"The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York's secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school."
Meh, there's nothing too original or exciting in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". As many have noticed, it really is like a "Doctor Who" special mixed with "King Kong" mixed with "Pokémon".
The lead who I can't be bothered to look up the name of (Edit: it's Eddie Redmayne) channels Matt Smith so much that he might as well be Matt Smith. He has the same mannerisms, awkwardness, and dress sense. He even has a bowtie, uses his wand like a sonic screwdriver, and carries a suitcase with Tardis properties. I'm not calling J.K. Rowling a plagiarist, but... yeah, this is either plagiarism or a really blatant homage, take your pick.
For those who care, Colin Farrell is more than tolerable, and Johnny Depp gets less than a minute of screen time roughly 5 minutes from the end.
Other than that, and the abundance of CGI, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" isn't the worst thing I've ever seen. The period setting in New York works well, and I expect American Harry Potter fans will love it. But because I'm not ten years old, and I loathe all things Harry Potter, it didn't do anything memorable for me.
As theatrical family films go, it's okay-ish. The creatures aren't very scary, and the story is easy to follow. It's just so below average in every other way that it's hardly one of this year's "must sees".
"A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race."
God, I hate sci-fi. I really, really hate sci-fi. In fact, if I was given the choice between watching another sci-fi movie or listening to the entire Justin Bieber discography, I would choose the latter. And, no, I'm not a Belieber.
What makes sci-fi even worse for me is when it crosses over so blatantly, as "Prometheus" has done, into the horror genre. Yes, I know that this is just an "Alien" prequel of sorts and "Alien" was a "slasher in space", but it still ruffles my fur considerably.
You see, if you are going to do good sci-fi, i.e. science fiction, then it should at least have a resemblance to something which scientifically could exist or happen. Just setting a horror/action movie on an impossibly huge spaceship or alien planet does not make it science fiction. Any intelligence behind the science and the fiction has now gone in that scenario, and the result loses the letters to match. Sci-fi is the shorthand for this dreck.
But, of course, I'm not a science fiction fan anyway. For instance, when I heard that Ray Bradbury passed away last night, I thought, "Yeah, I know the name but I've never read any of his books". RIP Ray Bradbury, by the way, but I only know his work through the TV adaptations and a couple of "Twilight Zone" episodes. What does he have to do with "Prometheus"? Nothing, really, except that I'm probably not the only one who saw echoes of "The Martian Chronicles" in it.
The work of Ridley Scott, however, I am very familiar with. I've watched a good 70% of his movies since 1977. Some I liked and some I really didn't care for at all. To cut a long story short, yes, of course I loved "Alien". There's always an exception to every rule.
Anyway, without further ado, let me tell you what I thought of "Prometheus". Yes, I've seen it already, don't hate me, and don't read any further past the next picture if you don't want any spoilers.
Mixing an unhealthy dollop of Erich von Däniken's "Chariots of the Gods" into the same universe as the "Alien" quadrilogy wasn't a bad idea. I saw that coming eventually. I didn't expect it in a movie from the creator of the franchise, but given the same theme about seeking out your creator from "Blade Runner" (1982), I can now see how that happened. Unlike the creationist backstory of "Prometheus", this was simply evolution.
As a firm believer in a Divine Creator rather than the unproven theories of evolution which schools are still teaching their slack-jawed inmates as if they were scientific fact, I was very pleased to see this subject given some reasonably serious treatment on the silver screen. Ridley Scott wimped out here and there with what could have been a very good debate in favour of a Summer action movie, but it was nicely played and has certainly got the nerds talking. Unfortunately, most of the nerd talk has been about all the homages to Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", but there's no accounting for taste.
I didn't understand all the wiggly worms in a box thing at the start until much later and then I had to think some more about it. I'm still a little bit puzzled (no pun intended) by how a certain Rubik's Cube turned into a Powerpoint projector. I still can't get my head around how Guy Pearce was made-up as an old man and completely wasted in his role. Some things, however, are best left as mysteries when it comes to Sir Ridley Scott's movies. I'll never understand how the electronics were supposed to function in the Voight-Kampff machine in "Blade Runner" or how the Spinner cars were supposed to fly, but I could take an educated guess about all these things, I suppose.
