UNDERWORLD 3: THE RISE OF THE LYCANS (2009)

Add Review To List
Add Film To List
Write Your Own Review

"... It just furthers my questioning as to why the filmmakers felt this movie at all necessary..."

As a definite lover of all breeds of dog, I find it only natural that I take a particular liking towards anything that has to do with the canine species... Especially werewolves. I mean, what's not to love about changing into a burly, fur coated tank with razor sharp teeth and claws, whose senses have been amped up the wazoo? How great would that be? I mean, aside from all the gutting/maiming/killing that goes along with it, of course. The whole human-wolf thing is just a fun and interesting concept-anything of that nature is. Thus, it comes as no surprise that countless stories have tried to emulate this myth via celluloid using all of the special effects that go along with it. The Howling and An American Werewolf in London depicted the beastly transformation with bone-cracking horror; Wolfen tried the whole shebang like a folklore drenched thriller; Dog Soldiers just plain-out kicked ass (ever seen a wolf fight with a sword impaled through its torso?)... And everything in between? Well, there have been some stand-out features dabbled here and there, but mostly, this side of mythology normally gets all the camp and none of the fun. Thankfully, the first Underworld film helped to try and change this. By utilizing techniques both old and new, Len Wisemen was able to create a vision all his own. Dark, rain-drenched streets; elegantly choreographed sequences of werewolf on vampire bloodshed; a compelling story soaked with revenge and betrayal; Kate Bekinsale in leather... Yeah... Despite the film's few shortcomings, it tossed in just enough maturity and intense action to put a new spin on the tales that came before it. And then they made a second one.

And now... A third one.

Should have stopped while they were ahead.

Now, I'm sure each and every person already knows this, but I'm going to bark it out once more. This is a prequel establishing the "fall" of the vampires at the paws of the werewolves and their leader Lucian. And yes, this back-story was already established, but for God-knows-why, the filmmakers thought it a good idea to revisit it. My biggest issue with this film is that it is completely uncalled for. There was NO reason to make this film. We all knew this story and seeing it play out in such a dull and monotonous way does not help anyone. Even the crutch of it all-the love between Lucian and the female vampire played by Rhona Mitra-was perfect the way it was. In Underworld this Romeo and Juliet-esque romance served as both an interesting plot point as well as a cool little twist as to who was actually the victim and oppressor. Here, it just furthers my questioning as to why the filmmakers felt this movie at all necessary-then again, money does speak louder than words.

So taking the absolute pointlessness of it all into consideration, is it still good? Well, if your definition of good is watching fight scenes ripped out of every movie ever, being bored, watching sex scenes that come off as laughable rather than "sensual", being bored again, listening to a dull orchestral score, waiting for something interesting to happen, observing ridiculously fake effects, trying to fill in all of the gaps that the plot holes leave... Well... If that's your definition of good... Well then, my friend-you have found paradise.

Nothing about this film is either original or entertaining. In fact, it digs itself so deep with concepts so bad, I couldn't stop laughing. One shot has Lucian pushing two armored vampires off of a mountain and into the sunlight. The execution of this sequence had the whole room laughing... And it didn't stop (or even begin) there. The ensuing mess of a plot, blatant CG and green screen, the "wha--?" of an ending... This is just one unpolished film that is completely obvious in its attempt to cash-in on the previous installment's popularity. If the content herein isn't something you haven't seen already done to death, then it's something so poorly constructed that it doesn't even matter.

So, was there any positive I came away with? Well, the acting is fine... Bill Nighy is an amazing actor and absolutely kills the role of the psycho-vampire father Viktor as he's able to convey such extremes of love and hate within the same breath. Everyone else... Well, like I said, they do fine, but outside of Nighy, they're quite forgettable and didn't have me siding with their plight at all. I just wanted to see werewolves, excuse me-"Lycans" kick some ass. Oh, and the set design was quite stellar in its moody presentation... But yeah... Having a tough time coming up with anything else.

The overall pile of broken ideas, and half-assed concepts and characters this film creates could possibly be chalked up to the fact that Len Wisemen---the original writer/director---had nothing to do with either the script or the direction (thank Patrick Tatopoulos for that) of this one... Even still, it takes a lot of people to make a bad film, and he still served as a producer of some sort.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is not good as a prequel, nor is it good as a standalone film. Instead, the film is a test of tolerance. How mindless can a movie become before you give up on it? How many disjointed story elements can you handle before you stop questioning? How many drab "action" scenes can you sit through while still retaining hope for something the least bit entertaining? This isn't the worst film out there by any means, but it is one of the bigger disappointments. Werewolves deserve better.