a frying pan, and then chops him up into hundreds of tiny pieces with her shiny new carving knife?” “No, I don’t think so.” “It’s a family show!” “Okay, then what if she does it to the whole family?”

Gremlins is tied with Ghostbusters as the movie I watched most when I was a kid. Suffice to say, I watched both of those films a lot! I rented it so much that, that it eventually hit my parents just to buy the damn thing along with Gremlins 2: The New Batch for Christmas one year. It easily fits amongst my list of favorite films, and like Ghostbusters, it is a film that I can watch with literally any amount of stress and manage to forget all my worries.

Gremlins is a strange movie to say the least. I’m sure many of today’s youth haven’t experienced this film, but I’m sure you’d be hard-pressed to find a single 80s kid who hasn’t seen or heard of Gremlins. It tells the story of Rand Peltzer, who is in Chinatown searching for a gift for his son, Billy, and is led to an antiques shop, where he meets Gizmo, a mogwai. We have no idea what a mogwai is, but it appears to be some kind of asian creature, that can either be lovable or mischievous. It is a pet for a worthy and responsible pet owner only, since the slightest mishap turns the soft, furry animal into hundreds of slimy, green bastards that run amok, destroying technology, causing mayhem, and even killing people.

Interesting fact! There was originally no Stripe mogwai. Gizmo was originally going to turn into a gremlin and become Stripe. Unintentionally a detriment to the crew, Executive Producer Steven Spielberg made the decision to keep Gizmo as the lovable mogwai throughout the entire film. Only a single part of that ends up in the finished film, with Stripe saying “Billllllllyyyyyy!” at the end in the shopping center. Gremlins started out as a spec script written by Chris Columbus. Many might recognize Columbus as the man who would go on to direct Home Alone and the first two Harry Potter films, not the man who sailed the ocean blue. Columbus was inspired by scratching and scampering sounds made by rats one night at his loft. He then pounded out a script that was quite different from what eventually was shot.

The original draft was much more violent. The mother died in her struggle with the gremlins, and had her head cut off, which rolled down the stairs for Billy to find. The family dog was also killed. There was also a scene that took place in a McDonalds restaurant, where the gremlins eat the patrons, but leave the burgers untouched. The more violent nature wouldn’t survive later drafts. Another interesting tidbit from the earlier drafts was that Judge Reinhold’s character had a bitterness for Christmas and was, in fact, the one who told the infamous Santa Claus story, which ended up belonging to Kate, the character played by Pheobe Cates.

Gremlins was directed by Joe Dante, who also helmed Piranha, The Howling, The ‘Burbs, and Innerspace. Dante previously worked with Spielberg on Twilight Zone: The Movie, where he helmed the film’s third segment, “It’s a Good Life.” Dante’s story, based on an actual episode, was about a teacher who meets a young child, whose family is held captive by his telepathic wills. In a way, It’s a Good Life was an incredible lead in to Gremlins, as the story was quite anarchic and brought cartoons to life, literally!  In one scene, the Tasmanian Devil is brought to the real world, and at another point, a girl named Ethel is punished by being transported into the cartoon world. Coincidently, Ethel was played by an actress named Nany Cartwright, whose voice you will definitely recognize in the film, as she went on to voice Bart Simpson!

Another foreshadowing, the segment that followed It’s a Good Life was a remake of perhaps the most popular Twilight Zone episode, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet, which put John Lithgow in the role previously filled by William Shatner as a man who sees a gremlin on the wing of his plane. That segment was directed by George Miller, who helmed the Mad Max films and Happy Feet.

What makes Gremlins interesting is the Frank Capra-style backdrop. It is sort of the anti-It’s a Wonderful Life!  The Peltzer family is surrounded by lively small town characters played by character actors like Harry Carey Jr. and Polly Holiday, who plays a nasty old lady, Mrs. Deagle. Deagle is essentially the Wicked Witch of Kingston Falls, the small town in which the story is set. Dante regulars such as Dick Miller and Belinda Balaski also star in the film. There is even a cameo by Mr. Looney Tunes himself, Chuck Jones. In a standard Christmas story, Mrs. Deagle, an prudish scrooge, would have a change of heart, spread her wealth, and ultimately become a much kinder character. Here, she is shot up by her electric chair and sent flying out the window to her demise!

Seemingly now a “no brainer”, but is also a certain level of genius, is how the gremlins start taking on human characteristics in the later portion of the film. Interestingly enough, the creatures seem to form their own anarchic society, ruled by chaos. The best scene in the movie takes place in a bar filled with gremlins. Kate, the love interest, is kept alive and forced to keep serving them beers. The gremlins are getting hammered, playing cards, shooting each other, and “flashdancing.” One green bugger even has the audacity to open his coat and “flash” Kate, even though gremlins are typically naked anyway, and have no genitals to “flash.”

