Underworld: Evolution

Len Wiseman is not a good screenwriter by any stretch of the imagination (I was convinced of this unfortunate fact when I saw the first film) and he is definitely not a good director (which I somehow, strangely accepted last time). Underworld: Evolution amounts to a bunch of awkward dialogues that are supposed to be interludes between the frantic action, which the director used excessively. But according to the motto "too much of everything is bad," Underworld is an overly noisy, flashing, and frenetically edited spectacle that glues together boring dead weight from the plot. For some reason, they strangely cut out the werewolves and the film more or less revolves around strange vampire "politics" that are laughable. The Speedman-Beckinsale duo starts off with a nice sex scene, which is where their pros in the film end. Underworld: Evolution is nothing more than a popcorn movie trying to be something more. It's not enough just to have perfect technical aspects (sound, cinematography, CGI) and dirty-looking sets to add to the film's rawness. It lacks a plot with more sense and maybe a little bit of directorial inventiveness. Perhaps that's why I'm skeptical about the idea of a trilogy. (09/04/2006)

Van Helsing, Blade 2, Terminator. When watching the second Underworld, you sometimes get the feeling that you are watching a hybrid of all these movies. But a very entertaining hybrid, I should say. Wiseman’s directing hasn’t improved one bit since part one. But thanks to having more money, we get a more bombastic story and even bigger craziness than last time. And to top things we get Kate Beckinsale in a latex suit, so who could want anything more from this summer put-your-feet-up movie. (27/09/2006)

Underworld: Evolution is a solid sequel to the first part, completing the rest of the puzzle and a fairly well thought out vampire-Lycanian mythology. I liked the concept of the first immortal and his sons, the founders of two houses that have been hunting and killing each other since time immemorial. I also have to mention the good connection to the first film and the flashbacks to the past, which broke up the time plane of the story so the plot didn't feel so monotonous. Similarly to the first one, the biggest weakness was the poorer script in places and some scenes that were made for effect without being logical. Despite this, though, and perhaps because of it, I like this series for its action-packed, purposefully goofy (which I mean no disrespect) look. A sequel comparable to the first one, which certainly doesn't put the series to shame and even stands out slightly from the pack thanks to its many flashbacks. (04/09/2016)

A cheaper, blue-filtered version of Van Helsing that becomes ever more predictable as it draws closer to the end credits. Thanks, however, to the shorter runtime and Kate Beckinsale’s great image, I found this less boring than Van Helsing. (02/03/2006)

Compared to the first part, it is somewhat weaker. Above all, the relative originality and appealing visual concept of the first part does not bear the desired fruit in the sequel, and everything is mired in a large number of visual effects. These effects are better than in the predecessor, but the significantly disjointed screenplay buries everything under a ton of clichés. Kate Beckinsale is great (the erotic scene is beautifully shot), the rest is just some acting filer. The inventiveness is gone, the mythology is boring, and the action is quite inconsistent. The opening massacre of the village in some sequences reminded me of the opening battle in Gladiator, the editing and some camera shots, in particular, are quite similar (I love the blood splatters on the camera). There is more blood, but unfortunately, the quality has decreased. It's not necessarily bad, just somewhat dumber, and the most embarrassing part is in the end - the terminator-like monologue. (16/09/2006)