I hear the Underworld film series is bad... But is it bad in a good way?

[-Sentinel-]

Another year, another Underworld movie opening to terrible reviews (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/underworld-blood-wars) yet still somehow turning a profit. I've always ignored this series until now, dismissing it as one of the many dime-a-dozen, formulaic fantasy series that give the whole genre a bad name, but... clearly they're doing something right if they manage to sustain a fanbase. I've seen people on social media say they watched the last movie (Blood Wars) and enjoyed themselves.

So how is it, really? Is it so-bad-it's-good? Or is it an unironic guilty pleasure? Or is it just crap that deserves to flop?

Also, if I go see Blood Wars without watching any of the previous movies, will I be hopelessly lost?

[Cheesegear]

So how is it, really? Is it bad in a so-bad-it's-good way? Or is it an unironic guilty pleasure? Or is it just crap that deserves to flop?

No. Underworld is the good version of trash. If you were going to have Vampires and Werewolves fight each other, Underworld is how you'd do it. It's basically the worst idea ever, but executed in basically the best way it could possibly be.

Blood Wars also features the acting talents of the bad guy from Outlander, who very much deserves to be in a way better movie. Tobias Menzies steals every scene in his TV show, and he absolutely steals the scene in Blood Wars from everyone who isn't Kate Beckinsale...But even steals the scene from her more than once. Once again, Tobias Menzies deserves to be in a much, much better film than an Underworld sequel.


Also, if I go see Blood Wars without watching any of the previous movies, will I be hopelessly lost?

There's a fairly solid opening sequence that should explain most of it. However, I'd also watched the other four the week before I saw I Blood Wars, so it was real fresh in my mind. I think Blood Wars is almost on par with the original - because of the acting talent of the antagonist comparing to Bill Nighy will is a hard ceiling to crack.

So...I liked the Underworld series. But I also realise that it is trash. Probably see it with friends.

[warty goblin]

Not really. Underworld is so bad it's OK. Resident Evil, now those movies are so bad they're good. Mostly because they absolutely have the courage of their convictions, and those convictions are to always have the stupidest possible form of violence occur on screen. In slow motion. Sometimes there's bits where Mila Jovovitch isn't wearing anything, just for good measure.

Put it this way, Underworld thinks the protagonist jumping around and cutting a guy's head in half so cleanly it takes a second to slide off is enough to achieve goodness through badness. Resident Evil knows that's insufficient, and instead blows the head off a giant mutant with a shotgun loaded with a roll of quarters. In. Very. Slow. Motion. Admittedly it takes a couple movies to get that stupid, but nobody can achieve such greatness immediately.

[Palanan]

Oddly enough, I tried watching parts of Underworld Awakening twice last week, and gave up each time because it was so stylishly terrible. And that’s not even including the mutant hybrid vampire child.

I think I saw the second (?) movie in the theater with a girlfriend, years ago, and we spent the rest of the night talking about how absolutely none of it made sense.

Really, if you have the option, just skip it. You won’t be missing anything.

[Ramza00]

I would argue that the first underworld movie, just like the first blade movie was so bad that it was good. Something kind of like camp but different, perhaps the term kitsch would apply but there may be a better descriptor than kitsch.

Now Underworld 2, and the third Underworld movie (which was a prequel) was just plain bad. Never saw the 4th movie, maybe I will see the 5th movie but I probably should have something to drink before hand if I choose to see it in theaters.

[Ramza00]

One last thing the actor Scott Speedman (Michael) was hot as *censored* in the first underworld movie. My pure straight male colleagues would probably say the same thing for Kate Beckinsale (Selene).

Rhona Mitra (Sonja), the female lead in the 3rd movie aka the prequel was so sexy in personality and charm in Boston Legal that I would have seen Underworld: The Rise of the Lycan just to hope for her doing something sexy even if the movie was unconnected to the Underworld franchise. That said this hope was sadly dashed and mauled to death when I actually saw that Underworld movie.

