Gorier, Sexier, Mediocre
So I saw "Underworld: Evolution" with Jo.
Dunno quite what to think just yet. I had really high hopes going into it, cuz I am a big fan of the first film, and was eager to see where they took it. Unfortunately, it seems that serial films are suffering from the "Matrix Syndrome" these days - the second was technically superior, but narratively inferior to its predecessor. Color me biased, but there are two strikes against the second film in terms of craft, one in terms of personal taste.
What I like about the first film* is that there is a lot of give-and-take between the heroes and villians in the vagaries of fortune. I recall in my scriptwriting class that a "well balanced" script balances fortunes: when one character's situation improves , another's worsens (not just between direct antagonists - "winning and losing" in other words). I feel such a balance exists in the first film - such to the point where it gets difficult to determine true allies from true enemies - a more organic way of complicating the characters.
Herein lies my major problem with the sequel: the character relationships are much too straightforward. There are no betrayals, no turns of heart, nada.
Overt simplicity also founds my other criticism of the film: for all the expanded budget on new locations, the linear trajectory of the story arc echos its geography. Its basically a race story, where the only change is who is chasing whom, and why.
These two things together make the film feel like a Dragon Ball Z episode: chasing leads to fighting leads to chasing, and the solution to obstacles is brute force; meaning that all the characters become ridiculously inflated in their abilities by the end of the story (hence the Dragon Ball Z "Chronic Badass-ness"). Strength and lethality beget more strength and lethality. Its tiring.
My personal criticisms revolve around the deployment of eroticism. The sex scene was awkward, as I know the lead actress and and the director are married. I mean, I feel really bad for Speedman: how would you like to have some woman's husband tell you how to correctly fake-fuck her? "No no! Here's how we do it at home..." Not only that, but that the director's objectifying his own wife. It estranges me from the moment too much.
I dunno - the nudity just felt weird.
That said, big thumbs up for the CGI/SFX. Much smoother; the transformations were pretty cool, and much more sophisticated than the original.
Also, the fight choreography has improved a great deal.
And Beckinsale's costume continues to get my stamp of approval. It is hott.
BTW, there is, of course, a huge, HUGE set-up for a sequel...
* the contrived romance in the first installation is, and continues to be, my only major qualm. The first film would have been SO much the better without it.
Dunno quite what to think just yet. I had really high hopes going into it, cuz I am a big fan of the first film, and was eager to see where they took it. Unfortunately, it seems that serial films are suffering from the "Matrix Syndrome" these days - the second was technically superior, but narratively inferior to its predecessor. Color me biased, but there are two strikes against the second film in terms of craft, one in terms of personal taste.
What I like about the first film* is that there is a lot of give-and-take between the heroes and villians in the vagaries of fortune. I recall in my scriptwriting class that a "well balanced" script balances fortunes: when one character's situation improves , another's worsens (not just between direct antagonists - "winning and losing" in other words). I feel such a balance exists in the first film - such to the point where it gets difficult to determine true allies from true enemies - a more organic way of complicating the characters.
Herein lies my major problem with the sequel: the character relationships are much too straightforward. There are no betrayals, no turns of heart, nada.
Overt simplicity also founds my other criticism of the film: for all the expanded budget on new locations, the linear trajectory of the story arc echos its geography. Its basically a race story, where the only change is who is chasing whom, and why.
These two things together make the film feel like a Dragon Ball Z episode: chasing leads to fighting leads to chasing, and the solution to obstacles is brute force; meaning that all the characters become ridiculously inflated in their abilities by the end of the story (hence the Dragon Ball Z "Chronic Badass-ness"). Strength and lethality beget more strength and lethality. Its tiring.
My personal criticisms revolve around the deployment of eroticism. The sex scene was awkward, as I know the lead actress and and the director are married. I mean, I feel really bad for Speedman: how would you like to have some woman's husband tell you how to correctly fake-fuck her? "No no! Here's how we do it at home..." Not only that, but that the director's objectifying his own wife. It estranges me from the moment too much.
I dunno - the nudity just felt weird.
That said, big thumbs up for the CGI/SFX. Much smoother; the transformations were pretty cool, and much more sophisticated than the original.
Also, the fight choreography has improved a great deal.
And Beckinsale's costume continues to get my stamp of approval. It is hott.
BTW, there is, of course, a huge, HUGE set-up for a sequel...
* the contrived romance in the first installation is, and continues to be, my only major qualm. The first film would have been SO much the better without it.