Login
"Underworld" is interesting in that it that it is very clearly a product of its time that hit theaters at just the right moment. Any sooner or later and it would of been the target of ridicule. Alas, it was not at least not by the viewing audiences (critics weren't particularly kind). Admittedly, I am one of the ones suckered by it and I'm 100% okay with that. It came at the precise moment when the collective hunger for three films was at an all time high and it fulfilled those needs in its own distinct way. For that reason, it remains something of a guilty pleasure for some and a downright classic for others.
Let's be honest here, this movie owes a lot to the alluded to three films. These three movies had an immense cultural impact with their visual style, dense mythos, deadly serious tone, unique color palette, and focus on stylized action. They were: The Matrix, The Crow, and Blade. Indeed, a cursory glance at "Underworld" will belie those influences. Imitation need not be frowned upon every time, however. "Underworld" also tapped into the goth/metal/alternative subcultures which, at the time, had reached a commercial mainstream peak.
So, with the stars aligned, the story of a leather and latex-clad vampiress assassin in the midst of a centuries long feud with Lycans (werewolves) captured the imagination of audiences and became something of a surprise hit. Made on a tight budget the film also impressed seasoned fans of genre fare with its dedication to practical effects work. Fans of action had a glut of it here with seemingly every inch of "cool" squeezed out of gunplay and fancy moves. To its credit the movie never completely devolves into an orgiastic frenzy of flips and kicks. Instead, it bides its time between indulgent action set pieces and a mystery story. It also doesn't have pretensions of being overly clever. It is what it is and it's good at being just that.
It's brooding tone and distinct blue on black color scheme sets it apart while complimenting the material though it might wear thin on some viewers. Sets, effects work, and costumes are particularly impressive given how low the budget was. You'd think this was a mega-budget affair.
The cast, too, is quite a win for the viewer. Bill Nighy entrances as Viktor, the ruthless leader of the vampires. Kate Beckinsale surprised back then for going from comedy and drama roles to a full on action heroine complete with steely gaze, cold demeanor, and impressive fighting skills. Michael Sheen as Lucian, the leader of the Lycans, stands out in a role that proves to have more substance than the viewer initially suspected. The rest of the cast too seems very much involved in the process and, overall, you feel like you got more than you bargained for in all the best ways.
Ultimately, "Underworld" is kind of a big, silly movie. This is vampires versus werewolves, after all, but something about it just makes it memorable. The mix of its particular aesthetics, its almost staunch refusal to wink at the audience, it's impressive production values, and fantastic cast somehow all just click and elevate the material from goofy to a damn good time.
Is this movie perfect? Far from it. If anything its a snapshot of the times but it's also one that hasn't aged horribly. It's aged with an air of nostalgia that makes everything that's starting to feel silly just this side of acceptable. Despite it's serious approach, the movie never shies away from being what it is, a big ol' monster slugfest and, because of that, it will be fondly looked upon. Need proof? This became a franchise. One that always got decent returns on its budget. Somebody keeps watching these for a reason and a lot of that good faith was earned on this sole film. I give Underworld 7/10.
