Hey peeps. My blog has moved to the Seattle PI for now. Check it out!
http://blog.seattlepi.com/reviewerguy/
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Reviewer Guy Happily Wanders Thru Land of the Lost
For those of you over 30 and remember a little Saturday morning kids show in the 70's by Sid and Marty Krofft called Land of the Lost about the Marshall family who fall through a rift in time into an alternate prehistoric universe where they encounter dinosaurs, primates and lizard beings called Sleestacks was campy good fun. The effects were cheesy but as a kid, who care. Now, 25 years after its debut, the Kroffts have produced Land of the Lost (LotL) to the big screen starring Will Ferrell as Dr. Rick Marshall. It is a blast. After seeing clips and endless promotion of the film, I admit it looked dumb, but I was pleasantly surprised. You can say this is more of a reboot than a remake, as Rick Marshall goes into LotL with Will and Holly, but Holly is a scientist and Will is a trailer trash owner of a pathetic cave ride and souvenirs tailored for the mind of pre pubescent boys.
The film opens with a hilarious interview of Dr. Marshall on the Today show with Matt Lauer (Matt Lauer can surprisingly act) where Dr. Marshall is a quantum paleontologist. The interview is a disaster and Dr. Marshall becomes a laughing stock in the scientific community. But, a sexy scientist from Cambridge, Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel) pays him a visit and gives him the strength to complete his invention that could make them travel sideways in time. They set out to prove Marshall's time travel theory correct, where they encounter Will Stanton (Danny McBride) and they get sucked into a space-time vortex, where they save the life of a primate name Chaka (Jorma Taccone) and the adventure to try to find their way home begins. Here they try to survive a grumpy Tyrannosaurus Rex, blood sucking bugs, hallucinogenic coconuts, pterodactyls and a plot by the lizard creature Sleestacks to take over the world.
Now, done the wrong way, this movie could've descended into a giant painful cheeseball fest, but Brad Siberling's direction keeps the film flowing, funny and entertaining. Don't get me wrong, this is not a film to be taken seriously, but in the silliness that it is intended. There are some truly laugh out loud moments in here. Sure, there is predictability and corny lines (mainly from McBride, who I felt overall was the weakest of the actors) but the film works and I am surprised by how much it is getting trashed. Taccone was a treat as Chaka, Friel is solid enough as Holly but this is clearly Ferrell's vehicle and he does not disappoint. I am not the biggest fan of Ferrell (especially his sports related films) but he is hilarious and perfectly cast as Marshall. There is no denying his strength as a comedic actor. Land of the Lost is much better than its given credit for. If you like the TV show, you will really enjoy this version and even if you never saw the show before, you will have fun. Give it a chance. I rate it 3.5 out of 5 stars and is now playing in a theater near you.
The film opens with a hilarious interview of Dr. Marshall on the Today show with Matt Lauer (Matt Lauer can surprisingly act) where Dr. Marshall is a quantum paleontologist. The interview is a disaster and Dr. Marshall becomes a laughing stock in the scientific community. But, a sexy scientist from Cambridge, Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel) pays him a visit and gives him the strength to complete his invention that could make them travel sideways in time. They set out to prove Marshall's time travel theory correct, where they encounter Will Stanton (Danny McBride) and they get sucked into a space-time vortex, where they save the life of a primate name Chaka (Jorma Taccone) and the adventure to try to find their way home begins. Here they try to survive a grumpy Tyrannosaurus Rex, blood sucking bugs, hallucinogenic coconuts, pterodactyls and a plot by the lizard creature Sleestacks to take over the world.
