Underworld: Evolution post release

Great to hear. Unfornuately, I was stupid and picked up the novel and read it because I was too curious to wait. And from the novel, I thought it was quite good. If it equals the novel and you say it is an improvement over the first film which I like very, very much, then I'll be good.

I know each to his own and all that, but you lost me at "I liked the first one."

Agreed. I'm still trying to figure out how this sequel got made in the first place. Anyway, glad to hear someone enjoyed the 120 minutes of blue filtered CGI madness.

Wanna hear a fun story about the first movie AND the oh-so-wonderful country I live in?

It's august 2003, and we're in Underworld's first official press screening in Madrid. 50+ attendees, all-media members (most of them distinguished & relevant, others complete freaks, but hey), sitting in a dark movie-theater, when the movie begins...

Remember that first scene when Kevin Costner and Bob Duvall are sheperding their cows and talking 'bout their stuff? Well, cause for a couple minutes nobody fucking gives a peep.

I stand up, go find the press girl -shit, we fucked up- and 30 minutes later, the real movie begins.

But hey, wait a minute. It's in english. Without subtitles. In a country where most of its citizens (and above all, its journalists) mostly know one word in english: oui.

...And then again, nobody fucking gives a peep.

Finally, the movie ends, everybody walks out, and next week, guess how were the reviews?

The visuals are cool, but the dialogues suck. THE DIALOGUES SUCK, YOU ILLITERATE BASTARD MOTHERFUCKERS?!

Yep, that's Spain.


Oh, and me? I thought the first one was okay, nothing remarkable I guess...

The dialogue did suck, though. But then again, so did the visuals. Unless you're a big Adam Ant fan.

Indeed. That's why I haven't got exactly high hopes for this one.

What's the difference between this and RA: Apocalypse?

RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE had Antoine The Man-Whore with a really big gun. This has....Scott Speedman.

Yeah.

If part one of this illustrious franchise is any indication, EVOLUTION'll be a delightfully stoic bundle of poor editing, drab visuals and portentious dialogue. I think I'd rather watch VAN HELSING 2; at least then we'd get to see David Wenham.

I didn't think the hate of the Underworld series was this serious....

For those who had problems with the first one, is there any chance that this one might POSSIBLY work out better? Even though it has all the same major players in front of and behind the camera is it fair to assume it will be a big mess right off the bat? I'm not saying it won't possibly be a mess or anything like that, but I'm one of those who enjoyed the first flick so I'm kinda looking forward to seeing this one just to see where it goes.

If the novel is any indication, the story was quite entertaining. At the end of it, you really don't need another film. It ends on a great note, for me. Everything is pretty much explained.

I'd say at least check it out if you enjoyed the first one...

i saw it last night. it looked expensive. had a couple fun action sequences. even some of the dialogue was good. and beckinsle was almost naked.

all in all it was pretty mediocre.

but i love the comment about van helsing 2. youd rather see a sequel to a terrible movie because of the very worst thing about said movie? is that a joke im not getting?

Two movies makes a series? Jesus, the Ernest pictures must constitute a saga.

Almost don't cut it.

The first one pissed me off something fierce....not necessarily because it's an out and out bad movie--i liked all things Lucien and Viktor--but movies that take seemingly good (or at least entertaining) premises and screw the pooch on all fronts boil my blood more than genuinely bad movies do. At least a damn good soundtrack came from it.

I'm waiting to hear the answer to Rich's question. Sure, the best I can hope for is pure Saturday matinee level entertainment, but I WANT to see a vampires vs werewolves movie that works. The first one didn't. On general principle, I'd like to give the sequel another chance.

The first one was very good. Amazing use of color, imagery and story. Weak dialogue? Yes. This one for soem reason seems excitign enough but I dont know. I hope it is as good or even better then the first one!

Oh you have no idea. People hate the first film with the intensity of a thousand suns.

I suppose that wouldn't have anything to do with the first film sucking with the intensity of a thousand suns, would it?

