Underworld: Blood Wars (2016)

"The next installment in the blockbuster franchise, UNDERWORLD: BLOOD WARS follows Vampire death dealer, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) as she fends off brutal attacks from both the Lycan clan and the Vampire faction that betrayed her. With her only allies, David (Theo James) and his father Thomas (Charles Dance), she must stop the eternal war between Lycans and Vampires, even if it means she has to make the ultimate sacrifice."

Considering that I've already bitched and whined as much as is humanly possible about how disappointing this entire series of "black and blue films" is overall, all I'm really doing by reviewing "Blood Wars" is repeating what I said about "Underworld: Awakening" four years ago but with a few extra names dropped in. Sadly, I've watched these movies get worse with every sequel (or prequel), and I'd almost forgotten what happened in the last one until I read my own review.

Suffice it to say that with a running time of just over an hour and 20 minutes (including 4 minutes of recaps at the start and several more minutes of flashbacks scattered throughout), there isn't a lot of anything new here. It's already obvious that it's not going to be the last of the "Underworld" series, but it's easily the weakest so far and reeks of being another half-arsed filler. "Underworld" really should have been a TV series after the first theatrical release if this is the way they are going to play it.

Obviously, Kate Beckinsale looks fantastic again. Also of note is Lara Pulver as Semira. She looks like a more perfect version of a young Sigourney Weaver from certain angles, but occasionally she has the air of Eva Green about her too.

It's almost the same deal with Theo James who reminds me of a younger Julian McMahon, Bradley James who looks like Mads Mikkelsen playing Le Chiffre in "Casino Royale", and James Faulkner who resembles Albert Finney way too much. Maybe the casting director thought they were trying to make a lookalike compendium of the latest James Bond films because that's what they've ended up with, give or take a few werewolves and vampires.

Whatever the case, the plot is weak, characters aren't given enough time to develop, and every slow scene seems to be designed as a hindrance rather than an attempt to progress the story. Consequently, if you only see the last 5 minutes, it will be enough to prepare you for the next installment, because the padded action sequences are nothing memorable either. A couple of important characters are completely wasted, but I'll say no more than that. Maybe it's an intentional contempt for the audience, or maybe it's just inept filmmaking, I'll let you decide for yourself.

Although the choreography improves later on, the majority of the action scenes are little more than a bunch of extras who no one cares about getting confusingly slaughtered in the background to the even more confusing duels between the main protagonists. There's never any sense of threat or danger involved due to none of the characters having enough screen time for you to get to know much about them.

The be all and end all of this "Underworld" movie is that it seems to only exist for completists and fans who will buy it anyway. If you haven't seen any of the others, you won't know what to make of it, who anyone is, or why anything is happening, and even with prior knowledge, "Underworld: Blood Wars" will still be very disappointing.

Already showing in Europe since the start of December, American audiences will have to wait until January for the theatrical release. For those who are wise to these things, the fact that it's a "January movie" says it all.

The Disappointments Room (2016)

"A mother and her young son release unimaginable horrors from the attic of their rural dream home."

I'm going to address the elephant in the room straight away: "The Disappointments Room" is aptly named. Everyone can now sit back smugly and chuckle, because saying that is about as obvious and predictable as everything else in this ghostie movie.

It's such a shame when a movie like this fails to deliver, especially as everything was in place for it to be good. The North Carolina location is fantastic, Kate Beckinsale in a blonde wig is still as beautiful as ever, and there's even a cat in the story. Unfortunately, "The Disappointments Room" contains nothing which hasn't been done before, or more importantly, done better.

If you can't guess how "The Disappointments Room" is going to go after the first ten minutes, either you haven't seen enough horror movies (which is possibly a good thing) or you haven't realised the formulaic nature of just about every "ghosts and hauntings" movie ever made. You can be sure that director D.J. Caruso and his co-writer Wentworth Miller have seen everything though, and they've thrown as many tropes as they could into this in arguably not the best manner. Having said that, there are some good moments among the unoriginality, but even then, they aren't great.

Acting-wise, it's okay. Kate Beckinsale seems to have become the Belén Rueda of American horror, and will probably continue in the same vein for years to come. She's always technically been a MILF, but now she's playing one as part of the plot, and there's nothing wrong with that. Her supporting cast, because let's keep it real here, don't have much to do or very much screen time, but they are perfectly acceptable. The storytelling is a bit rushed, and it's that element more than any other which makes "The Disappointments Room" into more of a generic product than something you would want in your collection.