Now, done the wrong way, this movie could've descended into a giant painful cheeseball fest, but Brad Siberling's direction keeps the film flowing, funny and entertaining. Don't get me wrong, this is not a film to be taken seriously, but in the silliness that it is intended. There are some truly laugh out loud moments in here. Sure, there is predictability and corny lines (mainly from McBride, who I felt overall was the weakest of the actors) but the film works and I am surprised by how much it is getting trashed. Taccone was a treat as Chaka, Friel is solid enough as Holly but this is clearly Ferrell's vehicle and he does not disappoint. I am not the biggest fan of Ferrell (especially his sports related films) but he is hilarious and perfectly cast as Marshall. There is no denying his strength as a comedic actor. Land of the Lost is much better than its given credit for. If you like the TV show, you will really enjoy this version and even if you never saw the show before, you will have fun. Give it a chance. I rate it 3.5 out of 5 stars and is now playing in a theater near you.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Reviewer Gets Dragged to Hell
Drag Me to Hell written and directed by Sam Raimi is to put it bluntly...Awful. I have to say that when I heard Sam Raimi was taking a break from Spider Man to go back to directing his first true horror film since Army of Darkness, I was looking forward to it. Then when I saw the trailers and now the film, I feel like telling Sam to stick, with Spider Man for now because he's lost his horror movie directing edge.
A tale of bad things happen to good people is taken to the extreme when a sweet, innocent loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) fails to give an extension on a mortgage to a decrepit gypsy woman Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver), Mrs Ganush decides to put a hex on sweet little Christine whereby a demon will come to...you know, the title gives it away, unless she can find a way to reverse the curse. She sets out doing this with the help from her ever so accommodating boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long) and a psychic medium Rham Jas (Dileep Rao).
The film is boring, full of horror cliches that are not scary and the laughs are not that funny. There is one scene featuring embalming fluid that was pretty funny, I'll give it that. The key ingredient missing in this film was Bruce Campbell not having a cameo, which would've provided needed comic relief. The acting is sorely lacking. Alison Lohman just doesn't live truthfully under any of the given and imaginary circumstances that befall her. She certainly didn't have a feeling about what was happening to her. Don't get me started on Justin Long. He simply looks clueless and I am just not sure why he is so popular. He looks like he is sleep walking through the film. I will say that Dileep Rao brings some sort of depth to his character as the medium and there are times when I felt something from him. Lorna Raver does a good job as the hexing gypsy woman but unfortunately neither she nor Dileep can save the film.
As for Sam Raimi, I was expecting more from the horror maven. This is a boring and sloppy film. I felt cheated. He essentially rigs up a lot of the same cheap gimmicks from the Evil Dead series into this mind numbing story. It was disappointing because it feels like Sam just needed something to do while waiting to make Spider Man 4. If you are a fan of mainstream horror that lacks any depth or thrills than this is the film for you. Otherwise, save your money. I give Drag Me to Hell 1 out of 5 stars. It is currently playing at a theater near you.
A tale of bad things happen to good people is taken to the extreme when a sweet, innocent loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) fails to give an extension on a mortgage to a decrepit gypsy woman Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver), Mrs Ganush decides to put a hex on sweet little Christine whereby a demon will come to...you know, the title gives it away, unless she can find a way to reverse the curse. She sets out doing this with the help from her ever so accommodating boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long) and a psychic medium Rham Jas (Dileep Rao).
The film is boring, full of horror cliches that are not scary and the laughs are not that funny. There is one scene featuring embalming fluid that was pretty funny, I'll give it that. The key ingredient missing in this film was Bruce Campbell not having a cameo, which would've provided needed comic relief. The acting is sorely lacking. Alison Lohman just doesn't live truthfully under any of the given and imaginary circumstances that befall her. She certainly didn't have a feeling about what was happening to her. Don't get me started on Justin Long. He simply looks clueless and I am just not sure why he is so popular. He looks like he is sleep walking through the film. I will say that Dileep Rao brings some sort of depth to his character as the medium and there are times when I felt something from him. Lorna Raver does a good job as the hexing gypsy woman but unfortunately neither she nor Dileep can save the film.
As for Sam Raimi, I was expecting more from the horror maven. This is a boring and sloppy film. I felt cheated. He essentially rigs up a lot of the same cheap gimmicks from the Evil Dead series into this mind numbing story. It was disappointing because it feels like Sam just needed something to do while waiting to make Spider Man 4. If you are a fan of mainstream horror that lacks any depth or thrills than this is the film for you. Otherwise, save your money. I give Drag Me to Hell 1 out of 5 stars. It is currently playing at a theater near you.