Later on, they all congregate at a theater, eat candy, fling popcorn, and sing a long with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs!  It is this chaotic section that really makes the film what it is. Yes, I love the entire film, and I love the standard horror elements before and after these sequences, but would Gremlins be Gremlins without its twisted, dark humor? I think not!

When released, the film sparked controversy. It was one of those films targeted by nagging, self-righteous soccer moms, who have nothing better to do than bitch at every single inconvenience that forces them to actually have to parent their kids, as opposed to the world doing it for them. While the trailer actually implied the horror elements (albeit keeping the creature designs mysterious), some of the advertising was supposedly based around the cut Gizmo and Spielberg’s name, which people assumed to suggest Gremlins as a kid’s movie. I guess, after E.T., house moms thought that “Spielberg=family films.” I have one word for them, “JAWS!” 

At the time, the PG rating didn’t have the same connotations as it does now. It was a general rating, saying that anybody could watch it, but  ”parental guidance is suggested.” By 1984, PG had proved to be more ballsy and brutal than today’s PG-13 films, often showing nudity, blood, the works! (It’s no secret, I feel that was a GOOD thing and that today’s PG-13 films have completely lost their testicles) Raiders of the Lost Ark had faces melting off. Jaws had Quint spitting out blood as the shark chomped on him. This stuff wasn’t even new to audiences when Gremlins came out. With scenes from both Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom cited as being “too brutal for PG,” a new rating was formed, thus giving way to PG-13. Ironically, if you ump forward to today, PG-13 is pretty much less than what PG was back then.

Gremlins is pure 80′s fun. The kind of fun I’d have no other way! In 1990, a sequel was finally made. The setting was changed to a NYC skyscraper, at the time, serving as satire for both the growing cable networks and malfunctioning technologies. You could note that many of networks shown in the film were actually jokes. Now, they are probably actual channels! Gremlins 2: The New Batch was far more comedic than its original, and served us with an extreme amount of “meta-humor,” breaking the fourth wall and poking fun at the original film, like in  one scene where Leonard Malton is physically attacked for his shamefully negative review of the original film. In many ways, this film was even more anarchic than the original, ultimately proving to be quite the interesting sequel.

The Thompsons Twins (played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) have just left Tintin’s house. As inspectors, they are on the look out for a serial pickpocket. We’ve seen this sly kleptomaniac in full force to know this, and just like a ticking time bomb we know is about to go off,  they are victimized, only several steps away from Tintin’s residence. Close enough to see what is going on, oblivious and gullible Tintin not only lets the thief get away, but allows himself to get robbed in the process. Not only does this make him Steven Spielberg’s most naive character, but it also makes him the most inconsistent, as well. See, at times, Tintin is perfectly flawed, but incredibly productive. Then minutes later, he can be insultingly ignorant. And throughout the film, he constantly jumps back and forth between those two extremes.

Resembling a young Jude Law (but blonde), with hair that conveniently resembles a shark’s fin, Tintin is a youthful journalist who haphazardly finds himself at the mercy of an adventure after purchasing a small replica of the Unicorn, which was lost at sea, along with its treasure, centuries ago. Through a series of unfortunate circumstances, he teams up with Captain Haddock, who just happens to be a descendant of the Unicorn’s Captain. Haddock may very well be the most enthusiastic alcoholic I’ve seen in a film. Jack Sparrow might have to amp up the rum to compete!

Often it crosses the lines between giddily satisfying and obnoxiously over the top.

The Adventures of Tintin is almost always at odds with itself.  By many peers, it has been compared to Spielberg’s own Indiana Jones franchise, often described as a contender for what the fourth film should have been. I digress! Many moments reflect the jovial of The Last Crusade, comparing to Haddock unwittingly shooting a rocket into a dam to  Sean Connery’s Henry Jones Sr. clumsily shooting down their own getaway plane. Seconds later, I find myself reminded of the overblown monkey sequence from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when Tintin swings down a wire using a part of his motorcycle, as well as the ensuing mayhem involving a building driven by a tank. Yes, you read that right!