We had the original green Matrix and with Underworld the blue Matrix so where is the red Matrix to complete this "Black Latex" interpretation of Krzy-sztof Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy?

Yeah see that's the problem: it didn't, and the minority who know that can't figure out why everyone hates the film.

I think the reason you can't figure that out is because you haven't also realized that the first movie blows.

Oh well done. Yes, the reason I can't understand why everyone hates the film is because I liked it. Next I'd like you to figure out why my head gets so sore when I bang it against a wall.

It's ok. There are plenty of people with shitty taste in movies who don't understand why people think their taste is terrible. You're not alone.

Saw Evolution tonight. It's quite a bit more fun than the first movie. That's not to say it's great -- it completely chickens out of a pretty cool second act twist -- but it's one of the better popcorn movies I've seen in the past 12 months. It was two years in between Underworld viewings for me. I wouldn't be totally opposed to seeing Evolution again when it's released on DVD.

Well that explains why you liked Underworld.

You have to admit, you walked into that.

g-dude is such a cunt.

Its hard to stay in good sted with the kingdom of the elite. Don't be a lemming if you liked the movie say so.

Personally I didn't think the first Underworld was all that good. However I did like Beckinsale in it and found a few parts entertaining (for the record the actors who played Lucien and Kraven were terrible). I wasn't all that interested in seeing a sequel but after seeing the commercials I must admit that this looks like a good time at the movies.

Its not like we've had great popcorn fare over the last few months outside of Narnia or Kong. Yes I know its junk food trash or whatnot. I'll take it on a saturday over A Lot Like Love or Stealth.

I don't quite think this one's any better, problem-wise. It doesn't really advance the story, either. U:E just gives a bunch of backstory (which would have been great to see in the first film) that doesn't pay off here. There's no "evolution" at all, just another missed opportunity at telling a good story. So, if you don't mind spending a few bucks on a matinee, go for it.

Shouldn't you be in a different thread telling people to go easy on Uwe Boll, or arguing with Helix?

I don't have a problem with liking what you like--but to post that you enjoy something like Underworld and then comment on how you don't get why other people don't as if we're all putting down an unsung classic tends to stick in my craw, as Duvall would say.

For example, I happen to like the movie Hook. Not love, but like. I certainly don't hold the ill will many do--but I understand why they do. Looking at it objectivly, I can see the flaws, I can see where it dissapoints. I enjoy it more out of nostalgia, the central performances, and the concept than anything else. But were I to post that I simply thought it was good, and then acted puzzled as to why most people don't seem to, chances are my taste would be called into question. Underworld tendsa to ellicit a stronger voice of dissent from me, mainly due to the fact that it dropped the ball on its concept, and couldn't even drop it in an entertaining way. To use a more apt comparison, you could look at Transporter 2. I'll never say in a thousand years it's a good movie, but I had fun watching it.

Underworld couldn't even entertain me on a base, this-movie's-dumb-but-the-action-is-cool level--it was just downright boring. I don't see a single thing watchable in the film: bad acting from everyone involved (except Nighy, and even he's pretty hammy), lame dialogue, about 45 minutes worth of screentime spent showing people driving, people walking through doors, or people glowering like an overly emotional goth teenagers, and action that's either a) incomprehensible, or b) statically staged and dully filmed, and often times it's both at once.

If you want to like Underworld, fine, whatever (like I said in my first post). But thinking someone's a bit daft for not being able to see what's bad about it doesn't make them an elitist.

As for Milkyway, well, he's just a moron.

So, you KNOW that UNDERWORLD didn't suck? And g-dude's the only one being arrogant about his opinion? Huh.

Actually, Milkyway has devoted time and energy to defending Boll's output on this very board. So its less an elitist comment and more a specific attack on MW's ludicrous past statements.

I've been looking for reviews on this and haven't really been able to find any yet. Granted I really haven't been looking too hard, but for something I've been seeing all over the place I would have figured it would have some reviews. It wasn't held back, was it?

