Underworld Evolution

[Bryan 2.0]

WARNING! This review contains spoilers, however, I have used the spoil tags to prevent ruining the film for you. Read on!

Underworld Evoultion is the fast paced sequel to 2003's Underworld. Several members of the cast return for this bloody sequel. Underworld Evolution picks up where the first film left off, opening doors to both the past and present all the while surrounding Selene (Kate Beckinsale) with deadly situations.

The Vampire elder Marcus has returned to destroy the Vampire species and to free his brother William, who has been imprisioned for centuries and it's up to Selene to stop him.

Well, at least she's not alone....

Spoiler: Michael (Scott Speedman) returns to Underworld Evolution as the all powerful Vampire/Lycan hybrid. We see alot more action and fighting from Speedman in this film. A definite plus!

Characters

There are very few characters in Underworld Evolution that were not already mentioned somewhere in the first Underworld. Viktor returns (though only to show scenes of the past) along with others. Of course, Selene returns as well, plus several other surprises.

However, there were a couple of characters which did not get as good of an explanation that I would have liked to see, but don't worry, they aren't main characters! Just call me picky, I suppose...

4.5/5

Story

Alot of critics have complained about Underworld Evolution's storyline. I could not disagree more. I found the story very tight and put together well. A few people that I know were confused in a few moments of the film, however, I was not.

So all in all, I felt that the storyline was very rich. Definitely as good as the first.

5/5

Music

As with the first film, the soundtrack is excellent for the movie. I actually purchased the soundtrack without even seeing who was on it (not the OST). I have to say that it is pretty good, however, the OST is much better.

5/5

Graphics

Like in the first Underworld, there were suits used for most of the Lycans. However, this time around, alot of CG was used, which I did not like. Some of it didn't look so bad, others it was clearly noticable. I'm personally not a fan of CG. So I was kind of disappointed with certain scenes.

4/5

Directing

Again, Wiseman does an excellent job as director as he did with the first. The acting is wonderful. The scenes are beautiful. A superb directing job. I would expect nothing less from him.

5/5

[Emperor Adriano]

the story and the characters are nice but the only bad thing is that we will have to eait to see it

[postalblowfish7]

this movie is just another piece of manufactured, unoriginal, demographic targeted, pop garbage. it's sad how easily you fell for it and got it confused with a good movie. directing 5/5? do you have any idea what you are talking about? i could see a perfect direction score going to say... stanley kubrick or takashi miike - but not a trite piece of garbage like Underworld II, or as i like to call it, "The Gothtrix".

this is a poorly written, unsubstantiated review.

[Zardoch]

this movie is just another piece of manufactured, unoriginal, demographic targeted, pop garbage. it's sad how easily you fell for it and got it confused with a good movie. directing 5/5? do you have any idea what you are talking about? i could see a perfect direction score going to say... stanley kubrick or takashi miike - but not a trite piece of garbage like Underworld II, or as i like to call it, "The Gothtrix".

this is a poorly written, unsubstantiated review.

Do you know how to direct a movie? Do you know how to cast one? So many people these days call themselves "experts" on such things but I highly doubt because you think this is crap doesn't mean it is. If you didn't like it then there was no reason to post here. I haven't seen the movie itself yet, but when I do I have a feeling I won't be disappointed.

[Bryan 2.0]

this movie is just another piece of manufactured, unoriginal, demographic targeted, pop garbage. it's sad how easily you fell for it and got it confused with a good movie. directing 5/5? do you have any idea what you are talking about? i could see a perfect direction score going to say... stanley kubrick or takashi miike - but not a trite piece of garbage like Underworld II, or as i like to call it, "The Gothtrix".

this is a poorly written, unsubstantiated review.

First of all, I'd like to say that it's very funny that you call my review "poorly written" when you didn't even take the time to punctuate. Also, I'd like you to show me a critic who has ever actually not been "unsubstantiated". There is a huge difference between fact and opinion, even if your's are both diluted and null.

And don't talk to me like I don't know anything about directing, either. Stanley Kubrick? I hope you aren't one of the few who fell for Eyes Wide Shut. That was hands down one of the worst films ever to be created.

As far as Takashi Miike goes, anyone who has even so much as TOUCHED the set of Hostel (minus Quentin Tarantino) is a complete fool. Next you'll tell me that Eli Roth is a genius...

I never said that Len Wiseman was some kind of directing prodigy. I simply complimented him on both of the Underworld films. If you want to come in here and disagree, that's fine. If you want to shoot negative comments at the film, go for it. That's part of what it is here for.

BUT...the minute that you start throwing around asinine comments about me, my writing skills, or my knowledge of films, I won't hesitate to cut you down a notch. Your post is nothing but trolling and hypocritical. It is your reply that is unsubstantiated. Think before you type next time.

[postalblowfish7]

I never said that Len Wiseman was some kind of directing prodigy. I simply complimented him on both of the Underworld films.

you gave wiseman a perfect dirrecting score. 5/5. i found that extremely offensive. keep trying to cut me down

oh and

Do you know how to direct a movie? Do you know how to cast one? So many people these days call themselves "experts" on such things but I highly doubt because you think this is crap doesn't mean it is.

actually yes - i went to film school, which means that i've spent hours in film theory, film history, auteur study classes, and actually making films myself. on FILM mind you, not some non-linear digital public access jerk off. so yes, i am a bit of an "expert." this movie is raw pop entertainment - not the masterpiece film it was presented to be by the review. period.