One thing I'll never understand though, is how a team of space engineers, scientists, and, generally, well-trained, intelligent astronauts, could behave as stupidly as the ones in "Prometheus". Decent acting aside, all the characters were dumber than a box of space rocks. Of course, they were only there to die.
None of them really stood out except as clichéd ciphers for the various tropes and action set pieces. Michael Fassbender was pretty good in his role, but he wasn't really any different to any other android in the "Alien" movies. Charlize Theron's role as Meredith Vickers was somewhat inconsistent, but that can be blamed on the script rather than her performance.
The only character who I did like was Lisbeth Salander. Oh, I mean Elizabeth Shaw, don't I? I always thought she made chocolates. Whatever the case, Noomi Rapace can do no wrong in anything as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if she can't do an English accent, she's a very attractive woman and has been chosen for some exceedingly badass roles. Don't believe she's a badass even after "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Just wait until you see, in "Prometheus", how she gives herself a surgical abortion without a moment's hesitation and then goes on to be even more badass without needing any recovery time whatsoever! Even the Chuck Norris memes couldn't equal that.
What increased my enjoyment of "Prometheus" was, of course, all the spectacle. Things were huge, spaceships and aliens were enormous, it was all very cinematic. R-rated deaths, improbable monsters, acid burns, flame throwers, big explosions, blood, gore, and slimy stuff... yeah, this was the stuff I've missed about Summer movies for years. Actually, that's not true, what I missed was having a decent story behind it all. I didn't get that here either really or, rather, I did but it wasn't an original one.
Don't believe the other reviewers who say that "Prometheus" had a weak plot. There was nothing weak about it at all. It's exactly the same story as "Alien" and nobody complains about that movie! Let's look at the similaries: A massive spaceship with its crew in suspended animation goes to a planet full of parasitic aliens, they wake up and unwittingly bring the deadly creatures aboard their own vessel, get infected and killed one by one, while, in the background, a creepy android and a corporation with its own agenda put everyone in even more danger, everything gets blown up, self-sacrifices abound, and only a final girl survives. Everyone can now, please, quit their bitching about the plot!
The nerds and fanboys will still be on every message board moaning about the big, black, spidery-looking aliens with three sets of teeth not being in "Prometheus", but who cares? Really, who cares? There weren't any cats in it either. However, there were wormy things, acid-spitting snakey things, a baby octopussy thing, and a great, big squid with loads of eyes and teeth which looked like something out of H.P. Lovecraft's imagination. I see nothing to complain about there at all.
The effects used in "Prometheus" were, of course, incredible. To me, it was a beautiful looking film although, possibly, a little bit too dark in some places and too clean and bright in others. I don't know all the ins and outs of the technical stuff or how any of that stuff was achieved, but, like everyone else, I can imagine that it cost a lot of time, hard work, and more money than I will ever see.
Did I like "Prometheus". Yes, grudgingly, I suppose I did. Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD? No, I won't. Basically, if you already have the "Alien" quadrilogy, you've seen all this has to offer before but with different characters and actors. If you are a huge fan of the "Alien" franchise then, of course, you'll want this too even if it is only for completeness.
Should you go to the cinema to see "Prometheus"? Yes, definitely. No matter how good your home cinema set-up is, you aren't going to beat seeing this movie as nature intended. "Prometheus" is, quite simply, one of the "must see" theatrical releases of 2012. It's just a pity that it was sci-fi.
"Three young people check into the Meadow View Inn for a night's rest, fully unaware of the inn's sick-minded employees and their nefarious intentions."
Well, after four attempts to make it through this below average prequel to a slightly more than average original, I finally watched "Vacancy 2".
I'm not sure why I kept falling asleep to this movie other than it obviously being quite boring and routine after the 40 minute mark, but I'd also blame the fact that it wasn't really anything more than yet another slasher with all the usual tropes.
