MovieChat Forums > Underworld: Blood Wars (2016) Discussion > Why is this movie getting such bad revie...

Why is this movie getting such bad reviews?


I haven't paid attention to the Underworld franchise since the second one came out, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. I saw it recently after a period of indecision due to the reviews. Finally said eff it and went and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The fight scenes were great, and Lara Pulver and Charles Dance made the film ten times more enjoyable. In fact, the film would have been much more mediocre without them.

It seems that film critics often have a hard time taking horror films on their own terms.

reply

I think it's due to the lack of diversity quite honest.






http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157625135851207/detail/

reply

Lack of diversity? You mean like in terms of different ethnicities being represented in the movie? ...

reply

the whole idea of Underworld is about selling the illusion that theres something magical about pale white skin to young impressionable people, its not about diversity views of others. its about anti-diversity views of the movie itself.

PLus lots of ripped off action scenes and werewolves vs vamps of course.

reply

the whole idea of Underworld is about selling the illusion that theres something magical about pale white skin to young impressionable people, its not about diversity views of others. its about anti-diversity views of the movie itself.

PLus lots of ripped off action scenes and werewolves vs vamps of course.

https://i.imgflip.com/1m94.jpg

Right. Much like you're trying to sell the illusion that you know what you're talking about.



"Queens Conquer"

reply

I was also surprised by the negative reception it's been getting. It's actually quite ambitious for the FIFTH (!) installment in a franchise, although it has its downsides (such as no real standout moments/action sequences, IMO). The cheap killing of Michael no doubt soured a lot of people on it, but they seem to dislike the film as a whole as well. I just don't see it. It's miles better than Awakening, which sucked.

reply

I heard ARMAGEDDON got bad reviews though it was much better than DEEP IMPACT which came out sooner. maybe it's a similar trend?

reply

It has a boring and silly story, and then no scott speedman, if your going to kill him , at least have him in the movie.

The story is what I found boring.
The direction was not that good, in telling of this story, and it just played
out with no pizazz.

I mean she goes underwater, then somehow the woman is putting her in the spirit
bath in cave, then she shows up later with super powers lol.

Movie is not populat in UK, but they use all UK actors ??

It WASNT bad, just not good or great.
It was I guess a little better than awakening, which also had a lame story
and no scott S.

http://tvtalk-your-show.forumotion.com/

reply

Movie lost me at the "Now I am Gandalf/Selene the White" moment. This sequel didnt add anything interesting, had no tension and no memorable action scenes. A sequel that nobody really needed.

reply

Only fans get it. The critics generally don't.

Pay no attention to them. Enjoy the movie.

PS: you will find lots of fans if you're looking at the right place. They praise the movie on twitter, fandango, and of course, there are some fans here.

Effective trolling is art.

reply

Critics have never been particular fans of this series, and that has pretty much been from the start. Don't think I've ever read anything particularly positive from any of them about this series. Probably why I couldn't wait to see the first one.

reply

Here are some positive reviews:

From US
http://dailydead.com/vampires-lycans-love-an-appreciative-look-back-at-the-underworld-films/

http://dailydead.com/review-underworld-blood-wars-offers-up-a-thrilling-mix-of-new-and-old/

From UK
http://www.nerdly.co.uk/2017/01/13/underworld-blood-wars-review/

From Canada
http://www.foxforcefivenews.com/underworld-blood-wars-vampires-vs-lycans-the-supernatural-throwdown-is-still-awesome-review/

From Australia
https://www.residententertainment.com/underworld-blood-wars-review/

From Gotham City Times
https://gothamcitytimes.com/2016/12/02/underworld-blood-wars-2016/

From Taiwan, China
https://www.gvm.com.tw/webonly_content_12628.html

http://mobile.n.yam.com/m/news.php?id=20161214015840


I agree with you. Critics have never been kind to the franchise. But time is the best critic. The franchise has stood the test of time, stayed impervious to negative reviews, and proved them all wrong. It's been over 13 years. That is saying something.

Critics must feel pretty insulted and mad nowadays. "We have tried so hard to kill you! Why won't you die!"


Effective trolling is art.

reply

I think you're giving this series far too much credit, as most reputable critics probably stopped bothering with it at least a couple films ago. These movies have always kind of had middling box office and haven't changed the course of film or the way movies are made, so I can't imagine what anyone that doesn't like them would have to be actively upset about. By talking about how much the critics don't matter and how this must affect them, you're probably putting more thought into how they think about these movies than they do, which is kind of ironic.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

reply

This series can never be given too much credit. I appreciate original ideas, good stories, great fight sequences, wonderful actors.

And you're wrong. I don't care about critics' thoughts, because most of them don't know what they're babbling about anyway.

You're also wrong about critics stopping bothering with it. They never stopped trashing it, which is kinda amusing. I guess they must be frustrated and wondering why they couldn't kill this franchise, despite their best effort throughout the years.

