Lou Sytsma

Count me as interested as well. This looks like it is shaping up to be a lot of fun.

Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

Rex Bachmann

Michael Martin wrote (post #50):

Quote:

For me, Underworld looks to simply be fun eye candy - a guilty pleasure waiting to be enjoyed. . . . I'm not expecting a groundbreaking, weighty meditation on the supernatural or vampirism or lycanthropy. I'm hoping for a fun, kick-ass movie that'll entertain me.

Well, you may get that, and, for me, if that's all you get, that's a problem. Your desciption sounds exactly like what the cynical, "no-risk" studio execs and their lazy marketeers are expecting in mass audiences: low expectations and a tireless demand for more of the "same old 'same-old'", which is, consequently, in my estimation, why almost no "serious" supernatural movies are being made there anymore. (And we could expand that well beyond "supernatural movies".)

I know I'm sounding like the sour grump, but does none of you want to see anything other than loud, flashy "kick-ass" movies (and television programs) all the time? (Of course, I may go to see this "loud 'kick-ass' movie" myself, if it gets good ratings.)

Jason Seaver

Sure, I/we want to see other stuff. And I do - in the last couple weeks I've been to Alan Rudolph's latest, some standard summer fare, classics at The Brattle, a Bollywood sci-fi musical romantic comedy (yeah, they actually made one)...

But, hey, Kate Beckinsale in something skintight gets my attention. And holds it, even if it is in the middle of freakin' vampires and werewolves in yet another tech-noir styled action movie. I'm sure, given enough Kate B in something skintight, I'd grow bored (that would be a lot), but, for now, this looks exciting.

Jay's Movie Blog - A movie-viewing diary.
Transplanted Life: Sci-fi soap opera about a man placed in a new body, updated two or three times a week.
Trading Post Inn - Another gender-bending soap, with different collaborators writing different points of view.


"What? Since when was this an energy ball movie?" - Overheard during a screening of Takashi Miike's Dead Or Alive
"What the hell religion are you people?" - Overheard during the Captain Marvel serial at SF/29
"If I feel even one bullet hit me, I will rip your lungs out through your nostrils!" - Ron Silver as himself, "Heat Vision And Jack"

Ken Chan

There's also a difference between a movie/show that "blows things up" and one that "blow things up good". Some people (and reviewers) can't appreciate the difference -- "It's all just gunplay and explosions and violence" -- but I do. And you're right in that there's way too much by-the-numbers crap made by hacks. But since Kate is in it and the trailer has a few good bits like that landing, I'm going to see it and hope for the best.

//Ken

Mikel_Cooperman

I saw a great preview on TV last night. I just hope its not another Matrix Reloaded in terms of a Big letdown.



I couldnt agree more. Why cant we have a good kickass movie along the lines of say T2 and it actually be good. I know this is Hollywood and they are famous for churning out production line crap but there is always hope.



A gang war?
Huh?

Chuck Mayer

Every film doesn't have to be pushing for an Oscar.
Did you not see The Others?

This isn't a supernatural move. Neither was Blade. They are action movies in a supernatural world.

And a good kick-ass movie is very hard for Hollywood to do these days. Now they have to kowtow to focus groups, and most films lose their edge or brains. If Underworld can entertain me, that's enough. I'll leave the heavy lifting for heavy films...which I enjoy just as much.

I just expect films to deliver what they promise.

Take care,
Chuck

Ryan_C

Well said Chuck, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Youth would be an ideal state if it came much later in life.

Dome Vongvises

Careful Chuck, some people think that Oscar is too low brow.



Rex, you wouldn't be so grumpy if you stuck with what you liked. The arthouse still exists, you know?

Rex Bachmann

Chuck Mayer wrote (post #66):

Quote:

Every film doesn't have to be pushing for an Oscar.

No one here said it did. But I am snobbish, elitist, or whatever enough to think that each production should at least try to add to the craft and to the genre to which it ascribes itself. And, no, I'm not a fan of genre mishmash.

Quote:

This isn't a supernatural move. Neither was Blade. They are action movies in a supernatural world.

Uhh, I would say you're W-R-O-N-G. Your distinction is unclear and, as far as I'm concerned, meaningless. Care to elaborate? Any story with "people" flying through the air (under their own power), climbing walls, turning into beasts, (presumably) sucking human blood for eternal(?) life, etc. . . . well, if that's not "supernatural", I don't know what is. (Seen any flying people lately?)

