Professional restaurant supplies Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Subscribe & Save Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer bschs2 bschs2 bschs2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now SnS
Customer Review

12 of 17 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Worst of the series, May 8, 2012
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Underworld Awakening (Amazon Video)
Huge fan of the Underworld with the 1st (dominant vampires) and 3rd (dominant lycans) being my favorites. The 2nd was a disappointment to me as it killed off Corvinas and his two sons (one bitten by bat and the other by wolf). This 4th installment is dead last imo. The futuristic story line that has Selene and her child venturing into a world where Vampire and Lycan are hunted by humans is boring. The made up - unknown city where a giant lab and their workers control the population through vaccinations is very similar to Resident Evil. Although, isn't it the same story line in a lot of D list movies. This installment is nothing more than images thrown together with fight scenes, very little dialogue, Lycan heads exploding with gunfire, and a lot of fog/mist. There apparently isn't much daylight in this pharmaceutically controlled futuristic city. For some reason, they are unwilling to let go of the character, Michael. Note: he was horrible in the second installment and having his offspring run around doesn't do anything for this storyline. With the elders gone, the Vampires underground, and Lycans looking like oversized rats this movie failed. A story as old as time: Vampire against Lycan and humans seeking protection from the Vampires. It shouldn't have changed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 10, 2012 9:34:18 PM PDT
I still like this movie, but I agree with you on Michael, never like it the actor, I pass trough the first two movies because I kind of ignore him and follow the rest of the actors. I couldn't stop seeing him as just Felicity ex-boyfriend. Him quitting was the best thing for this movie, I hope they replace him with somebody worth of the role, or just get rid of the character completely.

Posted on Jun 7, 2012 9:42:00 PM PDT
C. Harmon says:
I totally agree with you. I guess if you use enough fog, darkness, fast moves, fights and other such 'action', you really don't need a decent story and that's precisely what you DO NOT get here.....a story....

Posted on Apr 6, 2015 9:04:05 PM PDT
CJ JA says:
I agree. Michael should eliminated from the series altogether.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 14, 2015 3:14:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 14, 2015 3:15:37 PM PDT
The story was thin [small, would be a better way to put it, a cinematic novela, rather than a novel) (and the runtime short) because it's quite obviously designed as an interim story before the return of the Scott Speedman character. You know, story: this, part of a larger one (I do not include the 2nd film in that: it wasted Derek Jacobi, was poorly written, and had no attraction other than seeing supposedly superpowered werewolves get there heads ripped off and whatever. This one has little, but competent, story. That one had crap for story.). The next film could capitalize on all this just fine if this film's promise is delivered on, with the return of, yes Michael Corwin.

That said, I don't entirely disagree about the Michael character. Scott Speedman is an excellent actor--see his other work--but the weak point of the first film was an almost complete lack of romantic chemistry between him and Beckinsale, and his performance, while adequate to the tale, generally seems a bit bland and lacking in range in both the films in this franchise. It's hard to blame him much, in the second one, though: Even Derek Jacobi, one of the greatest actors of his generation, basically turned in a crap performance in that film, because of the melodramatic, generic script. Garbage in, garbage out. Note, too, how profoundly less interesting Bill Nighy's performance is in the third film as opposed to the first. Because the story, again, was kind of crap, and his character bore no resemblance to the original character: warrior-at-heart, deeply-dark and high-handed, outwardly ruthless, yet ultimately conflicted, hypocritical, compassionate, and even vulnerable--yet, despite all his flaws willing to risk his life against immense danger for what he twistedly believes is safety of his people of the original (instead, you got a generically cruel, violent, yet ultimately cowardly dictator in the prequel, and a blah performance from Nighy to match).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›