Safe House (2012)
MY CALL: Gritty intensity, striking action, and brilliant on-screen exchanges between Reynolds and Washington transform this cookie cutter script into a very entertaining, stylistic movie. [B] IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: The Bourne Identity (2002) and sequels.
Ryan Reynolds plays Matt Weston, a man young in his career and hungry for the opportunity to prove himself and advance in station (to CIA case officer) from his rookie safe house post in Capetown, South Africa. His boring day-to-day stewardship gets exciting when the CIA’s most wanted traitor (Denzel Washington as Tobin Frost) turns himself in and his escorted to Weston’s safe house for interrogation. During rendition exercises, complete with waterboarding, a team of unknown alliance infiltrates the safe house targeting the recovery or perhaps assassination of Tobin Frost. All CIA personnel are killed except for Weston, who escapes with Frost.
The rest of the movie follows Weston as he alone tries to transfer Frost to another safe house. But Frost is a handful. He “rewrote the CIA protocol for handling assets” and is a master of psychological manipulation. Frost bombards Weston with taunts of the future failure of his romantic life, isolating comments of how the CIA will set him up to avoid the scrutiny of scandal, and even his fists. Meanwhile Weston tries to figure out why this mysterious hit squad is trying to get him. Who are they? What does he have that they want? What does he know? Weston’s handlers are trying to learn the same things while questioning whether Weston has flipped sides.
Safe House is director Daniel Espinoza’s and writer David Guggenheim’s first major release. The story is far from original, but these two did an excellent job weaving clever scenarios and executing shocking action sequences. From car chases to hand-to-hand combat, the action was high impact and sounded (and even “felt”) harder than most movies. The major flaw was in the depiction of the CIA. Perhaps I have the wrong idea from movies like Spy Game (2001) or The Bourne Identity (2002), but in Safe House information seems to flow more slowly, specialized personnel and extraction teams are not as readily available, and the higher-ups seem to jump to conclusions when clearly there is really no certainty or evidence as to what is going on. Whether or not it accurately depicts overseas intelligence agencies, it is not what we’ve come to expect from such movies.
This writing flaw extends to the supporting characters. Sam Shepard and Brendan Gleeson (The Guard, Gangs of New York) are two brilliant actors who are given no chance to show it. Vera Farmiga’s (Up in the Air, Source Code) character is written so poorly that I would call her a bad actress if I had not seen her other work.
Lastly, Matt Weston’s girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder) served no purpose other than to act as one of numerous devices for Frost to get into Weston’s head. Her character should have been deleted from the script outright.
Regarding the main characters, the writing posed no problem. Reynolds and Washington play off of each other to perfection. We all knew Denzel was amazing, but Reynolds really got a chance to show his dramatic talent. As Matt Weston we see none of the Reynolds we all know from EVERY quick-witted, womanizing role he’s played from superheroes (The Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Blade: Trinity) to regular Joes (Buying the Cow, The Change-Up). These two actors took a cookie cutter script and helped to transform it into something enjoyable. Despite this major save, I think writer Guggenheim should be blacklisted. Espinoza, however, shows promise.
You won’t get caught up in the plot but you will lose yourself in Reynolds and Washington. Watch and enjoy.
SIDEBAR: The Hof made a funny comment about the Denzel-young white guy team ups like we see here and in Training Day or Unstoppable. “You need a serious dramatic actor next to Denzel. You can’t just use some jabroni!” LOL. I about shit myself when he said that.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Hostel III (2011)
MY CALL: I’m not denying that I was entertained, but I’ll never watch it again. In fact, this movie was recommended by a friend of mine. I’m currently re-evaluating that friendship. LOL. Skip it. But surely watch parts I and II if you haven’t seen them. They’ll cauterize the gaping wound this flick inflicted on you. Only for decent acting and production value, and maybe a few giggles, do I give this a direct-to-DVD “C-.” WHAT TO WATCH INSTEAD: Hostel (2005) and Hostel II (2007), by all means, have the gore and intensity you wanted to see when you rented this by accident. I’d also refer you to franchise flicks from Saw, Cube and, if you like to laugh at your sick gore, then Tokyo Gore Shock and many of my 1980s installments of John’s Horror Corner.