Throughout the duration of the film, Spielberg had successfully captivated my attention, yet I also found myself constantly scratching my head. I insist, Tintin is often a gratifying experience. In one exciting sequence, Haddock’s ancestor lights a long line of gun powder, that descends into the ship’s armory. His nemesis, Rackham, attacks him, and a sword fight breaks out between the two, with Rackham putting out the fire and Haddock restarting it. Michael Kahn’s editing keeps the film focused and adventure oriented. It is the direction and even the story’s outcome that fall short. The villain’s plot is a great example of this. The culmination of his plan is comparable to that of  the old, familiar “You see, this was the plan all along! Muhahahahaha!” cliche. Yet another malevolent scenario that doesn’t add up one bit, often leaving you to wonder “Wouldn’t it have just been easier to kill the guy when you held him prisoner?” I found myself more disturbed by the fact that the villain’s appearance resembles that of Spielberg’s!

Tintin doesn’t feel like a Steven Spielberg film, but more like an average, garden variety animated film.

Tintin is Spielberg’s first directorial foray into animated features. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if it would have been better suited for a much less exaggerated live action setting, with more of his fascinating artistic visuals. Those famous “Spielbergisms” are present, but clearly he was over-enthusiastic about not having limitations or boundaries. Thus, he often twirls the camera around the room and allows for far too many ridiculous set pieces, like a ship getting caught and twisted with another ship, and swinging like a theme park ride. I would have much loved to have seen Spielberg bring his live action sensibilities and visual flare to the animation world.

As with most of Spielberg’s films, Tintin is accompanied by a John Williams score. Enthusiasts might recognize hints of Family Plot, Catch Me If You Can, and even a bit of James Horner’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids embedded in the mirthful cues. Notwithstanding, these particular Williams compositions fall short of grace, missing the strong, melodic central theme that the material calls for. But, as many of my peers would kindly point out, Williams on auto pilot is far batter than the likes of Tyler Bates and Paul Haslinger on their best days.

For years, it has been debated whether or not Steven Spielberg directed Poltergeist. No matter what occurred on that set, I’ve always pointed out that Poltergeist feels like a Steven Spielberg film. Tintin, on the other hand, is a Steven Spielberg film, but I find myself hesitant to make a comparable  remark. However, with exchanges such as “A man was shot at our doorstep!” “Not again!”, how could you not be entertained?

According to Variety, Jonathan Liebesman will direct Platinum Dune’s remake/reboot of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise. Liebesman has directed Darkness Falls, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, Battle Los Angeles, and the upcoming Wrath of the Titans. Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol screenwriters Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec have script duties.

As you may know, Platinum Dunes is Michael Bay’s production company and was behind the generic, awful remakes for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and A Nightmare on Elm St., among others. While I am adamant over its writers, I’m not sold on Dunes and Liebesman being right for Ninja Turtles.

No doubt, it will be better than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Turtles in Time, but I hardly see it topping the original 1990 film, which had the perfect balance of dark and light tones, mixing the original violent comic book of the early 80s with children’s animated series, and absolutely no Vanilla Ice!

Personally, I’d much rather see someone like Brad Bird or Joss Whedon direct Ninja Turtles. And what they need to do is avoid telling the origin story all over again. Everyone knows the Turtles’ origin stories, and while I think it would be interesting to see the young Turtles studying Ninjutsu, I’d rather that not be an entire film. Instead, I would love to see them drop the Teenage Mutant part of the title, and give us a “growing up” motif, pushing the Ninja Turtles into their twenties, and perhaps learning to deal with the loss of their Master Splinter. I also think Shredder can use an update, ala Nolan’s Bane.

On the heels of the PS3 release of the latest Twisted Metal game, we have learned that Brian Taylor will helm a live action film based on PlayStation’s popular car-brawler series. Taylor is exactly one half of the directing team that brought us Crank, Gamer, and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.

From Deadline:

Like the game, the film will revolve around an underground event that pits a number of combatants in a fight to the death. They are outfitted in armored weaponized cars that are pimped out with heavy weaponry that includes missiles and machine guns. Some drop mines or launch electrical charges. The proprietor of the race is Calypso, a string-puller dedicating to examining the human condition, such as what makes a peaceful man violent, what terrifies a violent man and who will make a Faustian bargain in which they risk their lives. The sole survivor will get any wish granted.

I’m told that the film will include such signature contestant characters as Sweet Tooth, a homicidal clown who drives an ice cream truck, and Doll Face, a young woman who is trapped behind a porcelain mask and who drives an 18-wheeler.

Out of his entire filmography, the original Crank was the only one I enjoyed. I haven’t seen Ghost Rider 2 yet, but I never cared for the duo’s chronic junkie style. However, having seen the Spirit of Vengeance trailers, I must admit that some of his visual style fits the Twisted Metal look.

I am a Twisted Metal fan, so I hope Taylor does it justice. I hope they include Axel!

