passable entertainment even if whatever great premise it had was sucked dry

Rating: Null/10 (5 October 2003)

This is one movie where I can frankly describe as simply stupid and dumb, yet the superficial beauty that was presented right before my eyes covered almost all what was there to hide. The point is, despite its being dumb and stupid, the lack of intelligence was made up for by presenting the whole thing with style and energy in such a way that I found it quite enjoyable. I will say that this is a film which has the number of blood and gore inversely proportional to that of the brain cells required to fully appreciate it, but one that still manages to entertain nonetheless.
I've always thought of werewolves as interesting creatures even when I was a child. They didn't scare me because they interested me, and thus I have several story books about them. On the other hand, vampires have always been presented as romantic figures who even appeal to a mere mortal even if they have evil agenda which makes them scary, but they are still interesting. This is how the movie's premise got... nay, grabbed my attention. The good news is that it met some of my expectations. The bad news is that there's a lot more I wanted that wasn't met.
Directed by first-timer Len Wiseman, the movie has no really interesting plot other than a gothic sort of "Freddy vs. Jason", where vampires and werewolves (okay, lycans) are to engage each other in a massive battle. Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is a vampire who dedicates her life into killing lycans - an ancient form of werewolf, a clan of whom her own kin has been at war with for centuries. When she discovers that the lycans are on a track of Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman), a mortal medical student, she senses danger ahead and awakes Viktor (Bill Nighy), the most powerful vampire of all, to battle Lucian (Michael Sheen), the leader of the lycans. That is the plot, or should we say an excuse to execute action scenes with Kate Beckinsale on a hot leather outfit.
"Underworld" tantalizes with some interesting ideas, but whatever interesting premise it had was lost along the way. The idea of vampires and werewolves as completely different species was interesting and was a bit like a "Romeo and Juliet" for the underworld (which incidentally, was one of the film's working titles). But the filmmakers did not fully develop the idea and character development so viewers don't really have a concrete idea of whom should they root for. Granted, the action scenes were good, but I felt cheated as it seemed the director was creating a plot for it, instead of the other way around. The result is, "Underworld" runs out of ideas for what story it has to tell. The final showdown between the vampires and lycans had a visual punch, but was not entirely satisfying.
And the other hype surrounding the film, that Kate Beckinsale stars in an action movie? It's interesting, all right. But so was Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler in a movie. So was Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, Danny deVito, Steven Spielberg, Britney Spears, and John Travolta all crammed in cameos for "Goldmember". The point is, a great premise doesn't necessarily mean a great movie. The movie has to work its way around the premise to meet the expectations of the audience. Sure, Kate has an imposing presence onscreen but if that's the sole reason to like this movie, then it would have been better to just stare at the movie's poster for five minutes.
In the end, "Underworld" doesn't amount to much. I said it was dumb and stupid, but it occassionally entertained me. Alex Proyas' "The Crow" still remains at the top of my list as far as gothic movies are concerned. Not since this late Brandon Lee starrer have a gothic movie been so intellectual and represented a change. But for the meanwhile, while the longing for a film as good as "The Crow" continues, "Underworld" somehow quenches the thirst... even for just a while.
Grade: B-