“Oh, man. We are in no way trying to look like those guys from The Hangover!
In Hostel (2005), Eli Roth (writer/director) spun the story of an Eastern European Mom’n’Pop farmhouse business where private members would pay top dollar to torture American tourists. Like any murder movie of the time, it was told through the eyes of the victems. Roth (again, writer/director, and now characters/producer) changed things up a little in Hostel II (2007), in which the viewers got a taste of the abductors’ and torture club members’ perspective. For extra flavor, Roth peppered in some international membership from America played by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi, two upperclass white family men. I doubt that it is any coincidence that both of these actors were from Desperate Housewives. In this third installment Roth has little involvement—only a character writing credit—taking a back seat to a writer and director who have had little major success. This had me very skeptical, however the director did have a writing credit on Evil Dead 2 (his only claim to next-to-fame) and the production value and acting look good. If only that were enough. The loss of Roth should be considered the loss of the franchise.
This kill was stupid in Valentine and it’s still stupid now!
John Hensley (FX’s Nip/Tuck, Teeth) plays the opposite of his typical casting: lame, passive, and conservative; the Ed Helmsley of The Hangover. Kip Pardue (Drive, The Wizard of Gore remake-2007) plays more like The Hangover’s Bradley Cooper. Then there’s the well-to-do but possibly corruptible bachelor and the driven-bitter-by-marriage guy who seeks excitement. These four are having a bachelor party in Vegas.
The only similarity between Hostel III and the first two is the liberal use of fake blood and ball-gags. But–oh, look–they’ve added a cheerleader costume. It just got even more like a fetish club.
If she can eat all of those Madagascan hissing roaches then she is totally winning in the next season of Fear Factor!
After a few drinks and hands of blackjack they are invited to a wild venue way off the strip with a couple of too-hot-to-be-talking-to-you local chicks. They go. Then, long story short, they have someone play “Operation” on them. This flick truly is like a tutorial for girls and guys to NEVER take a drink from ANYONE. Not even if they open the bottle in front of you because, evidently, they bought the Rufé & Chandon Brut Classic for your champagne toast.
I know, guy. I felt the same way as I watched this.
The theme is more high-tech than parts I and II. There’s a sterile “hobby” room, an audience with cocktails and laptops looking into a glass exhibit room, and everything is managed online. It all seems a little too sophisticated, kind of like the drugged-up chick auction in Taken—sparkling wine, Armani and high rollers. There are some attempts at goring us out including a pretty serious scene pulling off the skin from someone’s entire face. But other than that one “moment” of awesome, I really felt like this flick missed the point of the Hostel franchise. The story was told from the director’s perspective, not through the eyes of the victem or assailant. The torture scenes were short and limited to a gimmick (for example, shooting someone with a crossbow until they die), we didn’t “see” enough happen, and there was no relationship between the tortured and the torturer, as in terror and fear met by a sick rush of euphoria. As if it wasn’t mediocre enough, the writers tried to slap almost half a dozen twists on us—none of them were well-received. Really, they didn’t make a difference to me at all.
Skip it. I’d rather have my left nut caught in a car door than watch this again.
Share this post:
I have to point this out. What a great tagline!
They were searching for proof…they found it!
MY CALL: This flick really surprised me. I’m so glad I took a chance on this one. Flicks like this and The Hazing (2004) inspire me to continue taking chances when Netflix or Amazon throws a weird suggestion my way. I give this a direct-to-DVD horror “A”. Watch it on Netflix (streaming). IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: The Paranormal Activity films (2007, 2010, 2011), White Noise (2005) and Session 9 (2001). Also, The Last Exorcism (2010).
