Movie Review: Underworld: Evolution (2006)
Critical Critic: General Disdain | Published on: January 29, 2006 |
Filed under: Action/Adventure, Horror
Directed By: Len Wiseman
MPAA Rating: R
Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman, Tony Curran, Bill Nighy
IMDB Link: Underworld: Evolution
Movie Trailer:
Not sure about you, but I’ve always been a buff on the unknown, supernatural stuff. I’ve always been intrigued by vampire tales or ghost stories. The stranger and scarier the better. So without a doubt, I wanted to see the second installment of the Underworld series, Underworld: Evolution.
Underworld: Evolution has a simple premise: vampires and werewolves fighting each other. Mix in some human casualties and plot line older than my grandmother and you’ve got a successful idea for a movie. This particular incantation, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is on the run with Michael (Scott Speedman), from the vampires who have betrayed her. While on the run, the truth of the vampires and werewolves legacy comes to light and, you guessed it, Selene must save the day.
For the most part the movie delivers on what it promises. Action, a shitload of blood and guts, and plenty of Kate Beckinsale in tight leather. Let’s take a closer look at each. Action - there is no shortage of it. Car chases, explosions and fights are littered everyhwere. I think the only moments of non-action were during the boring ’sex scene’ and a few minor falshbacks. Gore - fucking piles of it. Len Wiseman (director) must have sat back and thought of every possible way to kill a man and how to film it. Because it is all here. Bullets, swords, teeth, helicopter blades, etc . . . it’s all here. Sex appeal - Kate Beckinsale looks great. I never knew who she was prior to the first Underworld movie, but it is safe to say, no one will forget who she is now. In the similar vein of Carie Ann Moss from The Matrix. Tight leather clothing on a woman with a fantastic body goes a long, long way.
Of course there are some downsides to the movie. For the most part, the movie just doesn’t bring the bang expected after the first Underworld. It’s got the action, but just not the pizza, th Something is missing. And although, Marcus (the final founding vampire) is a bad ass motherfucker, I wanted to see him be a badder ass motherfucker. To have him get beaten so easily by Selene irritates me to no end.
Final verdict? It is clear why Underworld: Evolution is #1 movie in the country. It’s got the right mix of all the previously mentioned attributes. And it’s a whole hell of a lot better than that snorefest King Kong.
 |
About: General Disdain I love long walks on the beach, candlelit dinners and I'm a sucker for women named Helga. What can I say -- I live for the finer things in life! |
Nashtradomus posted a response on: February 14, 2006 | Reply
The first “Underworld” was visually spectacular but suffered from a confusing storyline and obnoxiously relentless sound effects and music. However, I enjoyed it enough to watch the ending and not walk out before the movie ended.
By all accounts, this sequel should have been a dismal failure. Why? Well, first of all, it is a sequel. By reputation, sequels are typically worse than their prequels. Secondly, this is an action-fantasy that relies heavily on special effects. That’s usually not a genre where you find consistent quality. And last, but not least, the original was merely okay… Somewhat entertaining but nothing particularly memorable outside of Kate Beckinsale splendiferously filling leather outfits like no other actress can.
I got a reasonably coherent plot that emotionally involved me enough to care about the outcome. The effects were quite cool to behold. The entire film is shot in a slightly desaturated black, white and icy blue palette casting shadows on spectacularly moody locations. I still find it amazing that the delicate, corset-wearing English rose, Kate Beckinsale as Selene, can kick as much Lycan ass as she does in these films. But she pulls off this type of role far better than the more appropriately equipped Angelina Jolie in the disappointing “Tomb Raider” series. She puts Milla Jovovich’s character in “Resident Evil” to shame. And she even holds her own with the classic female action hero, Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley from the “Alien” series. The tie-breaker… Beckinsale is hotter.
The actions scenes are impressive. I consistently complain that what a lot of bad directors do during actions scenes, to cover up the fact that they have no idea what they are doing, is to use ridiculously quick cuts, unintelligible close ups, distractingly loud music, and introduce dust, smoke and fog to hide the details of the shots. Len Wiseman is utterly unafraid to show the details… confident that he has done his job well enough to show you all his tricks. Some of the actions scenes are even slowed down so that the audience can see, in even more detail, what is happening. Rarely did I feel disoriented during one of the action scenes in “Underworld: Evolution”.
All in all, this film was thoroughly entertaining. It was shot with a cool visual flare and took enough breaks from the action for us to catch our breaths and learn a little more about the characters. But mostly, this film gives us what we want and expect… Kate Beckinsale blasting a quadrillion bullets into the chests of hideous creatures while looking sublime doing it.
It doesn’t deserve an A grade because no film like this should ever warrant that kind of praise. But it is as good as it possibly could have been considering the genre, and that makes it a successful and worthwhile watch.
I rate this movie B+.
Mr. Azure posted a response on: February 16, 2006 | Reply
Welcome back, Nashtradomus. I don’t have much to debate with you over your rebuttal review. However, I take umbrage with one of your statements. Kate Beckinsale defiantely looks better that Jolie and Jovovich - but Sigourney Weaver? Sigourney takes the cake hands down for her role in Alien. Everyone can remember when she is fighting the alien in her panties - it’s a scene engrained in the psyche of all American males . . .
Nashtradomus posted a response on: February 20, 2006 | Reply
It’s good to be back and that much better to start off this season with a rebuttal on who is hotter. The last time something like this happened, it changed the face of this webpage, Mr A.
Your take on a hibernating, emotional angular woman in her skivvies who happens to bitch-slap Aliens is hotter than this super hot chick dressed in black leather tights and high heels showing her curves off.
I disagree.
Mr. Azure posted a response on: February 20, 2006 | Reply
Looks like a one time poll may be in order to solve this one. Let’s not forget how the last one ended!
JerseyMike posted a response on: February 26, 2006 | Reply
I think I have to agree with Mr. Nash on this one. Sorry Kate is so much hotter than Ms. Weaver, regardless of the role she played 30 years ago.
BTW - Ms. Kate did not need any retouching, stuffing or modifications to her “outfit”. It was all her, every luscious, sensuous, eye popping curve. Is this a kid friendly site?
Mr. Azure posted a response on: February 28, 2006 | Reply
No one is arguing that Ms. Beckinsale doesn’t look good. I am only pointing out that Ms. Weaver did it better in Alien!
MrBlueCN posted a response on: November 24, 2007 | Reply
Am I the only one who watched these two movies laughing about people being worried about “lichens”?
Sometimes I am the only one who gets my humor…
Atomic Popcorn posted a response on: November 26, 2007 | Reply
Great flick in my mind. And not only for the bare skinned Beckinsale.
Loved the take on the vampires and lykans in this film, really enjoyed it.