after 2 strong acts, "Underworld" derails

Rating: 6/10 (25 September 2003)

Well, what's good about "Underworld"? The direction is solid, the cinematography is excellent, and the sets and costumes are well-conceived. This is basically glossy pulp that doesn't pretend to be more than it really is; filled with visual flourishes (borrowed from "The Matrix," a movie I hated), it doesn't make too many worthy demands of the viewer to keep up with the story (a war between vampires and werewolves, and the possible cross-breeding of the two), which is fine by me. The acting meets the standards of the genre, and the dialogue--as silly as it sometimes is--is kept to exposition and exclamation. The CGI transformation effects are wisely excuted partly in shadow or darkness, making them somewhat effective. However, after the first two exceptionally strong acts (where I was fully prepared to dub this film the most fun I'd had since seeing "Ghosts of Mars" in the theater), "Underworld" devolves into a final sequence in which the film's credibility is worn thin, as vampires and werewolves run down corridors firing weapons in every direction, so much so that I found myself forgetting what their actual objective was. Basically, the movie could've been 90 minutes and a cult masterpiece, but at two full hours, it's simply overextends its welcome.
6/10