This movie operates much like The Last Exorcism (2010). We follow Lance Preston and his Ghost Hunters film crew into a haunted mental hospital in search of the paranormal. It comes off as a satire, with a lot of sophomoric sarcasm and a totally fake medium. They laugh about things being “too over the top” between cuts and they pay a gardener twenty bucks to lie about seeing a ghost on the property. This works out fantastically! Normally the first 20-30 minutes of any horror are painful. They have barely-trained actors and a perfunctory storyline. Grave Encounters, however, has good acting and draws a lot of smiles as we learn about the film crew. This also serves as a superior directorial device to engage the viewers into caring about these characters.
The story is simple and certainly nothing new. The crew locks themselves into the abandoned hospital from 10pm-6am, giving them eight hours in total darkness to catch some paranormal activity on film. They get a tour from the caretaker and hear a few “real” ghost stories about the place to hype up their show (called Grave Encounters) and choose where to place static cameras.
The execution is more like the Paranormal Activity films (2007, 2010, 2011). There’s a lot of slow tension build-up and you find yourself concentrating on the screen; staring waiting for something to move and listening for a subtle sound (like White Noise (2005)). This is a style that I love, but many people don’t like this.
What caught me off guard is that while everything was done surprisingly well in terms of acting, effects, sets, scares, and directing, the writing seemed very misguided. Not the dialogue, but the events. At first things seem sensible. Some random objects move here and there. But as the movie progresses and the intensity of the paranormal activity amplifies, the events seem less connected. The writers mix elements of “ghost” movies with elements of “house” movies. In the movie, Lance explains that there are static and intelligent hauntings. Static haunting account for the “house” movie subgenre, in which there is an energy echoing a past event (but there is no specific ghost, demon or spirit). Intelligent hauntings are our “ghost” story subgenre, in which a paranormal entity has some motivation and responds to human presence. In most horror movies, the writing will choose one subgenre or the other. Really never both.
Anyway, this subgenre combo doesn’t work. People start disappearing or dying and we don’t know why. Some weird things happen that make me want to guess “why this is happening” or “what the ghost wants” or “what happened in the hospital” or “are the crew members somehow linked to the hospital?” Ultimately, I was hit with a lot of red herrings which served no end. As a result, the end of the movie was simply when we ran out of people to kill or mysteriously disappear. I wanted a little more.
Despite this big overall writing flaw, each individual scene worked well. I enjoyed every five minute piece of the movie. Some scenes actually utilized some really cool (all be they disconnected) ideas to add to the eerie atmosphere. But after the first 30 minutes, the scenes just failed to make a story when assembled chronologically.
However critical I may sound, I really enjoyed this and strongly recommend it to any of you who enjoy occasionally taking a chance on an unknown direct-to-DVD horror.
A closing sidebar. For those of you who enjoy “ghost” and “house” movies, keep an eye out for Haunter, which promises to be a “reverse haunting” perspective.
Share this post:
Chronicle
Chronicle is a wonderful piece of low-budget film making that will put director Josh Trank and screenwriter Max Landis on the map. This $12 million found footage film is one of the best of the genre and introduces the world to a trio of talented young actors.
The characters are what makes this film work. The three leads have a believable chemistry and the friendship formed provides a solid base for this superhero origin story. Andrew is a bullied loner, Matt quotes Plato and Steve is the outgoing popular guy. The three of them go into a cavernous hole and come out with superpowers.
At first the powers are used comically. They use leaf blowers to lift up skirts, move cars and impress at talent shows. However, as their powers increase Andrew begins to embrace the dark side. The three friends have to come to grips with their abilities and the dangerous turn of events.
I would love to write more about the film but I don’t want to give anything away. I went into Chronicle knowing nothing and the experience was totally enjoyable. It was a breath of fresh air to witness the creativity without the prior knowledge.
I will say the best part of this film is the friendship. Chronicle is good (85% Rotten Tomatoes) because you like these guys. The characters are believable and you understand why they’ve bonded. When you take a journey with three people you like it makes the trip worthwhile.
Trank manages to create a wonderful superhero origin story full of solid acting, dialogue and CGI. I dug the originality and wish the other original origin story Jumper would have lived up to this film.
