>>214231029
>I always thought they looked like derivative trash that was trying to cash in on The Matrix at the time
Only partially. It was just the popular "look and feel" for a short while. Matrix obviously had a role in it, too, but there's quite a few action movies from that era that have this vibe, with leather, crushed blacks, everyone looking way too serious, etc.
>Are they worth watching in 2025?
When I last watched them, I rated them 5, 4, 3, 2 and 2 out of 10 (in order of release).
1 is fine. It's nothing special at all but it's fine, and it has some strong moments here and there. 2 is unnecessary but it's a direct continuation of the events from 1, so might as well watch it too if you watch 1.
3 is a prequel whose probably only "value" is the real life lore, where 1) they cast a Kate Beckinsale irl doppelganger (Rhona Mitra) to play a character whom Kate's character is supposed to strongly resemble; and 2) in the 1st film, Kate's husband at that time played the bad guy, and Kate divorced him to marry the director. In the 3rd film, this ex-husband of Kate returns to have a romance and a sex scene with Rhona Mitra. "I look your wife from you and now I'm making you fuck her doppelganger on camera!"
4 is essentially like a bad videogame. It's also something like 1:15 without the intro montage and outro credits. Also, this is the part where the series tried to be more SCIENCY about vampires and werewolves instead of mythical, and shat the bed by being inconsistent.
5, despite being bad, has some good British actors chew the scenery, and a surprising amount of fun cheesy one-liners.
"I think that..."
"Don't think, you'll hurt yourself."
I also think the series lost some of its important visual grit by going from a kino film look to shot-on-digital. Even though it never fell to the trashiest possible levels of the latter.