The Reviewer Takes On Terminator: Salvation
Another summer blockbuster is upon us with McG's Terminator Salvation. A prequel set in the future to the Terminator series. To those familiar with the Terminator story, the film takes place in 2018, years after the military computer system called Skynet has become self aware. Having deemed humans a threat and in what humans call Judgement Day, Skynet launches a nuclear assault wiping out most of mankind. The rest are hunted by machines called Terminators. However, there is hope for mankind in the form of the legendary resistance fighter, John Connor(Christian Bale). The film centers around the resistance to the machines. Connor is tasked with finding a teenage Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin, who is our hero from the first Terminator who, as you recall, traveled back in time to save John's mother Sarah Connor) who, like Connor is targeted for execution. Into the mix is a mysterious "man" called Marcus, who in 2003 was executed but donated his body to Cyberdyne Systems (and for those Terminator fanboys and girls, we know who Cyberdyne is) and resurfaces after 15 years. But is he friend or foe? It is a race against time for the resistance against the dreaded machines.
Now, I'm a huge fan of the Terminator series, except for the terrible TV show. I had always been curious about what a film would be like that explored the time of John Connor taking on the machines in the future. However, I was skeptical when I heard McG would be the one to show us this future. But, he does a pretty decent job. The action is really good and the effects are fantastic. The first half of the film is exciting and keeps your interest. Unfortunately, it cannot sustain itself as holes in the plot become apparent and there is suspension of disbelief that is just too unbelievable to the point of laughable. There are some clever references to the previous Terminator films and a very special surprise in store. You will recognize the catch phrases, although one made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger is force fed into the dialogue that it is just too contrived.
As for the acting, a lot has been made of Christian Bale's meltdown on the set that became viral several months ago and I for one have been very critical of Mr. Bale for doing that. But, he does a good job as John Connor. He did not play him with any Hollywood swagger, but a believable soldier who is in a very tough spot, he is reminiscent of the way Michael Biehn portrayed Reese in the first Terminator. All business. But, Bale does it with more finesse and frankly is a better actor. He was living out his imaginary circumstance with truthfulness and is effective. Anton Yelchin, (certainly has a good agent, getting the job as Reese and also portraying Chekov in Star Trek) does an adequate job as Reese but is fairly forgettable. Sam Worthington as Marcus is a worthy partner for Bale and they seemed to play off each other fairly well. Rounding out the cast are veterans, Helena Bonham Carter and Michael Ironside who also do a good job in their respective limited roles.
Overall, this is a so so film with great action sequences. I give Terminator Salvation 2.5 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
Now, I'm a huge fan of the Terminator series, except for the terrible TV show. I had always been curious about what a film would be like that explored the time of John Connor taking on the machines in the future. However, I was skeptical when I heard McG would be the one to show us this future. But, he does a pretty decent job. The action is really good and the effects are fantastic. The first half of the film is exciting and keeps your interest. Unfortunately, it cannot sustain itself as holes in the plot become apparent and there is suspension of disbelief that is just too unbelievable to the point of laughable. There are some clever references to the previous Terminator films and a very special surprise in store. You will recognize the catch phrases, although one made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger is force fed into the dialogue that it is just too contrived.
As for the acting, a lot has been made of Christian Bale's meltdown on the set that became viral several months ago and I for one have been very critical of Mr. Bale for doing that. But, he does a good job as John Connor. He did not play him with any Hollywood swagger, but a believable soldier who is in a very tough spot, he is reminiscent of the way Michael Biehn portrayed Reese in the first Terminator. All business. But, Bale does it with more finesse and frankly is a better actor. He was living out his imaginary circumstance with truthfulness and is effective. Anton Yelchin, (certainly has a good agent, getting the job as Reese and also portraying Chekov in Star Trek) does an adequate job as Reese but is fairly forgettable. Sam Worthington as Marcus is a worthy partner for Bale and they seemed to play off each other fairly well. Rounding out the cast are veterans, Helena Bonham Carter and Michael Ironside who also do a good job in their respective limited roles.