Watch this movie. Dig the originality. Appreciate the characters. Spelunk into every hole you find.
Share this post:
Actor Spotlight: Cam Gigandet
This all started because I used to hate this guy—used to. His hair is always too perfectly disheveled, he doesn’t know what body fat is, and washboards actually envy his abs. He seems to constantly get type-cast as “sharp-looking boyfriend” or “sharp-looking high school douche bag.” Basically roles that don’t matter; like a glorified extra with a few lines. But as a serial over-analyzer of movies I figured I’d take a step back and really assess his work in chronological order in my first Actor Spotlight. However, in the spirit of good taste, I’ll make no mention of The OC or Twilight.
Never Back Down (2008). At 26 years old, we find Cam playing a high school mixed martial artist. I imagine that if this came out while I was in high school then I would have thought it was cool. Having seen it for the first time at age 30 (about a year older than Cam currently is), it was…entertaining. However, I never see the need to see this again. It’s the same way I feel about No Retreat, No Surrender or The Karate Kid (the original or the new one).
Anyway, Cam plays a douche and he does a great job of it. He functions as the recurring villain who finds most of his screen time when we first meet him as the local popular guy/bully and when we last see him. I won’t tell you not to watch this, but I’d much sooner endorse the sequel which features Michael Jai White.
The Unborn (2009). Here Cam plays the supportive boyfriend of the ultra-hot Odette Yustman (You Again, Cloverfield, television’s Breaking In), who is sort-of possessed by her unborn, demonic twin brother. Cam is likeable and he does his job well, which doesn’t demand much of him, as he plays a high schooler again…at 27.
Pandorum (2009). This is my favorite role of his and he apparently plays his age for a change. I don’t even know if he did that on The OC. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but he does very well with what he has. Overall, I really dug this movie. Ben Foster and Dennis Quaid really deliver in the space madness action-suspense flick.
The Experiment (2010). Cam really delivered in this one, too. He plays a depraved son of a bitch and does it damn well! I’m reminded of the guards from Sleepers. You know, just plain evil. I feel like this is the only time he’s had a role where he could shine…like a bright evil star. Again, he seems to be playing his age. For a complete review of the movie, click here.
Like anyone with abs like his would be in a Celibacy Club at age 22!
Easy A (2010). And we’re back to Cam playing high schoolers, again—at 28, but playing a 22-year old senior. This is about as silly as when Tom Welling played high school freshman Clark Kent in season one of Smallville when he was actually 26. But I loved Smallville, all ten dragged out seasons, and I enjoyed Cam in his goofy role here, too.
Burlesque (2010). I am on a mission to let Cam prove that he can act. But parts like this are not helping him out too much. That said, while I generally detest musicals, I have decided to endure Burlesque. I just hope that suffering through Christina Aguileira’s attempts to act don’t make Cam look bad by association.
As the movie gets started it is safe to say that Cher’s troupe may have the least sexy burlesque show ever. If clubs carded age based on the raunchiness of the show, then Cher’s club would be 10 and up. An SI Swimsuit issue is naughtier than this whoopti-do spectacle. Aguileira is just as annoying as an Iowa-naïve cutie-pie and Cher is as the protective Mother Hen. The nice surprises in this movie are Stanley Tucci, who is always delightfully witty whether playing gay, straight, or up-in-the-air, and Kristen Bell, who ate some sandwiches to make a real body out of her typically skeletal frame. Most other characters are rather forgettable. Cam, however, comes off as likeable. Not bad, not particularly good, but likeable—which, I guess, is a good thing.
The Roommate (2011). Competing with Justin Long for how old one can be and still play a college kid, 29-year old Cam is once again desperately trying to prove to us that he can act. But know this Cam: I don’t care how carefully disheveled your hair is—you still look damn near 30 to me. You’re not fooling anyone.