Although it started off quite well, had a good setting, and even the acting was pretty decent for something put out by Sony Entertainment, it all felt like a made-for-cable movie rather than even a straight-to-DVD release.
There weren't any scares (or shocks even though there was plenty of blood everywhere rather than gore) and that was probably the deciding factor for my brain to switch off. Some of the effects were good although completely unoriginal. The suspense scenes, however, were handled very poorly which was a shame.
I'm not going to pretend that I know who anyone was in this since I barely even recognised Agnes Bruckner from "The Woods". I sort of wish that she'd taken her clothes off properly (and that the potential shower scene hadn't been completely wasted) but another part of me is glad that she didn't. As an aside, she is now in the allegedly much better film, "The Pact" (2012) which I still have to pick up.
If the characters had been more likeable or attractive then I probably could have coped with all the close-up shots right on their skin pores and moles, but they weren't. I also found the "shakycam" nonsense to be annoying considering that the rest of the film had mostly quite high production values.
The bad guys in this film were slightly more interesting than their victims but not by much. Nobody went for well-rounded here especially not the script writers. It was all somewhat superficial with the stupidest financial motivation for the motel owners and no explained motivation at all for the main killer apart from him being a psychopath.
Everybody and everything was just disposable in this film and it makes me wonder why crap like this is made at all. They must have had some idea that it wasn't going to be all that great going in to the project as I know that I did before even putting the DVD in the player.
At least I had pizza before Suzi got to it which kept me going during the badly filmed chase through the woods scene. I'm still wondering why the killer's camera was obviously so crappy though as even the $20 Jazz cam which I own takes better shots (as you can see above).
The ending of "Vacancy 2" wasn't completely predictable but it was still awful and the spinning camerawork of the final minutes almost made me throw my dinner back up. Fortunately, now that I've completed my review, I will never have to watch any of it ever again.
"In 1988, young sisters Katie and Kristi befriend an invisible entity who resides in their home."
Obviously, since I can't even bring myself to review the first "Paranormal Activity" (2007) and my "review" of "Paranormal Activity 2" (2010) is more a serious of spoilers than anything else, you can already guess that if I had anything better to write about, I wouldn't be reviewing this one either.
As much as I like paranormal horror films more than any other, none of these cheap looking "found footage" ripoffs of "The Amityville Horror" have done anything for me. I don't find them scary and, for the most part, I don't even think of them as being real films.
Even though I didn't think it could be possible, "Paranormal Activity 3" is by far the weakest in the series. It's so bad that it actually makes the second one look good especially after revisiting it on Netflix, but don't take that as an endorsement. They are all crap.
One of the things which really bugs me about the "Paranormal Activity" series is that I don't really know anything about anyone involved in them. The directors and writers seem to keep appearing out of nowhere with no obvious past achievements and, based on the quality of the films themselves, they don't deserve to go any further either.
Another thing is how contrived everything is to include parts of the story which there is no good reason for anybody to be filming. In "Paranormal Activity 2", the switch to a handheld camera with nightvision was forced in due to the power going off. In "Paranormal Activity 3", there isn't even that much respect given to the audience.
But enough of the general bitching. "Paranormal Activity 3" is pretty much identical to the last one except that it is supposed to be set in 1988 and be filmed on VHS tapes which it clearly isn't. If the premise had been that the found footage had been filmed on Betamax then there may have been less criticism of the way the film looks since Beta was a higher quality than VHS, but even then, this is high-definition digital camerawork with no attempt to disguise it.
Another problem which everybody is moaning about is that two-thirds of the scenes in the trailer aren't even in the film itself. It doesn't matter to me since I barely look at the trailers anyway but it's a simple "bait and switch" gimmick which eventually is going to get somebody into a lot of trouble if the trend continues. The same thing happened with "Paranormal Activity 2" and "Piranha 3D" (2010) but to a much lesser extent. False advertising is still false advertising no matter how trivial it may be.
The thing which really kills "Paranormal Activity 3" though is that it's boring as shit. Katie Featherston only appears briefly so fans of her big boobies will be disappointed, and since this is another prequel—which I admit is a novel approach to doing things—it's all about childhood versions of Katie and Kristi. The adults in the film have more screen time than the kids, but even so, you have to have exceptionally good child actors to pull something like that off, and the two girls in this just aren't.