Overall, this is a so so film with great action sequences. I give Terminator Salvation 2.5 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Reviewer Is Collaborating with Valkyrie
Valkyrie, available this week on DVD and Blu-Ray is based on actual events concerning a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the height of WWII by his own officers. Bryan Singer's film is a fast paced suspenseful thriller that feels like a plot from Mission Impossible. The star studded film keeps the action going and even intriguing even for those that know the history of the failed assassination attempt. However, it's not enough to try to kill Hitler but you also have to plan to take over the government and here is where some of the finer scenes of the film take place in the frenetic chase between the conspirators and the loyal Nazi party members eager to stamp out the traitors. The film does a good job of being clear as to why these particular men wanted to overthrow the Nazi regime and restore Germany's tattered reputation in the world.
The main problem for me is the lack of German accents or language in the film. We are basically seeing the whole internal battle of German soldiers/politicians and their Nazi counterparts all played by mostly British and American actors, led by Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Now, a lot of negative feedback has been given about Mr. Cruise's performance and I cannot disagree with a lot of it. He appeared to be a boy surrounded by men and was certainly not the strongest actor of any scene he was in when compared with Kenneth Branaugh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp. Ok, he was better than Eddie Izzard, but not by much. He seemed to just be reciting his lines with no connection or feeling behind them and when feeling did come out, it felt forced and rarely could I feel him having clarity about the person he was portraying, who happens to be a German hero. All these fine veteran actors were living out their circumstances meaningfully. I was not impressed by the few lines of German spoken by Mr. Cruise at the opening of the film but then we hear good old English the rest of the way. I mean why bother? There wasn't even any German accents, with the exception of two; David Bamber as Hitler and Thomas Kretschmann as Major Otto van Remer.
Aside, from that, this is a good film that is worth seeing. The writing was crisp and engaging, while Bryan Singer's direction was sure and confident. It's a pity that Tom Cruise could not catapult this film to be great, but then again, that is a rare occurrence. I give Valkyrie 3 out of 5 stars.
The main problem for me is the lack of German accents or language in the film. We are basically seeing the whole internal battle of German soldiers/politicians and their Nazi counterparts all played by mostly British and American actors, led by Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Now, a lot of negative feedback has been given about Mr. Cruise's performance and I cannot disagree with a lot of it. He appeared to be a boy surrounded by men and was certainly not the strongest actor of any scene he was in when compared with Kenneth Branaugh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp. Ok, he was better than Eddie Izzard, but not by much. He seemed to just be reciting his lines with no connection or feeling behind them and when feeling did come out, it felt forced and rarely could I feel him having clarity about the person he was portraying, who happens to be a German hero. All these fine veteran actors were living out their circumstances meaningfully. I was not impressed by the few lines of German spoken by Mr. Cruise at the opening of the film but then we hear good old English the rest of the way. I mean why bother? There wasn't even any German accents, with the exception of two; David Bamber as Hitler and Thomas Kretschmann as Major Otto van Remer.
Aside, from that, this is a good film that is worth seeing. The writing was crisp and engaging, while Bryan Singer's direction was sure and confident. It's a pity that Tom Cruise could not catapult this film to be great, but then again, that is a rare occurrence. I give Valkyrie 3 out of 5 stars.
The Reviewer Conjured Angels and Demons
The somewhat anticipated sequel to The DaVinci Code; Ron Howard's Angels and Demons has arrived and all I can say out of the shoot is...I'm not impressed.
The story based on Dan Brown's best selling novel is actually a prequel to The DaVinci Code but the filmmakers decide to make it a sequel and add a couple of glib references to DaVinci lest we should forget that whole controversial plot.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is called upon by the Vatican to uncover a supposed plot by the secret society and Catholic hatin' Illuminati. Apparently, they are back and ready for revenge. The story takes place amidst the death of the Pope and the successor process known as the Conclave. What transpires in the tedious 138 minutes is a whirlwind of Wikipedia references and jaunts into Vatican archives and catacombs in a race against time to stop a killer and to prevent a cataclysmic event. Who else would you call but a symbologist to solve the case? The film like it's predecessor is replete with intrigue, betrayal and pseudo history. However, unlike the DaVinci Code, which the entire Christian world was dead set against, I did not feel this was an anti-Catholic film as many Catholic spokespersons would lead you to believe. Sure there are references about the Catholic Churchs' long history that are not too flattering but I didn't find the overall message to be negative, just fear based.