This movie has no more depth than an episode of The Smurfs and is just as predictable as Titanic. It should have been called Single White Swimfan, although the crazy chick in this one was closer to Jennifer Jason Leigh (one of my top picks for The Craziest Chicks of Film) than Erika Christensen. The best part of this movie was probably the beer I drank while I watched it. But the second best part might have been Cam’s performance. He really wasn’t bad.
Priest (2011). Cam, who was effective and enjoyable as a meant-to-be-hated character in Pandorum and The Experiment, played a marshal who annoyed both Paul Bettany’s Priest and me. This performance was surely Cam’s least talented. I know his character in Priest is meant to be a pain in the ass, but I didn’t appreciate his contribution to this mediocre movie at all. For a more thorough review, click here.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: It seems that Cam is up to snuff when playing bad guys, bullies, and the ever-ancillary supportive boyfriend. Up to snuff, sure, but his roles in Easy A, The Roommate and The Unborn are very minor; second even to that of a supporting actor. Meanwhile, movies where he plays his age—Burlesque, Pandorum, The Experiment—allow him to demonstrate that he doesn’t suck when handed a script where he has more than 3 scenes and 10 lines. Priest seems to have been his worst work.
So can he act? Sure. Why did I think he couldn’t? Probably a combination of several very minor roles and meant-to-be-hated characters. I’m sorry I doubted you, Cam. Just stay away from anything else directed by Scott Charles Stewart (Legion, Priest).
Share this post:
Trailer Talk: Lock Out
Guy Pearce is a great actor. Just watch Memento, Count of Monte Cristo, Hurt Locker, King’s Speech, The Road and The Proposition.
Now he is playing a badass who has to go to a prison and save the president’s daughter. The problem is that the prison is in space and is loaded with the most violent people on earth.
Lock Out looks like the perfect guilty pleasure movie. I love movies where tough guys have to fight other tough guys. This is going to be a superb example of ridiculous violence. The movie has a No Escape vibe except everybody is bad.
I’m hoping this film lives up to its bad movie promise and delivers violence, violence and more violence.
Enjoy the Guy Pearce. Appreciate the Maggie Grace. Dig the zero gravity.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: In Time
Good looking people solve problems while good looking people chase them.
Justin Timberlake plays a working stiff who decides to make the rich pay and critics moan. I was looking forward to a film where people say lines like “Your time is up” and “Time isn’t on your side.” I also hoped that JCVD would be a Time Cop and John Cusack would land in the fictional world in a hot tub. Basically, I wanted to go beyond the funny threshold and stretch the time references to a maximum.
I’d compare this movie to the bad classic Paycheck. In Paycheck Ben Affleck loses his memory and has to get it back while being chased. The movie looks good but reaches levels of ridiculous that left me hoping that somebody would get thrown from a large building so I could say “your paycheck has bounced.”
The movie centers around T-Lake kidnapping Amanda Seyfried and the two of them become underwritten Bonnie and Clyde Time Bandits. The two steal from the rich squirrely guy from Mad Men and give the time to the poor.
Odd fact: Timberlake steals time and gives ten years to his best friend played by Leonard from the Big Bang Theory. The dude then goes and drinks himself to death. The strange thing is that he leaves behind his wife and child.
Chasing the good-looking people are local attractive thugs. These thugs are chased by the svelte “time keepers.” These well manicured folks look at their wrists a lot and worry about time while chasing each other. Eventually, the movie ends and the world is better….or is it?
The movie was written, produced and directed by Andrew Nicol. Nicol wrote the great Truman Show and directed the science fiction gem Gattaca. Those two movies took viewers to new and interesting worlds that were completely engrossing. However, Nicol missed the mark this time. Instead, of creating characters he instead creates a world of running actors. Steven Rea sums up Nicol’s movie perfectly when he says “Phillip K. Dick for knuckleheads.”
The movie looks great but multiple critics described it as “ham handed.” There is a streamlined look but the dialogue is so clunky it makes for a stark contrast of beauty and dumb. It is like a Lamborghini riding over speed bumps. That is why you should watch this film. It is a curious little bugger that provides the viewer with many pithy comments. Just read Rotten Tomatoes and you will notice the creative dog pile.