Admittedly, I had reservation when I first heard about Bryan Singer’s reworking of the legendary sitcom The Munsters. I grew up with the Munster family on old Nick at Nite reruns, and I still occasionally watch it on Netflix.

But the more I think about it, the more I love the idea of adding twisted, morbid humor to The Munsters. I mean, hell, that is my favorite kind of humor, and it would definitely made a reboot far intriguing and edgy enough to justify bringing The Munsters back to television.

According to TV Line, the re-imagining will now be titled Mockingbird Lane! Since 1313 Mockingbird Lane was the iconic address for The Munsters’ home, the change actually works magnificently, striking the perfect balance of familiarity and singularity to advertise the show runners’ intentions, which is to bring back the familiar family, with a new twisted spin.

No casting decisions have been made public, as far as I’ve heard, but, for the most part, TV Pick’s suggestions are on the nose. I especially love Juliet Landau (Drusilla, Spike’s former flame from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as Lily Munster.

Click here to add Twister to your instant queue!

Jan De Bont’s follow up to Speed, 1996′s Twister, is cheesy, good fun. And like Speed, it is a film that I absolutely must re-watch at least once or twice a year! This is the film that made me want to be a storm chaser for a while. I still think that would be wicked!

In many places, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, and the flying cow gag definitely doesn’t hold up. Actually, I don’t think it ever did! But the film doesn’t stop long enough for you to care about its preposterous nature and is just a suspenseful thrill ride. Plus, who doesn’t love a good storm movie?

I still think De Bont’s visual style was almost perfect for the action genre. I love his incredible aerial shots, and I never quite recall him stooping to excessive shaky cam work or shots that try too hard to be cool, like you will see in Michael Bay’s films. Sadly, he followed Twister up with the Keanu-less Speed 2: Cruise Control, The Haunting, and Tomb Raider 2, none of which lived up with his first two films. He is apparently remaking a Johnny Cash flick called Five Minutes to Live. Hopefully, that’ll be a true comeback from a severe slump.

Note: The Netflix Buttons have been removed for now because they were bogging down the site’s speed. However, a widget has been added to the sidebar featuring the latest Queue This selection! 

Rating: ★★☆☆ 

Cinematography: Nothing special!

Sound: Bad!

Film Score: Generic

Entertainment: Meh!

Re-Watch Factor: Unlikely

Verdict: Wait for Redbox!

Summary:

Scantily clad vixen Selene wakes up in a laboratory to find a world where vampires and lycans have mostly been suppressed by humans and learns that she now has a daughter.

Best Scene:

Well, I did enjoy a scene where Selene cleverly  takes out a villain using a grenade.

What I liked:

Ummmm….  There really isn’t anything I liked per se. Parts of the film were okay, I guess, but a lot of it wasn’t that great either. 

What I Didn’t Like:

The story is rather vague on the details!  Underworld: Awakening is a film that rushes to the end. While short, to the point action films can often be fun, this caps off with little satisfaction, with a bad ending that feels more like cheap cliffhanger from a poor season finale.

The characters hardly feel like characters! Underworld: Awakening is the type of film that gets by on its sexy vixen. Not that I have any problems with Kate Beckinsale in skin tight leather, she doesn’t really do much for me as a character. It does make sense because she is a creature of the night that her personality would be so cold, but she is also surrounding by a bunch of characters, all lacking personality, even the few human characters, who seem straight out of a really bad Sci Fi channel movie of the week. Problem is, as a viewer, I could care less about any of these characters, whether they live or die. I’m not saying Selene should be straight up emotional and sappy, but it would have been nice to see something in her body language or in her eyes that she actually feels for her child, or estranged lover, rather than her stating it, but looking bored the entire movie.

The villains are weak and forgettable! Villains are easily as important as the heroes. They need to be twice as menacing as the heroes/anti-heroes are enduring, but they also need to be interesting. Hell, I’d take Raul Julia’s silly Bison from the cheesy Street Fighter movie over these wooden characters. I spent the entire movie thinking these guys were just placeholders for a real villain lurking in the shadows, waiting to appear. Sadly, he/she never did. Prior to seeing the movie, I suspected Charles Dance was to play a “big bad,” given some of his prior work, such as Last Action Hero. Nope, he’s just a cowardly leader with an unfulfilled story arc! Here, Stephen Rae (V For Vendetta) plays an evil scientist, with ulterior motives. How menacing is he? Not nearly enough for me to remember his name! Sure, I could check Wikipedia to learn his name, for the purposes of this review, but honestly, what would be the point? Too much work for such a generic villain!

In Closing:

Underworld fans might enjoy it to some degree, but I hardly think they will find it to be anywhere close to greatness, nor the best of the series.