The film left me feeling flat and bored. The action is manufactured and the acting, uninspired. Tom Hanks looked a lot like he was going through the motions, waiting for the film to end. For a guy who was racing against time, he seemed to forget a lot about how much of a hurry he was in. In acting parlance, this made his activity less meaningful & unimportant which leads us to not care about his success in the end. At times, his acting chops shone brightly, but they were quite few and far between. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlengo Patrick McKenna who is essentially the Pope's assistant. I felt like he wanted to have a strong feeling about what he was saying but it didn't come across that way. Stellan Skarsgard who plays Commander Richter played it close to the vest and with the right amount of authority but little else. Ayelet Zurer plays scientist Vittoria Vetra. She didn't connect with Hanks at all, it was an awkward relationship. However, she actually had a fleeting moment of connection with Ewan. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays Cardinal Strauss with his usual cold, calculating control. Lastly, Nikolaj Lie Kaas is the Assassin and talk about someone with no clarity about his character at all. He had no feeling about the what and why about doing what he was doing. It was quite annoying.
The screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman is full of forced historical references to show how smart they are but there is no substance to the words. Ron Howard's direction is fundamentally fine but he gives us a film that ultimately lacks depth or excitement. It's just flat. I did enjoy the Cinematography and really loved seeing the art and sculpture of Vatican City and Rome, especially showcasing Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa.
Overall, Angels and Demons is a contrived, plodding film that has no heart but features a hopeful message. I give the film 2 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
The story based on Dan Brown's best selling novel is actually a prequel to The DaVinci Code but the filmmakers decide to make it a sequel and add a couple of glib references to DaVinci lest we should forget that whole controversial plot.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is called upon by the Vatican to uncover a supposed plot by the secret society and Catholic hatin' Illuminati. Apparently, they are back and ready for revenge. The story takes place amidst the death of the Pope and the successor process known as the Conclave. What transpires in the tedious 138 minutes is a whirlwind of Wikipedia references and jaunts into Vatican archives and catacombs in a race against time to stop a killer and to prevent a cataclysmic event. Who else would you call but a symbologist to solve the case? The film like it's predecessor is replete with intrigue, betrayal and pseudo history. However, unlike the DaVinci Code, which the entire Christian world was dead set against, I did not feel this was an anti-Catholic film as many Catholic spokespersons would lead you to believe. Sure there are references about the Catholic Churchs' long history that are not too flattering but I didn't find the overall message to be negative, just fear based.
The film left me feeling flat and bored. The action is manufactured and the acting, uninspired. Tom Hanks looked a lot like he was going through the motions, waiting for the film to end. For a guy who was racing against time, he seemed to forget a lot about how much of a hurry he was in. In acting parlance, this made his activity less meaningful & unimportant which leads us to not care about his success in the end. At times, his acting chops shone brightly, but they were quite few and far between. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlengo Patrick McKenna who is essentially the Pope's assistant. I felt like he wanted to have a strong feeling about what he was saying but it didn't come across that way. Stellan Skarsgard who plays Commander Richter played it close to the vest and with the right amount of authority but little else. Ayelet Zurer plays scientist Vittoria Vetra. She didn't connect with Hanks at all, it was an awkward relationship. However, she actually had a fleeting moment of connection with Ewan. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays Cardinal Strauss with his usual cold, calculating control. Lastly, Nikolaj Lie Kaas is the Assassin and talk about someone with no clarity about his character at all. He had no feeling about the what and why about doing what he was doing. It was quite annoying.
The screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman is full of forced historical references to show how smart they are but there is no substance to the words. Ron Howard's direction is fundamentally fine but he gives us a film that ultimately lacks depth or excitement. It's just flat. I did enjoy the Cinematography and really loved seeing the art and sculpture of Vatican City and Rome, especially showcasing Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa.