The Underworld movies are the best vampire movies around. And I can talk on and on about all those amazing experienced British actors, Kate, Michael Sheen, Charles Dance, Lara Pulver, Sir Derek... But why bother? You're not a fan, but thank you for reading anyway.


Effective trolling is art.

reply

What I find so baffling is that the Resident Evil movies and the Twilight movies have better ratings on RT than the Underworld films. That is completely backwards to me. The Twilight movies are complete and utter elephant sh!t The Resident Evil movies have some fun moments, but for the most part are horrible (even the first one!).

The Underworld films have good world building and great actors sprinkled throughout. So that drives me nuts.

reply

Only fans get it. The critics generally don't.


The problem with this film is that you would have to have seen all the previous movies to get the reasons behind the factions. Because the film is more complex than just the Likens and vampires fighting it out. There is also the back drop of the feuds and fight for power between the vampires themselves, and if you don't get (or remember) what happened and what was done in the previous films you'd feel lost in this film. And I am not going to touch on the fact that American audiences don't seem to like complexity.

I personally loved the film, but it's been awhile since I've seen Awakening so I would have to re-watch that again before seeing U:BW again.

"Queens Conquer"

reply

There's a difference though between something being too complex and something being just completely uninteresting and sounding like gibberish. As someone else mentioned, this series is not the least bit new viewer-friendly, there's nothing to get your attention if you're not onboard with the series already, and to someone like me that gave up after the first two, the bits and pieces I've seen of this one at my theater have just reinforced why I never cared to come back.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

reply

There's a different though between something being too complex and something being just completely uninteresting and sounding like gibberish. As someone else mentioned, this series is not the least bit new viewer-friendly, there's nothing to get your attention if you're not onboard with the series already,


Seriously? So a film must be a stand alone for someone to enjoy? You're kidding right? Maybe it is for someone with your lack of intellect and who needs everything spelled out for them. But it isn't for people who like depth and substance.


and to someone like me that gave up after the first two, the bits and pieces I've seen of this one at my theater have just reinforced why I never cared to come back.


Which sort of begs the question. Why are you spending time posting on a MB for a film franchise which you claim to have given up on 'the first two' films? Does that sound like something an intelligent person who can grasp a complex film does? Does it? Sounds to me like you're an annoying troll and pompous ass with a grandiose sense of their own self importance. Which is evidence by your other posts like this:

This January, Vin Diesel will DEW THE IMPOSSIBLE! *shredding guitar sound*

Between this, a new Underworld, and new Resident Evil movie, this is the greatest month for movies ever if you were a college freshman in 2003 with sh!tty tastes in everything that never changed.


Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1293847/board/thread/265260426?d=265260426#265260426

Manchild indeed. Stick to watching UFC. Time to update my ignore list.

reply

Where did I say self-contained? I just said that the series, if you weren't interested in it to begin with or had already given up on it, did not seem to offer anything new to hook you. The trailers, TV spots, etc. seem to just promise more of the same. I'd catch bits and pieces of the other films, and it just seems like nothing has gone anywhere. PLEASE block me, because you sound like a pompous d0uchebag, and I'd lose no sleep whatever if I didn't I get to see your overblown posts picking apart some pretty simple explanations of why things don't seem to be working. You don't sound clever, you don't sound funny, and you don't seem the least bit interesting or entertaining at all.

Child of the Eighties.
Man of the Nineties.
Man-Child of the Twenty-First Century.

reply

It was actually pretty interesting and funny to see him destroy your arguments and you going straight to insults. What was even funnier was the fact that you used the so-called leet speak on your insults : "d0uchebag". Thats a first on imdb for me.

I actually laughed a lot at your reaction :)

reply

yep the main issue is that its made for fans rather than as a stand alone movie.

And the requirement to need to watch the other four largely blunderingly bad movies before hand is akin to a death sentence.

Also vampire movies have evolved (and by that I don't mean they got better, just more suited to the cinema audience that they serve currently), a lot has changed. Theres probably kids watching this wondering why sunlight even hurts vamps.

reply

I don't know. I only watched the first one right before I saw this one, but I didn't have too much trouble following. I'm sure there were things I missed (like I didn't know why they could be in sunlight), but at least they gave a little summary.

Then again, my reason for watching it may have just made it that I didn't really care what else happened. I'm sure other non-fans wouldn't care to watch it, just I wouldn't have watched it if it hadn't been for that reason.

Go with your heart, buddy. Our brains only screw things up.

reply

good choice from you, the first isn't bad, basically a pastiche of 90s action movies plus Katy B looking amazing. Seeing just the first is much better than the chain smoking near-cancer inducing whole boxed set in one go.