Anyway, I found this on Ebert & Roepers page for their upcoming show:

"Upcoming Television Show

This weekend (1/21), Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper review:

* GLORY ROAD with Josh Lucas
* TRISTAN & ISOLDE with James Franco and Sophia Myles
* LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD with Albert Brooks
* THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA with Tommy Lee Jones and Barry Pepper
* BUBBLE (Early Review) with Debbie Doebereiner, Misty Dawn Wilkins and Dustin James Ashley
* WHY WE FIGHT documentary

Plus the Wagging Finger of Shame for UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION"

That last bit I put in bold doesn't bode well, but it doesn't bother me. I'm still likely gonna go see it with a $5 ticket after work next week.

The funny thing is that if this was about the Star Wars prequels, the 'this doesn't suck, it's just your opinion' side would be the minority.

In any case, UNDERWORLD is a poor, poor film. I don't honestly know how anyone can look at it objectively and not realize how badly written, acted and directed it is. The same with the SW prequels, and a lot of other movies that get love on CHUD.

I realize you like/love it. I'm not disputing that. There's no shame in liking something that's crap. I love FLASH GORDON to death, and it's a terrible movie. The same with most of Schwarzeneggar's movies. I enjoy the hell out of COMMANDO, but I'm under no illusions that it's a good movie.

Also, Milkyway really is a moron, and likes to argue with me for no reason.

So really, the post was completely factual.

You think the worst thing about VAN HELSING was Wenham doing the bumbling-sidekick bit? In a film with Richard Roxburgh playing the worst Dracula on record? In a film with the most nonsensical plot since, well, UNDERWORLD (why get so bent outta shape about breeding an army of vampires when you have enough for a MASQUERADE BALL?!)? In a film with more CGI abuse than your average George Lucas opus? REALLY?

That means it wasn't screened for critics. The kids at the theatre hated it last night on a moderate level. I watched Match Point and got the better deal.

Dunno, I'm kinda in the "I don't get why people hate it so much" camp. That's not the same as saying, "it's a great movie." I saw most of it on cable, in several sittings, same as I have with flicks like Van Helsing, AvP, and Resident Eeeeeevil. I agree Underworld dropped the ball on a good concept, had some stiff acting, some bad writing and some so-so action. But the same can be said of the other three (except that Van Helsing was also bad in concept) and tons like them, but they also project a basic retardedness, almost a disrespect for the audience, and don't seem to draw the same level of hatred in some quarters as Underworld (well, maybe Helsing is a bad example all around).

The worst I can say about Underworld is that it was boring in parts and a bit of a mess in the action department. But the others are examples of movies chocked full of laziness and unintentional corn that I didn't get from Underworld.

So, I say "I don't get why people hate it so much," compared to other dreck out there, and bully for those who feel the same way.

On the other hand, if you have any doubt about my weakness for crap movies check the signature.

I'm going to see it tonight, but my expectations are extremely low. I have a love-hate relationship with the first one. It is definitely not a "good move" by any measure, and I agree that it completely fumbles a very cool premise. The werewolves are dorky and stiff, the action is muddled and the vampire coven estate looks like some Goth girl's wet dream. Plus, how can you have Kate in skin tight pvc/leather- what ever the hell she is wearing - and still not generate any chemistry with Speedman???? That boggles my mind, it must be some sort of black hole of sexual energy absorbing quantum state. That's the hate part.

As I mentioned in another thread I do like the first ~ 10 minutes. I thought it was off to a promising start, and it went downhill fast from there. I own it on DVD, but I only watch it when I need a good laugh. I simply fast forward and watch only Shane Brooly's insanely over-acted scenes. Makes me bust a gut laughing every time. That's the love part.

Plus, the copy I have is the "extended cut" --- now I don't have the patience (or the fortitude) to do an extensive comparison, but the only difference in the "extended" cut is like 60 extra seconds of Shane and the blond vampire making out. For the life of me that's about all I can tell. If anyone knows anything different please tell me --- maybe there is a good movie hidden in there somewhere when you unlock a special Easter egg.....LOL

I wonder if some people are so in love with the idea of a underground war between Vampires and Werewolves that the quality of the film does not really matter to them. My opinion of the first Underworld is that it was a good idea ruined by shitty execution.
And the reviews of the sequel indicate nothing has changed, might have even got worse.
it's the old thing that some geeks seem to take intent for achievement.