Overall, Angels and Demons is a contrived, plodding film that has no heart but features a hopeful message. I give the film 2 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Reviewer Goes to Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
Those incorrigible Vampires and Lycans (werewolves) are back for the 3rd installment in the Underworld series, Rise of the Lycans; out this week on DVD and Blu Ray. This time it's a prequel to see what started the war in the first place. Fans of the series will no doubt be pleased with the result, especially if you're an adolescent boy (man if I was 13 I would've rocked this film). This installment is kind of like Romeo and Juliet meets Spartacus. All you need to know of the story is this. In the Dark Ages, the Vampire Coven leader Viktor (Bill Nighy) finds the first human born werewolf hybrid Lycan child, who he called Lucian (Michael Sheen) and raised him as a slave to create more hybrids for labor purposes (I mean, a vampire can’t get his nails dirty building castles now can he) and to serve as protectors of the Vampires from the dreaded pure blood Lycans. Now, Viktor has a rebellious daughter, Sonja (Rhona Mitra) and the 2 fall in love and the star crossed lovers have a clandestine affair and after a piece of nasty business by Victor towards Lucian, she helps slave Lucian escape to dire consequences from dear old daddy. But not before Lucian inspires his fellow slaves to revolt. Meaning, the war is on.
The whole film is pretty anti-climactic because in the first Underworld, the whole origin of the war was explained to us. We are just witnessing what transpired. If you are new to the Underworld series. You could simply start by watching this film and then go back to Underworld. The choice is yours.
Aside from the overly predictability and clichés, the film has a plethora of battle scenes which still feature Matrix like choreography mixed with Lord of the Rings style combat. In a word, it’s unoriginal. The cgi effects of the werewolves are laughable in there simplicity. As for the acting. Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy reprise their roles from the first film as Lucian and Victor. Michael Sheen does a pretty good job again as Lucian. He has clearly gone onto bigger and better things but he took the role seriously and still brought clarity and emotion to the character, especially when it came to whom Sonja and Viktor were to him. Bill Nighy, on the other hand was more over the top than he was in the original and at times becomes silly when he would throw a fit. I also didn’t feel he had any connection to his fellow cast, especially the relationship with his daughter Sonja. Which leads me to Rhona Mitra. She is a strikingly beautiful woman (the Director of Photography must surely have been smitten, judging from all the pretty close ups of her). But, they pretty much tried to make her be a clone of Selene (Kate Beckinsale’s role in the first 2 films) and she did not do a good job. Try as she might, I didn’t believe her relationship with either her father or Lucian and therefore didn’t feel any connection to her at all..
Overall, Director Patrick Tatopoulos gives us a faithful prequel in the Underworld series and considering they made a profit more stories in the Underworld series are likely to follow. I give Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 2 out of 5 stars.
The whole film is pretty anti-climactic because in the first Underworld, the whole origin of the war was explained to us. We are just witnessing what transpired. If you are new to the Underworld series. You could simply start by watching this film and then go back to Underworld. The choice is yours.
Aside from the overly predictability and clichés, the film has a plethora of battle scenes which still feature Matrix like choreography mixed with Lord of the Rings style combat. In a word, it’s unoriginal. The cgi effects of the werewolves are laughable in there simplicity. As for the acting. Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy reprise their roles from the first film as Lucian and Victor. Michael Sheen does a pretty good job again as Lucian. He has clearly gone onto bigger and better things but he took the role seriously and still brought clarity and emotion to the character, especially when it came to whom Sonja and Viktor were to him. Bill Nighy, on the other hand was more over the top than he was in the original and at times becomes silly when he would throw a fit. I also didn’t feel he had any connection to his fellow cast, especially the relationship with his daughter Sonja. Which leads me to Rhona Mitra. She is a strikingly beautiful woman (the Director of Photography must surely have been smitten, judging from all the pretty close ups of her). But, they pretty much tried to make her be a clone of Selene (Kate Beckinsale’s role in the first 2 films) and she did not do a good job. Try as she might, I didn’t believe her relationship with either her father or Lucian and therefore didn’t feel any connection to her at all..
Overall, Director Patrick Tatopoulos gives us a faithful prequel in the Underworld series and considering they made a profit more stories in the Underworld series are likely to follow. I give Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 2 out of 5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)