The effects are really lacklustre this time. There's a bedsheet ghost which is a bit stupid, some excessively loud bangs which hurt my delicate little ears, and what I can only describe as a "Falcon Blast" (after seeing it in a YouTube parody of whichever computer game it comes from) which was used near the end of "Paranormal Activity 2" as well (depending on which version you saw).
The box office results are already showing that "Paranormal Activity 3" has made so much money ($54,000,000 from the opening weekend) that there will undoubtedly be another one next year. Impressive as that may be to some people, I think they should quit while they are ahead as, presumably, "Paranormal Activity 4" will have to be shot on high-definition Super 8 cine film if they are going to keep doing prequels.
I highly recommend that you do not waste your money going to see this film and save it for "The Awakening" (2011) should it ever get a theatrical release.
"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson."
Well, I finally got round to watching "The Thing" prequel last night. As my only eagerly anticipated film this year, I was so excited about it that I'm probably going to rate it a lot higher than I should do. Even so, it still turned out to be a huge disappointment overall.
Since I'm not one of those people who suffers from nostalgia, I'm not even going to compare the prequel/premake with John Carpenter's 1982 remake too much. To do so would be unfair to both movies as, although the two films look somewhat similar at first glance, apart from the title they are very different entities.
Taking "The Thing" (2011) as a standalone movie is, however, impossible. It's little more than "Alien" (1979) all over again but set in Antarctica rather than outer space. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a Ripley character with a lot less balls than Sigourney Weaver but, with all the action scenes, the similarities are too in your face not to notice.
Another film that "The Thing" is like is "AVP: Alien vs. Predator" (2004) due once again to the formulaic female lead and the overall feel of the movie. Just like "AVP", there's not much tension and the plot tends to lag when it should be full of suspense.
This version of "The Thing" is supposed to be an action movie at heart so it abandons suspense round about the middle of the film in favour of becoming yet another slasher. I found this to be a major weakness and, without giving away any more spoilers than I have to, the monster is revealed way too early and the action is confusing as hell. The sheer number of bearded characters are too many and too undifferentiated for you to care about any of them particularly.
Another big problem is the use of CGI which isn't bad but is hardly groundbreaking or imaginative either. A lot of the time the flaws are hidden by the darkness of the background but this is computer game stuff. Coupled with the extremely loud "boo scares", it's pretty obvious which generation "The Thing" is made for and it's not the older fans of the original.
I'm going to rate "The Thing" as just average for now. It's a prequel after all so it's meant to compliment John Carpenter's version rather than replace it. It was a nice try but, once I get this on DVD, I know that I'll be able to find dozens of anachronisms and plot holes which I didn't even notice during the theatrical experience.
"Survivors of a suspension-bridge collapse learn there's no way you can cheat Death."
Well, I've just watched "Final Destination 5" and, even though I didn't see it in 3D, it was awesome!
I'm sure that a lot of people have been saying this but "Final Destination 5" is easily the best of the sequels and even gives "Final Destination" itself a run for its money. Everything you've come to expect from the franchise has been repeated yet again but slicker, faster and gorier than ever before.
I don't know who any of the actors were apart from Tony Todd (who appeared as little more than a cameo) but I recognised a couple of them from TV. It doesn't matter who plays who in a movie like this anyway as all you really care about are the death scenes and, rest assured, they were brutal!
As with all current movies, I'm not going to give you any spoilers but I am still going to criticise a few things so if you don't want to know, please stop reading after this paragraph.
The first thing I noticed was that the levels of CGI had been increased severely. I doubt that there were even any practical effects used other than blood and makeup but I'm willing to stand corrected about that. It was really good CGI nonetheless and totally in keeping with the rest of the film especially if you are lucky enough to see it in 3D.
Secondly, the acting was very good. Even though it was just another bunch of pretty young adults, this time on a work trip rather than a school vacation, there were a couple of characters to care about and others not so much.
