Underworld: Evolution dir. by

24 January 2006

Genre: ,
Script: ,
Cast: , , ,
Rated :

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usI’ll admit to being a fan of the first Underworld film. Not that it was a great film or anything, but it had style and an interesting premise. Although the execution was lacking it still kept me entertained enough to buy it on dvd. So I was looking forward to this sequal.

I should remember that expectations exist to be dashed :)
The film looked great. Dark and gloomy, stylish and, well, cool. But the plot and characters were a let down.

The story line was so convoluted that it needed a text introduction, aided by flashbacks to the 13th century, and then a voice-over, and then more flashback, and even then the characters had to keep repeating various plot points so that the audience would know what was going on. Or, maybe all that wasn’t needed, but the makers thought it was, so there it is, part of the film. Maybe there will be a special recut director’s edition for people who can follow a plot.

And the characters were meh. Seline was a lot more interesting in the last film, and Michael was boring. We should’ve have more Kraven, at least his all-over-the-place accent from the film was entertaining.

But that doesn’t mean I didn’t like the film. I did, its just that it isn’t as good as the first. And if you didn’t enjoy that you won’t enjoy this. I’m not really sure why I did like it. Maybe it just the genre, or the world that Wiseman has created is interesting. Who knows? But I will be buying this on dvd, eventually.

Show Spoiler ▼

IMDb | Official site | Random Burblings | SFX | Wednesday’s Child | Captain Hook | Fear the Spoon | Jeff MacArthur

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Carl V. says:

    I guess I didn't see the plot as all that complex or convoluted. I liked the fact that they tried to add a little more depth to what was essentially a very thinly plotted first movie (although one I like a great deal). I didn't really like Kraven, he was an adequate bad guy but kind of a whiney prick so I enjoyed the fact that he bit it early on.

    I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other about the Michael thing although I thought it was an okay evolutionary thing for him to be somewhat immortal and super powerful. He was a quiet, somewhat subdued guy in the first one so they really couldn't go radically away from that in the second since it was supposed to be happening immediately after the first one ended.

    I agree that if you didn't like the first one you won't like this one…however one of the few positive reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes actually did have this experience which I found odd as they are more or less the same film.

    Will be interesting to see if there is an extended cut and what actually is on it.

  2. fence says:

    Carl I actually liked the film more than that review suggests. Thats all the negative points, but it still great fun.

    Course fella watching probably get the added bonus of Seline :)

  3. Carl V. says:

    True Fence, too true!

  4. NineMoons says:

    I just watched it on DVD. Only saw the first one once and didn't remember anything about it at all really. Got myself REALLY confused since I thought the winged fella was Bill Nighy from the first film but once we sorted that out I was fine.

    Thought it was very very rubbish. Enough with the slo-mo, guys! Michael was booooooring and not attractive or interesting. And the extended sex scene kind of icked me out a bit, since it was Kate's husband who was filming it! :-) Totally saw the resurrection bit coming as well.

    On the whole, two stars out of five.

  5. Fence says:

    The resurrection was a bit signposted alright, but it went on just long enough that I hoped they wouldn't. And then they did. *sigh*

    But overall I still liked the look of it, and can ignore the crapness of the story :)