Gerald McRaney's role is woefully small but important, but hey, it's not the size but what you do with it, right? Fortunately, a potentially annoying child in the form of Duncan Joiner playing Lucas is also nipped in the bud early on. The latter has an encounter which is so obviously cribbed from "The Shining" that of course it works, and he's not such an irritating little piss afterwards.

"Bones" fans will spot Michaela Conlin for a few seconds with no discernable lines of dialogue, but who cares? She's in it, it's another IMDb credit, and the point of her character is made. For those who might blink and miss it, Lucas Till's character Ben pretty much nails why the rich, middle-aged "yuppies" have moved to the countryside anyway in a buzzkill, quasi "meta-cinema" line which isn't wasted at all. Some slight socio-political commentary there, maybe? On the plus side, maybe not.

If you want to see more original (although still highly formulaic) stories in the "ghosts/haunted house with a mystery" subgenre, you can choose from "The Uninvited" (1944), "The Haunted" (1963), "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (1973), "Burnt Offerings" (1976), "The Haunting Passion" (1983), "The Haunting of Seacliff Inn" (1994), "House of the Damned" (1996), "The Others" (2001), "Penny Dreadful" (2005), "The Orphanage" (2007), "The Abandoned" (2015), and literally hundreds if not thousands more. There's even enough of the "architects renovating a building and setting ghosts loose" movies that they have become yet another subgenre in their own right. One that springs to mind from only a couple of years ago, "Altar" (2014), was almost the same story as this but set in a windswept manor in Northern England.

If you're a Kate Beckinsale fan, you'll love her in "The Disappointments Room". If you're a ghost story fan, you'll watch this anyway for completeness. But if you're looking for originality, something like this (or anything recent in the whole horror genre) is not for you.

Total Recall (2012)

"A factory worker, Douglas Quaid, begins to suspect that he is a spy after visiting Rekall - a company that provides its clients with implanted fake memories of a life they would like to have led - goes wrong and he finds himself on the run."

Due to my current Kate Beckinsale addiction (and growing disinterest in reviewing nothing but horror movies), I watched the "Total Recall" remake yesterday. It was certainly a lot different to how I imagined it would be.

While not as entertaining as the original "Total Recall" (1990), it was visually superior in nearly every way. With an estimated budget of $125,000,000, it had to be as spectacular as "Blade Runner" to look at. I was amazed at how the action scenes were done, and, willing suspension of disbelief aside, I couldn't even get my head around some of them.

I think a lot of the problems people have had with the remake were caused by nostalgia. Of course, Paul Verhoeven was at the top of his game back in 1990 and Len Wiseman is still regarded as a hack, but neither film is perfect. I always thought that the Martian terraforming stuff in the original "Total Recall" was very derivative of too many other sci-fi movies, and, if you watch it today, most of the effects haven't stood the test of time. Even the updated "girl with three breasts" was more realistic in this remake.

Having said that, Colin Farrell lacked the charisma of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his version of Douglas Quaid wasn't a character that I particularly cared about. As an action hero, he kind of sucked, and, as a top secret agent, he wasn't very convincing either. Let's be honest though, Arnold Schwarzenegger was hardly an Oscar winner, but he just fitted into the overall campiness and excessiveness of Paul Verhoeven's vision.

As an upgraded version of Sharon Stone's character from the original, Kate Beckinsale wasn't bad. Nobody could ever surpass the sexiness which Sharon Stone exuded in that role and, to her credit, Kate Beckinsale didn't even try to. She was a lot colder, a more professional killer, and, ultimately, she was just a slightly more dislikeable version of Selene from "Underworld" in a different costume.

What made the new Lori Quaid less interesting was that Jessica Biel as the new Melina really eclipsed her and everyone else. In the original "Total Recall", Rachel Ticotin's Melina was quite annoying and I really wanted Sharon Stone to beat the crap out of her. Somehow, probably by just being a better actress, Jessica Biel turned out to be one of the highlights of this remake, and I was mostly on her character's side even though she had poor taste in men.

This "Total Recall" also lacked the magnificence of Michael Ironside with its conflated version of Richter and Edgemar played by Bokeem Woodbine. That was a shame although there was a certain creepiness to Richter and Lori's relationship in the original which turned my stomach. I didn't miss that at all, but had the same thing been done here, it might have given their characters more depth.