Quote:

Did you not see The Others?

No, I missed that one, but your question is irrelevant since I said "almost no 'serious' supernatural films".

Quote:

If Underworld can entertain me, that's enough. I'll leave the heavy lifting for heavy films . . . which I enjoy just as much.

In the context of this conversation that seems to imply that a "good supernatural horror" film---yes, I know you deny Underworld's entry into that category, but I insist---is mutually exclusive of the "heavy film" category and that's the kind of thinking I'm trying to understand and to fight.

Michael Martin wrote (post #50):

Quote:

I'm not expecting a groundbreaking, weighty meditation on the supernatural or vampirism or lycanthropy. I'm hoping for a fun, kick-ass movie that'll entertain me.

[Hmmmm], you see, I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. A "meditation" on lycanthropy (or vampirism, for that matter) involves a meditation on humanity as well, for the sake of contrast. Why is that so execrable, or daunting, or boring, or however you find it? An old Roman proverb states: "Man is no man, but a wolf to a stranger." What did the old Romans know that we don't?


Dome Vongvises wrote (post #68):

Quote:

. . . you wouldn't be so grumpy if you stuck with what you liked. The arthouse still exists, you know?

Not for "supernatural horror" it doesn't, and that's what I like (along with science fiction). They're too busy making genre mishmashes and formulaic tripe ("Scream if you know what these teens/young adults did last summer but you'd rather not see them being chased around endlessly by one silly bad guy or another.") these days to give me "what I like". Those kinds of films---well, actually they're the same film with different window-dressing---have coöpted the money and energy Hollywood might put into what I call "serious" (or dare I say "intelligent"?) "supernatural horror" films. There are plenty of good stories out there that could be adapted for large or small screen and have all (or most of) the "boo!"-elements the crowds love (e.g., "Idol of the Flies", "Second Night Out", some quality Lovecraft adaptations, and the like).

Make no mistake about it: I enjoy my share of "flash-and-boom", but even then I want it to have a brain behind it. I want it serve a purpose higher than just eliciting a momentary sensory spike. The latter is easy, in my opinion: turn up the volume and brighten the lights. Putting some "meat" into a story so that what you end up with is more than just a bunch of sensorially pleasing set pieces---that's the hard part.

Maybe Underworld will tell us:

---Why are the vampires ("Capulets") fighting the werewolves ("Montagues")? Surely, with 7 billion humans on the face of the Earth, there's prey enough for everyone.

---What started this "feud" and why does it continue? "Turf war"? Family "insult"? ("Your mother has bat wings!" "Your sister's got whiskers!") Dyspepsia? What?

---If this is such a "big deal", how could they have hidden it from mankind until now?

---And, lastly, I'll be interested to find out what part of this movie makes it necessary (rather than merely sufficient or---more likely---merely convenient) to involve "vampires" and "werewolves" in a basic "action plot", 'cause right now I don't see it.

Ryan Wishton

Your blaming Hollywoods lack of good movies in general on the slasher genre??? Thats pretty far fetched... Your saying that if the slasher genre didnt exist that Hollywood would devote time to better films??? Come on!!! This is Hollywood... You would just have a bunch of crappy movies in a different sub-genre...

Hollywood is concerned about money... They dont care if you want a good movie... They will make whatever is selling... They dont care about making good movies... They care about budgets, and getting in and out of a project as fast as possible... Thats not going to change... It's like going to the race track... They say too bad, so sad... You want a good movie... Go fund it and make it yourself...

Explain the downfall of every other genre then as well??? Comedy, Action, etc... Every genre has basically tanked in past years with a few exceptions... The comedy genre especially just flat out sucks now... One dumb fart joke after the other...

Sure, multiple horror movies are the same... They use the same formula... But, action movies also use the same formula much of the time...

The James Bond series is a great example... It's the same movie every time with different window dressing, a bigger weapon, and a different chick to get in Mr. Bonds pants for that outing... But, not many people complain about the lack of original Action movies, etc...

You want Supernatural Horror that will truly put the scares in you... You should really meet my Grandmother... You want ghosts... It's as close as you will get without actually seeing the real thing...

Well, at the rate things are going, you always have the following movie to look forward to... It's supernatural...