The pacing, which was very fast throughout, didn't allow much time to flesh out any of the characters, but everyone did a damn fine job with what was there. Nobody "phoned it in" when they really could have. I didn't warm to any of the female characters particularly, but I'm sure that I wasn't even supposed to. The fun of all these movies apart from the original is watching people who you can't stand meet their maker.
One actor stood out enough for me to have to look him up but not because of his acting prowess. Miles Fisher looked just like Tom Cruise in some shots which, now that I have further information on him from the IMDb, should only to be expected since impersonating Tom Cruise is his claim to fame. Yes, I am getting out of touch with these young actors, but I doubt that I'll see them in anything else ever again anyway. I'm not saying that to be mean, but I just don't have any interest in the TV shows that they are in.
Going back to the effects, some were too fast to be completely satisfying especially at the otherwise fantastic start, and others could have been a lot gorier for my own tastes, but I don't think the average horror audience would be disappointed. Most of the deaths were incredibly inventive though the use of suspense wasn't quite as good as in the first film.
I've intentionally mentioned the original "Final Destination" a couple of times because, of course, there's a slight twist in this "sequel" in that it's actually a prequel. I didn't even notice until right at the end when it was all tied together.
There's no way of watching "Final Destination 5" without comparing it to "Final Destination" because, apart from the nature of the deaths themselves, it's the same story all over again. If you haven't seen any others in the series then the beauty of this one is that you really don't ever need to, but it certainly made me want to revisit them all.
I highly recommend that you all watch "Final Destination 5" because it has considerably made up for "The Final Destination" (2009) which was pretty much hated by everyone.
"Prequel to the Henry James classic 'Turn of the Screw' about the events leading up to the deaths of Peter Quint and Miss Jessel, and the the slow corruption of the children in their care."
This is a weird one. You are probably all familiar with "Turn of the Screw" or "The Innocents", but I bet you've never heard of Michael Winner's 1971 prequel to it.
Apart from the names of the characters, "The Nightcomers" has very little in common with "The Innocents" as it isn't even a ghost story. It's all about the strange sado-masochistic relationship between Peter Quint (Marlon Brando) and Miss Jessel (Stephanie Beacham) with the effect that they are having on the children as an afterthought.
If you've ever wanted to see Stephanie Beacham naked then this is the film for you. Other than that, it's pretty dull, sometimes plodding, and not a very enjoyable experience at all.
With a couple of scenes of animal cruelty (to a frog and a tortoise), a borderline incestuous relationship between the children, Marlon Brando's bizarre attempt at an Irish accent, and as many plot holes as you could drive a horse-drawn carriage through, "The Nightcomers" stinks as a movie, but it's still a curiosity nonetheless.
The camerawork is okay and it's nice to see England as it used to be at any time. Some of the shots aren't exactly brilliant but they are still more than acceptable.
As far as the acting goes, it's also just okay. Thora Hird overacts as a scolding housekeeper, and the kids are the usual stage school kind with their embarrassingly posh English accents and no chance of ever working again after the '70s. In case you wonder about it (as I did), the girl who played Flora (Verna Harvey) was actually nineteen at the time so it's alright to look if you want to.
"The Nightcomers" is not really a horror movie (until the end) or a particularly good one but if you've ever wondered what a piece of erotic fan fiction based on one of your own favourite movies would look like, this is probably how it would turn out if you let Michael Winner direct it.
"Taking place three days before the events of the John Carpenter film, Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and her two assistants Davida Morris (Davetta Sherwood) and Adam Goodman (Eric Christian Olsen) join a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship buried in the ice of Antarctica. They discover a creature that seems to have died in the crash eons ago.
When an experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate, Adam and Davida join the crew's pilot, Carter (Joel Edgerton), to keep it from killing and imitating them one at a time, using its uncanny ability to mimic any life form it absorbs through digestion, and potentially reaching civilization."
As you may know, "The Thing" is my favourite horror movie of all time. I think this "prequel" looks just like John Carpenter's remake (which obviously it should do) so I'm really looking forward to seeing it. Is anyone else?