There were no "larger than life" characters in this at all other than the "Star Wars"-style stormtroopers which just had to be robotic to get the PG-13 rating. The original Cohaagan, played by Ronny Cox (who was, basically, reprising his Dick Jones character from "Robocop"), was one of the better action movie bad guys, but Bryan Cranston will always be the father from "Malcolm in the Middle" to me. I thought he was completely miscast as the more one-dimensional Cohaagen, but his age has made him look like a politician.

With the setting changed to Earth, there were no stupid-looking mutants so Kuato wasn't needed, and, as another example of Len Wiseman's nepotism, Bill Nighy was cast as a new rebel leader named Matthias for all of five minutes. Apart from wearing Selene's RAF greatcoat from "Underworld: Awakening" to appear more "military", he might as well have just been named "Cipher" for all that he brought to the part.

I didn't completely hate this "Total Recall" remake, but it was mainly style over substance, had no depth to the characters, and simply wasn't very memorable (no pun intended). The twists and turns involved in Quaid's identity were done much better in the original, the pay-off lines were delivered better before, and it didn't have any "popcorn flick" fun to it. If anything, it was all a little bit soulless and far too serious.

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

"Picking up directly from the previous film, vampire warrior Selena and the half werewolf Michael hunt for clues to reveal the history of their races and the war between them."

Apart from being overloaded with continuity errors, plot holes, and other goofs, "Underworld: Evolution" at least attempted to flesh out the story created in "Underworld" and retroactively turn that film into part one of a greater epic. Unfortunately, it also added some new characters who were even more one-dimensional than the first lot.

If I had been looking for any character development in "Underworld: Evolution", I would have been sorely disappointed. It was just more of the same with everyone being underused as ciphers between the spectacular CGI-fuelled action scenes. I must admit that I really liked the action and tried to just enjoy it for what it was rather than scrutinize it too closely. Realism and the laws of physics have no place in these movies.

With a budget nearly twice as big as that of the original "Underworld", the effects guys created some quite exhilarating and gory sequences in a few places. The werewolves, or Lycans as I should call them, were some seriously nasty-looking beasts and, of course, the Marcus bat-creature stole the show completely with his wings.

Marcus, as played by Tony Curran who I remembered most as Lenny from season two of "This Life" (back when BBC2 dramas were still good) and for being a very Scottish viking in "The 13th Warrior" (1999), was really impressive to begin with, but then turned into yet another overacted villain with about as much menace in human form as an angry rice pudding. It was a shame really because the opening scenes promised so much more in terms of kingship and his more regal nature.

Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, was exactly the same as before which pleased me for purely sinister reasons. I appreciated the nudie bits and her slickly choreographed athleticism. I wish I could say that I cared about her character, but, unfortunately, there was nothing there to care about other than the way she looked. As an immortal vampiress, Selene just wasn't all that interesting until about five minutes before the end.

I don't have much to say about Michael (Scott Speedman) either. Once again, he was just sort of there in the background until it was time for him to get his ass kicked by something meaner than he was. He was kind of like a more supernatural version of Xander from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in that respect but without any charisma or a sense of humour.

One character who I think needed more screen time was Tanis as played by Steven Mackintosh. I suppose he did all he needed to do in the story by revealing the necessary information about the key and William the werewolf's dungeon, but it was almost as much of a waste as casting Sir Derek Jacobi as a far less impressive Corvinus than the mythology up to that point had me expecting.

Apart from having an almost Biblical unwillingness to control his offspring, the only thing Corvinus did was turn Selene into a super-vampire who could eventually do the thing which he wouldn't. Not to spoil it for you if you haven't seen it (even though you've had six years to do so!), the final battle was nicely done but very predictable.

According to the IMDb, "Underworld: Evolution" initially did only slightly better than "Underworld" at the box office and then was lucky to get its money back. I don't remember the reviews at the time, but I have vague memory that "Underworld: Evolution" was considered a bit of a turd. Since 2006 was a pretty bad year for films anyway, I didn't bother watching it or anything else at the cinema apart from James Bond. Having only ever seen "Underworld: Evolution" on DVD, I think I might have enjoyed it slightly more as some mindless entertainment on the big screen.

As a sequel which tried harder than most to be a real part two rather than a recreation of the same story, I don't consider "Underworld: Evolution" to be a complete waste of time, but I probably would have been better off watching some blue and black paint dry.

Underworld (2003)

"Selene, a beautiful vampire warrior, is entrenched in a war between the vampire and werewolf races. Although she is aligned with the vampires, she falls in love with Michael, a werewolf who longs for the war to end."