The 2nd is where the serious dip in form starts, although the subsequent sequels have their strengths.

reply

Sure it's not hard to get the gist of the film (and the film does have a few flashbacks). But you sort of would have had to have seen and remembered what happened in the previous films in detail to get

Two years ago I saw the final Hunger Games Film: Mockingjay Part 2. Although I had seen part 1 the year previously, there was just enough details in part 1 that I could not remember and which made it hard for me to remember and enjoy what occurred what happened in part 2. So I went home and re-watched part one and saw part 2 again and found it much more enjoyable.

It all depends on the film of course, but films or shows that have very immersive plots I feel that it's necessary to understand what happened in previous episodes to get and enjoy that particular one.

"Queens Conquer"

reply



Thanks for watching those bits and pieces. You can enjoy Twilight which is totally new viewer-friendly. Bye bye.

Effective trolling is art.

reply

"The problem with this film is that you would have to have seen all the previous movies to get the reasons behind the factions."

That's hardly a problem at all. This is the 5th instalment of an established franchise. It should have elements from previous movies. Like Director Anna said, it needs to be in the Underworld universe and follow the Underworld rules. It serves the die hard fans well, and that's great! Mission accomplished beautifully. It does not need to cater to uninterested moviegoers like this Rod guy here.

Underworld movies have also successfully hold on to its fiercely loyal fans like me.

Effective trolling is art.

reply

The LA Times gave a short but generally positive review.

I liked this one. I'm not real happy over the lack of Scott Speedman but at least I knew beforehand that his character was toast.

reply

http://www.kidinthefrontrow.com/2010/04/film-critics-suck.html
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lists/movie/five-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-trust-movie-critics/

Nobody says it better than these articles.

Final thoughts on the entire franchise getting negative reviews: Why bother with critics' opinions? Critics are devoid of passion that only fans have. Ask those critics about "The Corvinus Strain", "The Chain", "The blood memory", origins of vampires and werewolves in these movies, ways of creating hybrids, how many vampire elders there are, what their names are...

They won't know, because they don't care, and they lack the ability to pay attention anyway.

Therefore, movie reviews do not define these movies. Instead, reviews are reflections of critics themselves.

Effective trolling is art.

reply

they lack the commitment to Underworld to pay attention, I tink you mean. They aren't some inferior genetic breed with debased concentration due to them not being Underwear fans heehee.

reply

Personally I thought there was something that was missing from this one... something in the mood. It felt a bit like Selene had somehow lost a little bit of her edge in this one.

There were some inconsistencies which bothered me -

i.) She was a third generation, older, vampire - meaning that she was likely to be stronger than younger, 4th or 5th generation vampires who she could easily fight, even in the first movie.

ii.) In Evolution she then became a Corvinus-strain hybrid and was able to fight off an Elder; not even just an Elder, a Vampire-Lycan hybrid elder who even commented "impressive" at one point.

iii) In Awakening she is able to heal herself far more quickly than before, and has enough power to flip a truck by running in to it, and she can fight a genetically modified über-Lycan, albeit with a little trouble... yet in this one she seemed (before her resurrection) she seemed to struggle to fight off a Lycan-Lycan-Vampire hybrid. I know he is stronger than regular Lycans because of injecting Michael's blood, but still.

...which brings me to my next point: how was Marius even able to kill Michael in the first place? We know Michael escaped the Lycan run facility because Eve sees him through her eyes on the roof of the building and he's gone when they get there. We know Michael can dispatch regular lycans and vampires with ease, and can take on an Elder pure-blood lycan and win with relative ease... yet a regular lycan somehow overpowered him, killed him, and has now ended up as some other kind go hybrid?? Meh. Seems a bit odd.

With the original Elders dispatched, I would have assumed the 4 most powerful individuals in that world were (In order) Eve, Michael, Selene, and then David.

I got a bit irked with the way they dealt with her death too: it felt a bit "meh". I always felt with Selene that if they were going to kill her that it she have been bold, violent, and sudden - ditto if she was going to sacrifice herself. But instead she sort of just lands and then feebly drowns herself. What was that about?

Following her resurrection her additional abilities seem to just be blonde streaks and an ability to move fast enough to 'blur'... which was a bit confusing as we'd already seen her move so fast that it was akin to teleporting in both Evolution and Awakening... it also didn't seem to make her any stronger either. I didn't really see what the point was?

There was also a little bit too much going on for my liking: another vampire-lycan affair, another power hungry vampire trying to pull a coup, another lycan leader attempting to gain more power using hybridisation, blonde, northern "magical" vampires. There were some good-ish ideas... it's just a shame we'd either seen them before or the execution of the new ideas were poor.

reply

I can only speak for myself, but I thought it was just more of the same. It wasn't horrible, but it just wasn't very interesting. There was nothing really new in this movie. Even the big bad is literally just a weak extract from a previous character. And because the movies all have this really desaturated dark tone to them and are otherwise stylistically similar, there's really not much that it adds to my experience as a movie watcher.

TL;DR: Seen it all before.

reply

[deleted]