"A family moves into their new home, which proves to be evil, resulting in the demonic possession of the teenage son. Only the local priest can save him."
Since I'm on an "Amityville" kick right now, I thought it was about time to rewatch this much maligned and controversial prequel which some wags refer to as "Amityville II: The Incest" for reasons which I'll come to later.
With a script by Tommy Lee Wallace (based very loosely on the book "Murder in Amityville" by Hans Holzer), this fictional account of the murders allegedly committed by Ronald Defeo is a masterpiece of dramatic license. Although all the names are changed from Defeo to Montelli, the family has more children, and there are a lot more supernatural goings-on, the source material is still pretty obvious.
Set in 1974 but with some anachronisms for the careful viewer, "Amityville II: The Possession" may not be quite up to the same overall standard as the original but it still has a few good moments. The house still looks as scary as ever with its evil-eyed windows plus there is a definite gloominess and feeling of dread for the first 60 minutes or so.
Burt Young from "Rocky" is typecast as a stereotypically thuggish Italian-American father, Anthony Montelli, complete with stained wifebeater and is instantly dislikeable. In case anyone forgot that he played Sylvester Stallone's brother-in-law in the "Rocky" movies, there's even a poster on his screen son Sonny's bedroom wall. Only truly eagle-eyed viewers will notice it though and I didn't until I was told about it either.
Jack Magner plays Sonny Montelli in what I think was the only major role in his career. The IMDb has only one more entry for him as a "Young Serviceman" in "Firestarter" (1984) and Googling doesn't shed any more light onto what happened to him after that. Maybe he just got bored with acting. It happens and it's always a shame but I expect his role in "Amityville II" was something that damaged his career even though he was really good in it. James Brolin, in the "For God's Sake, Get Out!" documentary on "The Amityville Horror" DVD claimed that he found it very difficult to find work for years after his starring role too.
Of course, the real star of the show is, no, not TV regular James Olson as Father Adamsky, but a deliciously young and hot Diane Franklin who you may know from "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). Yes, I've now got to the bit you've all been waiting for.
Basically, the possessed Sonny seduces Diane Franklin who plays his sister Patricia. I hate giving away spoilers but the controversy about this vileness and the reactions of some of the most famous movie critics of the time are quite well known. Leonard Maltin called it "alternately dull and disgusting". Surprisingly, Roger Ebert thought that the film was better than the original.
Personally, I think that the whole incest thing was laughably perverted. Sonny showing his sister's knickers to her and admitting that he stole them from the laundry had me smirking for all the wrong reasons. The whole scene is so uncomfortably contrived that quite frankly (no pun intended, Diane Frankin), it's embarrassing to watch.
Because the incest scene totally eclipses the rest of the story for most people, it's quite hard to focus on whether the supernatural and horror elements are any good. The effects are actually pretty decent in the ending which owes far too much to "The Exorcist" but there isn't a lot of gore otherwise.
Some dated but still quite nicely done latex bladder effects don't really have much of a scare factor to them but are amusing to watch. As ever, it really depends on your own point of view if any of them are gross, disgusting or just plain silly. I tend towards the last of those descriptions but I did think that the make-up was much better than the practical effects. While Sonny's transformation was similar to something from "The Evil Dead" (1981), Diane Franklin was made to look uber hot and slutty just when you thought that you wouldn't see her in the film again. That was a very welcome surprise and was almost as trouser-tightening as Linda Blair in "Exorcist II: The Heretic" (where they surely got the idea).
Overall, I think that the director, Damiano Damiani, did a pretty good job with what he had to work with although he really should have spent more time on Rutanya Alda whose Dolores Montelli was simply awful. I don't know what she thought she was acting in.
The ending itself, from the moment where Father Adamsky (whose name I associate with a UK popstar) persuades the detective played by Moses Gunn to let him take Sonny out of the hospital, is something which could only exist in a Dino De Laurentiis production and is necessary once most of the characters who you've got used to for the better part of the film have all disappeared. Some might say that the ending is noticeably tacked on just to up the horror quotient but there are indications all the way through the story that this is what will happen.