After much deliberation (not to mention procrastination), I decided to rewatch "Underworld" and its first sequel again to see if I liked them any better now that several years have passed since I first saw them. I did this for two reasons: one, I'm pretty sure that watching so many lame movies in a row has rotted my brain to the point where I can barely tell the difference between a good movie or a bad one anymore, and two, I couldn't remember a damned thing about any of them except that they were all in blue and black.

I was talked into buying the DVD of "Underworld" when it came out by a workmate of mine. He was slightly obsessed with it (plus "The Matrix" trilogy and all manner of other embarrassingly dull sci-fi movies). Somehow he wore me down enough to buy it first, knowing full well that I'd end up giving it to him once I'd watched it. I was glad to get rid of the thing because it not only confused me but almost bored me to tears in places. We both worked in Woolworth's at the time so I got it cheaper by using my 20% staff discount card. It was no great loss to give a DVD away to someone who seemed to genuinely appreciate it.

Having now acquired copies of the first three "Underworld" films from my local pawn shop just to complete the "4 for $10" deal when I couldn't find anything else which I wanted, it seemed silly to not revisit them all back-to-back especially as I've written a review of the most recent one, "Underworld: Awakening". I'd already reviewed "Rise of the Lycans" a couple of years ago too so I knew I wouldn't have to write anything about that ever again.

Anyway, as things turned out, I'm slightly ashamed to say that I kind of enjoyed "Underworld". I'm not sure if it was just because I couldn't take my eyes off Kate Beckinsale or if I genuinely got interested in the story. If I had to put money on it, I'd go with the first of those answers because, honestly, I could barely understand what was going on.

Okay, so I got that Kate Beckinsale was supposed to be a vampire and a stone-cold werewolf killer, and Scott Speedman was the last of a bloodline of humans who could become a hybrid of a werewolf and a vampire, but I still don't know what the point of either of them was. Was there supposed to be some horror involved in their relationship? Was it just another story of star-crossed lovers set against a background of war in a fantasy version of Czechoslovakia? Where was the focus?

I understood that Michael Sheen was only a superficially righteous werewolf leader called Lucian (mispronounced as "Looshun") who was trying to create this hybrid. But to what end? Was the hybrid a weapon, an ally, or just another immortal monster with no purpose?

Bizarrely, for those of you who don't know, Michael Sheen was the real life father of Kate Beckinsale's daughter even though this was the film in which she first met and started to fall for the director, Len Wiseman, who, of course, we all know she later married. Showbiz people have the weirdest relationships, but the stuff which must have been going on behind the scenes just made me scratch my head in disbelief. Just add the fact that both her ex and her future lover were watching her pretending to be attracted to Scott Speedman's character, and I'm surprised that the amount of conflicting emotions didn't end in some terrible tragedy. I never thought that Kate Beckinsale was a very good actress before, but knowing the back story, I now think she must be one of the most professional in the business. To give even more credit where it's due, everyone involved in "Underworld" must be like that because it turned out to be a very high quality production.

With that slight digression and praise out of the way, I still didn't really like the story. I found all the stuff with Bill Nighy as "Viktor the vampire" particularly confusing, couldn't work out who was a good guy and who was bad guy, and whatever was going on between Lucian and Kraven (Shane Brolly) looked as if it was actually a good thing. Wasn't their deal supposed to lead to a peace treaty of some kind? I couldn't figure out how turning Scott Speedman into a hybrid was supposed to achieve that, but never mind. Somehow reanimating Viktor before his time made a mess of everything and, presumably, that was all there was to the plot. It was all secrets and lies, fighting for the sake of fighting, and it didn't seem to matter which side anyone was on because everyone thought they were doing the right thing.

I know that "Underworld" wasn't a box office success and I can see why. The film looked fantastic (albeit in only two colours most of the time and sometimes in three or four), but it was ultimately a character based story with no great depth to any of the characters.

The action scenes were incredibly stylish, the CGI was state of the art at the time, and all the effects (including the make-up and creature designs) were great. But what actually happened over more than two hours other than setting up a fantasy world in which a lot of one-dimensional but extremely well-acted characters got killed off?

Nearly nine years on from when I first watched "Underworld", my opinion hasn't changed that much. Although I was more entertained this time and could recognise the effort that went into making the film, on both emotional and intellectual levels, I still wasn't satisfied by it.