[Knaight]

The first to are worth watching as bad movies - they aren't spectacularly bad, and I wouldn't put either of them anywhere near the glory that is Sharknado in this regard, but they're worth watching. They're particularly worth watching if you can appreciate really dumb science in movies, and this has it. There's a bit involving ultraviolet bullets that is just hilarious.

[SaintRidley]

They're fun movies with good looking werewolves (not Ginger Snaps level, mind, but better than most) and an enjoyable aesthetic. I love them all.

[Kitten Champion]

The first Underworld has this strange effect on me only remembering the few enjoyable bits - like the scene where Kate Beckinsale breaks through the floor by shooting down in a circle - and forgetting the tedious too-serious rest of it. After coming back to it on television years later I was kind of surprised how little I cared for it, and the adjoining sequels were even drearier.

I would agree with Warty Goblin, it lacks Resident Evil's ability to be whimsical with its vacuousness. It also recycles itself heavily, whereas Resident Evil actively reinvents itself continuously regardless of logic. Like, if you showed me a scene chosen at random from any of the RE movies I could tell you which one came from, whereas with Underworld sequels... not so much.

[Knaight]

The first Underworld has this strange effect on me only remembering the few enjoyable bits - like the scene where Kate Beckinsale breaks through the floor by shooting down in a circle - and forgetting the tedious too-serious rest of it. After coming back to it on television years later I was kind of surprised how little I cared for it, and the adjoining sequels were even drearier.

I found that part of its charm. It takes itself seriously throughout, while constantly tossing out ludicrous nonsense scene after scene, and that more than anything is what made it. The circle shooting floor drop, the UV bullets, the head slide scene, all of them are in a movie that acts like it does serious storytelling.

[danzibr]

To throw in my two cents, I liked them. Only saw the 1st, 2nd, and 4th though (so missed the prequel and the one that just came out).

[KillingAScarab]

The first Underworld has this strange effect on me only remembering the few enjoyable bits - like the scene where Kate Beckinsale breaks through the floor by shooting down in a circle - and forgetting the tedious too-serious rest of it. After coming back to it on television years later I was kind of surprised how little I cared for it, and the adjoining sequels were even drearier.The shoot-the-floor-out-from-under-yourself scene is about the only thing I can remember from that movie, though I saw it in a theater. Frankly, I think I remember that mostly because it was tested on Mythbusters (http://mythresults.com/special9).

[Legato Endless]

To throw in my two cents, I liked them. Only saw the 1st, 2nd, and 4th though (so missed the prequel and the one that just came out).

The only enjoyment to be wretched from the prequel is the study in contrasts between Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy. Sheen knows on some level he's in an adolescent tragedian's first attempt at Shakespeare, but does his professional best to take it all seriously. He's the only convincing thing in the film. Nighy is shamelessly comfortable with the fact this won't be in his oeuvre, and indulges himself accordingly.

[The Troubadour]

I'd say the series is very uneven in quality. I really like the first and the third movies, especially the third; they're not well-written, mind, and the plot is very formulaic, but the characters are engaging and the actors (except for Speedman) really sell the whole thing (particularly Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen, as pointed out before, but I'd also like to give props to Tony Curran as the second movie's villain and Steven Mackintosh as Tanis, though mostly in the third movie - his role in the second one is too short).

"Evolution", the second movie, still has some very good action scenes, but the plot is even weaker. I absolutely hated "Awakening", though, which is little more than a wankfest for Selene fans - not even Charles Dance is good in this movie.

[warty goblin]

The first Underworld has this strange effect on me only remembering the few enjoyable bits - like the scene where Kate Beckinsale breaks through the floor by shooting down in a circle - and forgetting the tedious too-serious rest of it. After coming back to it on television years later I was kind of surprised how little I cared for it, and the adjoining sequels were even drearier.