So, do I still recommend "Amityville II: The Possession" after all these years? Even in spite of its flaws, I do. If you've never seen "The Exorcist" or any other Amityville film then you will be thoroughly entertained by it.
"Amityville II: The Possession" has a high-quality look to it which hasn't allowed the movie to become too dated at all. Yes, it's full of as many clichés as one of my movie reviews but it takes a lot of chances by not following the predictability of every other "haunted house" movie which preceded it.
If you want a derivative yet somewhat original mix of the best bits from "The Amityville Horror", "The Exorcist" and "The Evil Dead" all rolled into one then "Amityville II: The Possession" is for you.
I just don't get it. What is the younger generation's fascination with these "Underworld" movies? Is it because they have about as much emotion as a bad X-box game or is it just all the hype that surrounds each release? To me, the first two Underworld movies were like watching blue and black paint dry and this prequel, rather than sequel, was no better.
I've seen some reviews where people have said that "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" is like a vampire and werewolf version of "Spartacus". Bullshit! Although there was a definite homage to some scenes in "Spartacus" (and a ton of prison based movies ever since) there's simply no comparison between this vapid mess and an Oscar-winning epic full of cinematic excellence. At its best, "Rise of the Lycans" was yet another "Romeo and Juliet" based fantasy but with more bloodshed and action than usual. At its worst, it was just more blandness with wooden acting, pitiful characterisation and hardly any plot.
Now I'm sure that there will be people that think I'm writing this out of some kind of spitefulness because uber hot Kate Beckinsale wasn't in it and there will be others that think that I've become too old to enjoy these fantasy rather than horror movies for what they are. To that I say, if a movie stinks then it will for any age group whether it has a PG, PG-13 or an R rating on it. I can't even believe that "Rise of the Lycans" got an R rating either because apart from a few over-the-top blood spatters and beheadings, there was nothing much worse in this computer generated crap than you'd see in the remake of "King Kong". Ok, there's bit of sexiness at one point where you don't get to see anything and Viktor the vampire could be made out to be shit-yer-pants scary if you're about five years old but an R rating for this? Do me a favour.
The praise for "Rise of the Lycans" that I've seen around the net has all usually included the words, "not as bad as I thought it was going to be" and then goes on to enthuse over Rhona Mitra being no worse than Kate Beckinsale and Michael Sheen being sexier than Scott Speedman. What the hell? It was definitely as bad as I thought it was going to be and the only reason Rhona Mitra is no worse than Kate Beckinsale is because neither of them can act worth a shit in the first place.
As for Welshman Michael Sheen yelling a lot and bulging his eyes out in pain or constipation every time he got chance to show his manly chest off, well, I'll leave that for the girls to decide about. His acting was textbook action hero stuff which makes Jean Claude Van Damme look like a Shakespearian in comparison.
Apart from the deep-voiced "James Earl Jones soundalike" Kevin Grevioux everyone in the film appeared to be British and delivered their lines loudly and mechanically to the point of embarrassment. Yes, I get it, they are vampires and supposed to be cold and emotionless but, even so, this was cringeworthy stuff especially for Bill Nighy with his scary blue contact lenses.
It just felt to me as if, once the actors got their costumes on, that was all that they thought was required to carry the parts. There's no chemistry between anybody, no empathy evoked by any of the characters and it's all just a matter of waiting for the special effects to try and deliver something. Unfortunately even the practical effects looked fake and the CG werewolf battles made it even worse.
Once again, the film suffered from the "quick cut/handheld cams" combination that makes knowing who is doing what to who pretty much impossible. I don't think I've seen much worse since "AVP 2", but just about all the action movies lately have been full of this nonsense and it needs to be stopped right now! Lots of clanging, growling and grunting were added almost haphazardly to the mix to make it exciting, but it just got on my nerves. At least the audio kept me awake though because everything else was so boring.
I honestly can't recommend "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" to anybody sane or over the age of six as its just not involving enough to be entertaining. Yes, it's all very blue and everyone looks really pale so it's probably a must see for Delft pottery collectors the world over but, for a horror fan, no.
