Review of Underworld (2003) by Thomas D — 28 Dec 2016

There's guilty pleasure movies, and then there's the garbage like Underworld that take themselves way too seriously in an attempt to make silly action fun. What could pass as an entertaining and visually dazzling cable watch ends up as a confusing romp of a fantasy adventure.

I'm a fan of Kate Beckinsale. I think when she's used right, she's of immense value to any film she's a part of. Take Love & Friendship from earlier this year for example; she was given a solid script and the room to use her British wit & charm in a rewarding performance. Sure she's gorgeous to look at in Underworld, but I can't help but think that the writing didn't allow her to truly show her chops. With that said, her ability is clearly superior to the awful supporting cast. Some of the supporting performances (Shane Brolly) are disappointingly off-putting.

Much like a ton of early 2000's action films, Underworld suffers from trying to emulate The Matrix too much. It's always raining, the action scenes are darkly lit, and the characters are in a constant slow motion gaze during the shootouts and fights. I can't necessarily blame Underworld for having bad action, it was simply a product of its time. In fact, there are some good looking stunts here, most of them in camera as well. That's when Underworld is at its most appealing.

When Underworld takes itself too seriously and the story is bogged down by exposition scenes (that actually make the film more confusing) it's no fun. The reason I went back and began the franchise this many years later is because I was hoping to have a fun franchise to go to the theaters for in a few weeks with Blood Wars being released. Whether I stick with the franchise or not, I'm not sure. But I know one thing for sure, Underworld's first film is painful to watch.

+Beckinsale is watchable.

+Some nice stunt sequences.

-Really bad script/dialogue.

-Supporting performances.

-Ultimately generic.

4.8/10.