Weirdly enough, I have exactly the same thing going on with Underworld, where I sort of remember liking it more than I'm pretty sure I actually liked it. I can't remember the second one at all, except that it contained a sex scene that only made sense if vampire genitals are located at about belly button level. I'm pretty sure I actually own the third one, but I've never watched it.


I would agree with Warty Goblin, it lacks Resident Evil's ability to be whimsical with its vacuousness. It also recycles itself heavily, whereas Resident Evil actively reinvents itself continuously regardless of logic. Like, if you showed me a scene chosen at random from any of the RE movies I could tell you which one came from, whereas with Underworld sequels... not so much.
Ayup, this is another fun thing about the RE movies, they're all totally different; insofar as about Mila Jovovitch killing weirdoid zombies can be different. But you never know exactly what form of ludicrousness you're going to get from one to the next, but you do know it's going to be really stupid, in a sort of awesome way. Particularly after the first one, which is by far the worst. The second one got a lot stupider, and therefore way better.

Or worse. Or more fun, or something. Look, it's hard to use language to describe the exact quality of the RE movies, because 'good' implies they're, well, good. Which they're not. But they're not indifferent either, and only 'bad' in a sort of 'good' way. They occupy a unique, and reasonably enjoyable point in movie space, let's go with that.
.

[Palanan]

Let’s not forget that the first movie is essentially a love letter to the Matrix trilogy, written in werewolf blood. I can’t speak for the rest of the series, but the first movie is a blatant ripoff of homage to the visual ethos of Matrix.

As for the sex scene in the second movie, my girlfriend and I couldn’t figure out what the point was, or how it even happened in the narrative, given that Selene and the guy were being actively pursued at the time.

At least, as near as I can recall. That's a movie which I've thankfully managed to almost completely forget.

[DallerMan]

Average movie, my score 5.5/10

[Knaight]

As for the sex scene in the second movie, my girlfriend and I couldn’t figure out what the point was, or how it even happened in the narrative, given that Selene and the guy were being actively pursued at the time.

At least, as near as I can recall. That's a movie which I've thankfully managed to almost completely forget.

The point is that there were some good looking people playing their leads, and the studio wanted money.

[Lemmy]

I thought the first one was dumb, but entertaining... The other ones are completely forgettable IMO. I couldn't tell them apart if my life depended on it.

[Lexiconjurer]

Underworld is... weird. There's just something about it. Despite a weird, empty feeling, 'romance' and grimdark characters who take themselves way too seriously, the movies are mostly enjoyable. Kate Beckinsale certainly helps with that. I've liked most of them except for Awakening. That one wasn't much of anything.

[kinem]

I saw only the 2nd movie. Hated it, because the plot was so dumb - all of the villains are dumb and have unbelievably stupid goals and actions, with the sole exception of the one who just has the mind of a rabid animal and therefore his actions (just attack everything) make sense. It did have one minor point of interest: one bit of monster design that I had not seen before, but that was not enough to redeem it.

[Winter_Wolf]

My thoughts: I fell asleep about ten or fifteen minutes into the first one and woke up after the end credits started rolling. So maybe I'm not qualified to say it's a bad movie, but it was excellent for falling asleep. Falling asleep during a movie, especially that early into it, is not what I'd call the hallmark of a good film.

[Rynjin]

The first and third movies (the third is a prequel) are so bad they're good. The third one is the best of the bunch in many ways, IMO.

The second is absolute hot garbage. It was bad, without being fun like the other two.

I didn't know there was a fourth one. I was amazed when this new one came out because I thought it WAS the fourth one and it seemed weird to make a sequel after 7 years.

[Videkus]

I hear the Underworld film series is bad... But is it bad in a good way?Kate Beckinsale in leather is always good.

[Cheesegear]

So I watched Resident Evil 6...Who would have thought that xXx 3 isn't the worst movie I've seen so far this year? Triple. X. Not the worst. Amazing.