EDIT: Belle - if you can't take critique on your writing, don't post it on the web. your review was basically "i liked the first movie so i thought this movie was sweet." you didn't expand into any of the categories at all, and didn't back up your scores with any specifics. for your 5/5 direction score you site "The scenes are beautiful. A superb directing job." what? beautiful? the cinematography? the set dressing? the production design? for a movie to get 4.5's to 5's across the board i'd expect it to be the next citizen kane, and i'd expect a little more evidence to back it up.

[Zardoch]

Well that's good to know dude, but if you could give it a better professional opinion other than calling it bullshit then I think we could respect your opinion more of. However, even with your schooling you can still give an opinion, not hardcore based facts. I bet even people who went to school with or around you liked it and had other reasons. But that is what a movie is, ENTERTAINMENT, if it were anything else we could actually use it for something other than taking up space in our DVD collections.

Furthermore, there isn't that MANY masterpiece movies these days. The Matrix, (even with some bad acting), was good and will be remembered, but it was not a masterpiece, for an example. I personally think much older movies were greater than the ones today, but to still bash movies like this because you call it raw pop entertainment doesn't mean it's bad, just to you.

So give us a post that can give us another perspective to WHY you think it's so because it's easier to call something trash than proving it. Either way it's still an opinion.

[postalblowfish7]

So give us a post that can give us another perspective to WHY you think it's so because it's easier to call something trash than proving it. Either way it's still an opinion.

i was just offended by the high marks and "critical acclaim" this particular review was giving this movie. there's nothing wrong with a little pop entertainment - i mean i love star wars for christ sakes, but i'm not about to give episode III a 5/5 for dirrecting. you just have to separate between the corporate pop money makers, and the true works of art.

[Zardoch]

That's a bit immature then dude, if you get offended by it just tell why instead of getting all PO because of a review. You COULD make your own review on it, but either way it's pointless. Of course I do understand where you're coming from, it does get annoying when some movies come out and are souly made for profit. But still, getting offended by something like this is a bit ridiculus. So really just kind of back off his OWN opinion because you don't like it and give him a reason WHY it shouldn't be given such a high rating, rationally.

[postalblowfish7]

So really just kind of back off his OWN opinion because you don't like it and give him a reason WHY it shouldn't be given such a high rating, rationally.

HE didn't give any reasons WHY it should be given such a high rating. i'm sorry if i came off like an asshole - but as you said, the current state of film in this country is laughable - if not heartbreaking.

[Bryan 2.0]

actually yes - i went to film school, which means that i've spent hours in film theory, film history, auteur study classes, and actually making films myself. on FILM mind you, not some non-linear digital public access jerk off. so yes, i am a bit of an "expert." this movie is raw pop entertainment - not the masterpiece film it was presented to be by the review. period.

It's okay to criticize the film, actors, and the director. But what you are doing is just attacking me, which is pointless and clearly, you are hell-bent on sparking an argument. You went to film school, did you? Maybe you can tell me (without Google) what a DP is...or what FPS stands for. There has always been the on-going argument of which is better: 30fps or 60fps. In the films that I have worked on, we've always used 24fps, which, in my opinion, is the best. But I'm sure you know that...

Perhaps my review was a bit broad, but if I were to go into the film's specs, a handful of people might understand what the hell I was talking about. I didn't want to limit this review to just people like you and I who know what's going on behind the cameras.

However, I'd like to end this argument now. If you're honestly that in-tune with films, I'd like to speak with you outside of this site. I'm curious what your resume looks like and which film school you attended. Unless, of course, you are determined to keep this pointless argument going...

[Zardoch]

HE didn't give any reasons WHY it should be given such a high rating. i'm sorry if i came off like an asshole - but as you said, the current state of film in this country is laughable - if not heartbreaking.

That's no excuse to attack his opinion. And I'll just refer to Belle's post above, you two can duke it out elsewhere.

[postalblowfish7]

i'm not trying to argue - and yeah, if you know your stuff but it certainly wasn't clear in your review. i mean honestly man, it's just not a well supported review with outlandishly high marks.

and if you're interested i went to the wright state university film school in dayton ohio, who's graduates include the cinematographer for tom hanks' band of brothers, and the storyboard artist for all the coen brothers films. don't try to cut my credit by dropping some weak argument about FPS. i don't have anything to prove to you.

i'll stop the argument, and i'm sorry if you felt so offended - but i felt equally offended by a drop of praise going to such an unoriginal, and i feel, trite film.

[Bryan 2.0]

i'm not trying to argue - and yeah, if you know your stuff but it certainly wasn't clear in your review. i mean honestly man, it's just not a well supported review with outlandishly high marks.

and if you're interested i went to the wright state university film school in dayton ohio, who's graduates include the cinematographer for tom hanks' band of brothers, and the storyboard artist for all the coen brothers films. don't try to cut my credit by dropping some weak argument about FPS. i don't have anything to prove to you.

i'll stop the argument, and i'm sorry if you felt so offended - but i felt equally offended by a drop of praise going to such an unoriginal, and i feel, trite film.

Great. The argument is over, then. As for the FPS argument, it's not a weak one and it's not an argument, I was simply inquiring what your preference is. I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way.

Anyhow, water under the bridge. Enjoy your afternoon.

[postalblowfish7]

Enjoy your afternoon.

you too

[SailorCallie]

I'll wait for the DVD release so that Screen Gems would be able to add deleted scenes to (hopefully) an Unrated, Extended Director's Cut version of Underworld: Evolution.

[Rosetyler1]

truth of the matter was I was not impressed with this movie, the first one was great, but I think to me that the plot just started ot seem dry and repetitive. Vampire this, wolf that blah blah blah... I'll give it a 7 for graphic and action though.

[Tepsha]

Kate Beckinsale is so hot, that is all I have to say.