Watch this movie. Surprise yourself with funny one-liners. Appreciate that there are movies like this still being made. Bad is good when it is unknowingly bad.
Share this post:
The Grey
The trailers misrepresented The Grey. The film is not about Liam Neeson punching wolves. The Grey is about living, dying and faith. Liam and the other three-dimensional characters wax poetic between wolf attacks. This film is more The Tree of Life than The Edge.
Liam Neeson deserves an Oscar nomination for his commanding performance. A similar companion is Russel Crowe’s Maximus in Gladiator. You never once doubt these men as they live for nothing yet choose to survive.
The cast is stellar as well. Dermot Mulroney casts aside his rom-com persona and gives depth to a quiet man. Frank Grillo (Warrior) is the doubter of the bunch and proves that he is an actor to be watched. Dallas Roberts, Nonso Anozie and Joe Anderson are the quiet, gentle and loud group members who give their characters unexpected depth.
The Grey is a mature film from a man who is known to make bombastic dude flicks. Joe Carnahan has succeeded in directing a mature and philosophical movie. The vistas provide a beautiful view for the ensuing grey material. The movie could have been a black and white action film but manages to ask questions and provide character depth that is unexpectedly poignant.
The wolves are secondary to the story. There is some backlash from animal rights groups complaining that the wolves are made villains. The wolves are not the bad guys. They are animals who are protecting their turf. They kill to protect not for pleasure. They are like death pursuing each character. You can’t avoid death but you can choose how to deal with it. This movie is about the characters dealing with unlikely survival.
There are a couple false moments in the film that take away from the realism. There is a strange forty-foot jump and an ending after the credits that takes away from the film. I dug the philosophical direction the movie takes and the drama was a pleasant surprise. It gives the bleakness a reason to exist.
Do not expect a gore fest. Do not expect Neeson headlocking wolves. Expect a tense film that attempts to move beyond the limits of the action genre.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Slugs (1988)
MY CALL: Pleasantly less awful than expected. An enjoyably campy 80s horror flick featuring among the least menacing “monsters” ever. IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: There are some fun animal-horror movies out there. Some of my favorites include Gnaw 2: Food of the Gods (1989), Lake Placid (1999) and Black Sheep (2006).
Toxic waste has offered up a lot of fun to the movie industry…The Toxic Avenger, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Class of Nuke’em High, the Return of the Living Dead series. In this case, sewer slugs are mutated into enlarged, opportunistically anthropophagous critters when they are exposed toxic waste. People are dying, the slugs are spreading, and it’s up to our faithful county sanitation workers to save the day.
When slugs attack!
It should come as no shock that a lot about this movie just didn’t work. The score was way off. Often we’d hear uppity tunes between serious scenes. For example, someone calls in that a dead body was found and as the cop is responding we hear some goofy sitcom jingle as he makes his way to the scene. The acting sucked. But there’s really no more to address on that issue with a “when animals attack”-themed horror movie about slugs.
Another weird thing was that these slugs seemed to come out of nowhere. There’s this scene where two people fooling around in bed. Then woman gets up and slips on the floor which, during however long they were getting freaky, has become covered so densely with slithering slugs that you can’t tell if it’s hardwood or carpeted. Where did they come from? How are they that fast? It’s like how Freddy and Jason seem to just “appear” unexpectedly to make the kill. Anyway, this was a good kill. She flops about like she’s in an oil wrestling match with a slimy slug swarm.
Like any other horror flick, you have premarital sex…slug death!
Slugs was a lot of things. None of those things are “great.” But even bad 80s horror flicks deserve to be recognized for effort. This flick was successful at being campy and gory. Festive use was made of fake spurting blood, silly squirming sound effects, and fanged (yes, fanged), bitey slugs. There was even an attempt at injecting some (fake) biology trivia when someone accidently eats a slug in a salad and becomes infected with deadly blood flukes which, naturally, explode from your face once they’ve fully developed. This was the best kill by far! It happens while he’s trying to close a business deal over dinner and drinks.
