Vampires, vampires everywhere, yet still the plot did shrink...

Rating: 4/10 (27 September 2003)

The major problem with the movie, amazingly {and upsettingly} enough, was the vampires. Bear in mind that I mean no disrespect to Kate Beckinsale in this. She was graceful, beautiful, and sexy from moment one. Better still, she was intelligent, refined, and had a bit of the Renaissance-era sense of dignity and poise. She combined this well with a sharp sense of slight ruthlessness along with the romantic-warrior-in-a-modern-world outlook and a certain sense of pensive sadness, which I did indeed like. However, though she did quite well, even she could not make up for the utter lack of depth so prevalent in her vampiric comrades.
An apt introduction to the first problem, I think. The main, defining characteristic of vampirism -- that of drinking blood -- seems to have been utterly lost. Yes, yes, yes, there were goblets of what could pass for blood and a blatant shot of a full blood bank bag; but what happened to the biting? For the love of heaven, vampires BITE people â?` this is why they have those lovely, pointy teeth. Again, yes, there was some vague mention of a rule or law not to bite humans, I believe, but that simply takes the fun out of everything, doesn't it? Vampires are, beyond bestial, generally viewed as sensual creatures. Even if that sensuality is perverse and lethal, the whole point of the vampire mythos is that there is a dread creature wandering the night, taking a twisted pleasure in the enjoyment of the flesh. At their most hideous they still embody this love of flesh, be it the tragic lustfulness of Dracula or the more horrid sexual predations of others. These vampires, on the other hand, seemed to be humans that had forgotten what immortality was all about, beyond the plotting and scheming amongst themselves, and slaying of werewolves. Tsk, tsk.
Which leads me to the next problem: there seemed to be a great deal of confusion about the exact nature of what separated the vampires from the werewolves. With the obvious exception of werewolves turning into huge, snarling, feral, fur-covered chainsaws, the werewolves seemed to spend a great deal of time in conditions normally attributed to vampires. They seemed oddly pale to a man, lived in dark, dank places, and worst yet they did not seem to have any connection with nature whatsoever. In fact, the master "Lycan" {or Lykin, was it?} in fact, looked more vampiric at first sight than the first three to five non-Beckinsale vampires one saw. Said master was, incidentally, also the first to actually BITE someone; and no, not in the hybrid lupine form; we're talking vampire-style human face and form with sharp fangs crunching into a victim's neck, here. In fact, for a time, I was honestly somewhat curious as to whether these "Lykin/Lycans" were actually shape shifting vampires themselves, and THIS was what the war was about. It took me a good third of the movie to be firmly convinced otherwise.
Thirdly, while once again, Kate Beckinsale was quite fearsome, especially in those choreographies which involves some sort of jumping ~{interjection: whoever choreographed all of the mid-air or jumping moves should be applauded}~ many of the vampires, while able to spray a seemingly endless amount of firearm ammunition, apparently cannot fight effectively. The predominance of long, drawn-out series' of hissing at opponents both lupine and vampiric was perhaps the worst indication, though the barroom-brawl-style swings were nearly as bad. Nothing wrong with a classic vampiric hiss and baring of fangs; and in this "World of Darkness"-esque movie, one expects the werewolves to have the upper hand in down and dirty combat. However, there were several instances where the hissing just went on and on. Related is the sequence of ten-to-fifteen-stroke display of whip agility mentioned in another review, which is excessive to the point of utter uselessness. Honestly, were I confronted by a huge man changing into a much larger creature with teeth and claws, I wouldn't hiss at it repeatedly for ten seconds or twirl my whips to show the enemy how remarkably skillful I was. Out of fear reaction, if nothing else, I'd lay into the bloody thing immediately and hope I didn't get trounced in the process. There were others, but I think these examples say it well enough.
To sum up, "Underworld" began in a "Blade"-like fashion, which was all to the good. It seemed to move into a somewhat "Resident Evil" sense of scene and tension, but with too little background story and too much reliance on gunplay for cardboard plot. Finally, it settled {in all possible interpretations of the word} in the end to a "John Carpenter's Vampires"-grade ending combat choreography for the last fifteen minutes. This is to say, "Underworld" was good, fast-paced, and visually catching at first, dragged a little as one began waiting for a bit more oomph, and slogged to a close leaving one disappointed. It was the worse for the fact that there were occasional hints at what might consider the hoped-for vampire fare, which were never brought to completion. The film was full to the brim of good concept and possibly wonderful plot potential that as a whole was brought into play about as successfully as a virgin owning and managing a strip club -- lots of energy, good ideas and good intentions, but not quite enough overall substance to make it worthwhile for the knowledgeable customer.
It's saddening, actually. I had rather hoped that, after the parade of utter low-grade drivel that was the theatrical attempt at "Queen of the Damned," the next major vampire movie that hit the theatres would do us more proud. Perhaps, if the implied sequel does come about in the future, a bit more consideration will be taken of past mistakes.