---

Which “Underworld” are we on now? Six? Seven? Seventeen? No no no, it isn’t that bad – we’re only on number Five, which for some is four too many. I personally never connected with any of the Underworld movies, except the third. My issue was always with the backstory: why is there such a complex lore for what is essentially vampires & werewolves shooting guns at each-other? I never really knew what was going on in those movies and that’s probably my fault for not paying more attention (a lot of “this character knows this other character from hundreds of years ago, and there’s a relic that does this-and-that but only under certain conditions and blah blah blah”), but I always had one-foot out the door with these sorts of things anyway. Sure, I’ve read my share of vampire stories and watched my share of monster movies, but anything tinged with a touch of magic, or involving children with superpowers, or “the fate of the world rests on this motley crew of pale attractive twenty-somethings” is more my wife’s department.

Now the third movie – acting as prequel – was something different: showing the origins of the conflict during the Middle Ages; swapping Kate Beckinsale for Rhona Mitra (some may say that’s apples-for-apples, but I prefer Mitra); and keeping the fighting to melee. That’s what I want to see when vampires & werewolves are fighting one-another: just, fuckin’, ripping each-other apart with their bare hands & “sharp pointy teeth”. Or at least keep the continuity & honor of “15-centuries of fighting” by taking those stupid guns away in the modern movies. It just looks so dumb – such an obvious ploy to modernize your overused gothic narrative framework. I don’t care if you have “ultraviolet bullets” that make the vampires ignite into flames when shot. Yes, it looks cool (the couple of times the budget allowed such an effect to play out in-full on-screen), but it’s reeks of thematic cheapness & laziness.

So, here we are. “Underworld 5: Blood Wars”. At this point it’s probably best to just look at these as another entry in a long-running soap-opera, sort of like what the “Saw” movies were becoming around the fourth-or-fifth one. I could appreciate the recap in the first five minutes, and when I didn’t quite follow what was going on chances were a character was right around the corner ready to regurgitate old plot points. Beckinsale is back as the “death-dealer” Selene and she’s as brooding & pouty as ever (though not as pouty as Rhona Mitra), and you can make the case that the rest of the actors this time around all do their series-best work here, if only because the film’s budget is so stripped-back that the only sure-fire signs of quality are who you put in front of the camera. Charles Dance instantly adds credibility: if he could save “Alien 3”, he can save any film (except maybe the “Ali G” movie. That was terrible).

Make no mistake, Underworld 5 is plagued first-and-foremost by the dreaded budgetary cutbacks so often seen when sequels approach double-digits: action scenes are shot at night – in the dark – with the minimal amount of lighting required for audiences to guess what’s going on, when really it’s probably to hide the poor digital effects (especially the squibs, which looked faker than the presets from After Effects they use in the “Expendables” movies); it only really takes place at a handful of different locations, making it a “bunch of people in a room shouting exposition at one-another” kind of movie, too (love those); and I counted at least twice where the same footage was reused in less than thirty-seconds (once in the prologue when Selene’s looking over her shoulder on a motorcycle, and again at the end when a werewolf growls in her face). Why did the editor feel they needed to pad-out an extra ten seconds by reusing footage? Was there seriously not enough B-roll to use? The movie is only 90 minutes, too (an-hour-and-twenty if you don’t count credits), so you can’t tell me you were trying to make it longer when the film doesn’t even take the time to show Selene in the “sacred world” when it seems like such a crucial plot point. They could have been saving something for the inevitable sixth movie (or remake/reboot/whatever), but they haven’t made another one now in seven years and I doubt Beckinsale has any interest in lubing-up & slipping into that sticky one-piece leather leotard again.

But, I’m still going to recommend it. Really! It wasn’t that bad, and honestly I think we can thank the scriptwriters for that. Underworld 5 carries some great stone-faced drama about “the final conflict” and shakes things up with some unexpected double-and-triple-crosses, including one in the first half-hour that sets the tone for the rest of the picture nicely. As said before, the actors are all on-board and read their lines like their characters’ lives depend on it (because it does). And despite the lack of cash, I was pleased to find the production didn’t skimp out on the fatality moves so prominently featured in its clip-show recap from prior entries, including some slicing-down-the-middle and a good spine-ripping. Plus, how can you not giggle at some of the idiocy you come across when a movie series has outstayed its welcome by at least two entries? I’m talking about the “rings with the single drop of blood in each” that play such an important role in the film’s denouement. You’re telling me that, like, a thousand-years-ago, the Queen of the vampires had employment insurance that involved manufacturing at least half-a-dozen of these “rings” for each of the immortal “council” in case something happened to her? I mean, I get the one ring for who ends up being her heir, but when they brought out the UPS-secured set at the end and started handing them out, well… what’s the word I’m looking for? Dumb. It’s dumb. But dumb fun. And mercifully short.

//jf 9.24.2022

---

Movie poster sourced from impawards.com. Screenshots author-obtained.