Underworld 2 isn't really even about vampires vs. werewolves. Lycans really only have a battle with vampires in the opening 13th century bit, and after that only show up twice: as guards to a vampire Seline has to question, and during the final action scene.

Definitely going to be in the minority on this one but I quite liked this film like I liked the first film.

Put the two together and you have a fun little mini-series that's really about Selene learning the truth and somewhat regaining what she lost than the war between the two species....

But, there's no need for a third one. The way this ended, I like the closure.

Saw it yesterday.

It was decent. Best thing about it? Plenty of gore. Impalements, decapitations, the films got plenty of violence. And Beckinsdale practically nude.. Yeah that was cool as well.
Acting is pretty average, the dialogue is boring, and for the most part I found the story to the first one to be more interesting (See I'm one of those people that didn't despise the first one. I didn't love it, thats for sure, but I didn't hate it either). I think the two biggest problems I had with the movie (Because honestly I didn't walk into underworld 2 expecting Oscar winning acting) was the editing and the general "sameness" of all the action sequences.

With the editing, **spoilers** they kept of flashing back to the past (like 1200 A.D) and they did it with a kinda annoying blur effect, that they really over used. It made it difficult to see whats going on. See the first scene of the movie is set in 1200 A.D and its a great scene, no blur-glitch-flash-blur "this is a flash back" bullshit. You get the watch the scene unhampered and then we cut to the present. I almost wish they had just followed that simple technique for the rest of the movies dealing with the past. Unfortunately they didn't and by the time the 5th flash back roles up (prolly half way thru the movie) you just don't give a shit, because you just want to watch the scene without the cheesy blur effect distracting you from whats on the screen.

And the action sequences... why doesn't Len Wiseman just shoot the entire fucking movie in slomo? Seriously the man uses the same tricks for every single fucking action scene in the movie. And its gets boring real quick. How many times do we have to see a slomo of a person jumping/diving off a ledge/building/helicopter before we get the fucking point? He borrows from every action movie in the last decade, and just reuses every shot and move in them without adding any personality of his own to them. Technically he can "recreate" an action sequence perfectly from another movie or movies but there isn't one grain of originality to those sequences. If thats a problem for you, stay the fuck away from U:E.

By now I probably sound like I totally hated the movie, but I didnt. These things annoyed me but they didnt really ruin the film for me. The just brought the movie down several notches. If you've got a few hours to waste and you wanna watch unoriginal action with plenty of gore, you can't go wrong with U:E. The story is ok too. It definately expands the universe set up in the first film,. For those of you expecting the Ultimate Werewolves VS Vampire movie or something with good dialogue/acting or anything original for that matter, you might wanna wait for the Dvd.

It wasn't bad. They definitely amped up the gore for this one, especially the last 2 killings of the main bad guys--everyone clapped after each one of them. I could take or leave the first movie. Watching Kate Beckinsale run around in black vinyl/leather is never a bad thing. I read some people complained about a confusing plot, but it didn't compare to "Once Upon A Time in Mexico". It just takes a bit to unravel it. Definitely not a "if you see only one movie released in January this year..." movie. And yes, there are flashbacks aplenty, but I didn't think it really slowed down the movie. I walked out entertained, if anything. I think I actually liked it better than the first one. I wish they would've explored Speedman's hybrid character a bit more, though. It would have been nice to see his character discover what kind of powers and weaknesses that he has. They touch on it briefly, but it gives way to the main plotline of the film.

I kind of likened the movie to the Blade movies--the 2nd movie is completely different than the first, but it still maintains things that happened in the previous film. I'm not saying it's as good (or that I enjoyed it) as much as Blade II, just kind of the same sort of feel.

I think we're missing the real point here:

Swoosh actually read the novelization?!?

Will your love for horrible movies never end ?!?!?!?!?