It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Did the new Underworld suck?(18 posts)(18 posts)
(18 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 20, 2012
They didn't screen it, so bad sign, right? It didn't do well on Rotten Tomatoes, but as a vampire/werewolf mashup sequel I wouldn't expect it to.

So, anyone seen it yet and confirm if it blows or not? I'll admit, I'd be a little sad if it did. I haven't seen a movie in the theater since Thor and I might have considered going to see this one.
Posted January 20, 2012
Also keen to know this. I quite liked the first one. The other two were ok. So is it any good for fans of the genre?
Posted January 20, 2012
"Not screened for critics" means a movie is downright awful 98% of the time. Seriously.* And considering the degradation of the sequels already, I would skip it. If you have a dollar movie theater, take some friends and riff it. But I'd advise against seeing it seriously.


*The only exception I can think of to this rule is Psycho, because Hitchcock didn't want to give away what happens. He even went out and bought up a whole bunch of copies of the book it's based on so people wouldn't get spoiled that way either. That guy was dedicated.
Posted January 20, 2012
I enjoyed the Underworld series and was looking forward to a new episode. Unfortunately, I find nothing but "beat downs" for this release.

This is the "best" review I found out of several.
Posted January 20, 2012
first one was good, second one lost what made the first awesome, skipped the third, this one looks like it's -trying- to be a Resident Evil spin off ....

I'm thinking of dragging the wife over to the theater pub and getting drunk to it ... after all, it worked to turn seeing Priest into a fun night out.
Posted January 21, 2012
so... no actual reports yet? I'll try and see this tomorrow and feed back.
Posted January 21, 2012
It's an "Underworld" movie. It's supposed to suck. The quality of the franchise started somewhere between average and low, and declined rapidly with every further instance.

I'll probably still watch the fourth installment if I get the opportunity, but that didn't happen yet. ;)
Post edited January 21, 2012 by Psyringe
Posted January 21, 2012
I'll see it in about an hour and a half. I'm not going in with great expectations. The previous ones weren't what I'd call "quality" but I did enjoy them so that's the only thing I'm hoping for today's movie.
Posted January 21, 2012
Critics panned even the first installement which gathered a "cult following".

If you are part of that "cult following", you can't trust the critics on this one. Your tastes and theirs apparently deviate for this franchise.
Post edited January 21, 2012 by Magnitus
Posted January 21, 2012
It contained vampires, so you know SOMETHING sucked.
Posted January 21, 2012
avatar
Runehamster: It contained vampires, so you know SOMETHING sucked.
At least they didn't sparkle, or play football against the werewolves ... ;)
Posted January 21, 2012
avatar
Runehamster: It contained vampires, so you know SOMETHING sucked.
avatar
Psyringe: At least they didn't sparkle, or play football against the werewolves ... ;)
Err... in which show/movie did they play football against the werewolves?
Posted January 21, 2012
That was a movie?
Posted January 21, 2012
avatar
Psyringe: At least they didn't sparkle, or play football against the werewolves ... ;)
avatar
Magnitus: Err... in which show/movie did they play football against the werewolves?
None yet (as far as I remember), but the silly sparkle vampires were already seen playing baseball with the silly werewolves showing up shortly after, so them playing a football game eventually is just a logical extrapolation. ;)
Posted January 21, 2012
avatar
bevinator: "Not screened for critics" means a movie is downright awful 98% of the time. Seriously.* And considering the degradation of the sequels already, I would skip it. If you have a dollar movie theater, take some friends and riff it. But I'd advise against seeing it seriously.


*The only exception I can think of to this rule is Psycho, because Hitchcock didn't want to give away what happens. He even went out and bought up a whole bunch of copies of the book it's based on so people wouldn't get spoiled that way either. That guy was dedicated.
Hitchcock rocks.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Did the new Underworld suck?(18 posts)(18 posts)
(18 posts)