I say give Slugs a shot if you’re really bored and love campy 80s horror. It made me smile.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: Underworld Awakening (Revisited)
What the what?
If you are a Bad Movie Tuesday fan and have read Mark’s recent review of What’s Your Number, you will recognize this. I have to say that after seeing this movie, I can now identify with this facial expression.
To give you a little insider knowledge (feel honored!)- the Movies, Films & Flix crew prefers to highlight the awesome badness of movies rather than outright hang a cloud of gloom over your head. We are a nice bunch 🙂 I felt that the best way to highlight said badness of Underworld #4 would be to present you with a list of questions. Never have I ever had so many questions, only 10 minutes into a movie.
Consider this my earnest plea to understand what happened to such a fun franchise. I’ll admit it, I love the first three Underwold movies. I spent many a late night in college, flipping channels (while studying?) only to come across one of these movies and be glued to the screen until the credits appeared. If you know the answers to my questions, please feel free to answer them in the comments section.
Okay, let’s play Twenty Questions…
- Whats with the video recap of the series? I’ve seen these movies. These are your fans in the audience.
- Part 1:Why did she kill all of those cops in the very beginning?
- Part 2:When did she become so mean (read: bi-otch)? She was never this mean before, I really liked Selene in the previous movies, now she is just murdering cops
- Part 3:Couldn’t she have just dressed up as one of the cops and escaped, sans bloodshed and endangering Michael?
- Why was this movie in 3D? They barely utilized it, I know, I checked by taking off my glasses multiple times
- Was the character Michael actually in this movie? Methinks no.
- Why have her boots and corset been held in a refrigerated cabinet with bottles of chemicals, conveniently next to her ice tomb for 12 years?
- Did they WANT her to wake up and get dressed one day?
- Also, where did she find the stretchy black catsuit? I didn’t see it in the fridge….
- Why isn’t Michael Ealy in more movies? Seriously. He is by far the best part of Underworld Awakening. Mr. Ealy’s agent, do you hear me???
- Can we create a drinking game for this? Drink every time Kate Beckinsale ‘walks slowly’ across or towards the screen.
- Why does Mr. Extra Large Lycan keep throwing her 50 yards away? What does this accomplish?
- Why was Mr. Extra Large Lycan punching the wall with the too small doorway in frustration? Why waste that time?
- SPOILER: Why did Selene break open Michael’s ice tomb before the battle? Why not do it after and then come back and wait for him to defrost with her little family?
- SPOILER: Why didn’t Michael help them out after defrosting? He had to see all the dead bodies in the building? No? And he didn’t hear the ruckus down stairs?
- SPOILER: Who will play Michael in Underworld 5??????? If Scott Speedman didn’t want to make this movie, can they keep using archive footage, unnamed stand-ins and CGI?? Can they?!?!
- Was the movie of the doppleganger/stand-in actors? Examples of actors and their possible look-alikes from this movie: Charles Dance (Bill Nighy), Khris Holden-Ried (Chris Marten), India Eisley (Hailee Steinfeld), Random Stand In (Scott Speedman)
- I found this on IMDB: This is the first Underworld movie to not feature Bill Nighy. Don’t they know that EVERY movie could benefit from some Bill Nighy?
- Where does Selene keep all of those grenades, bombs, other weapon thingys? I don’t see any pockets on that skin-tight outfit, do you?
- Did you hear that? Was that a squish? Probably the squishy-est (spelling?) sound effects I have ever heard…and I love them. They make all of the kills way more fun 🙂
To be fair, we did like some aspects of the movie. Mainly that it made us laugh, we had a great laugh as we talked about the badness and walked to the parking lot. A fun night together is never a waste of money 🙂
If you need a supernatural, vampire or 3D fix, watch Underworld 1-3, the entire Resident Evil collection or wait for Resident Evil: Retribution 3D. Thank me later.
Movies, Films & Flix 