Underworld: Evolution post release - Page 2

Starving Dog, you forgot to include the <HUMOR> tag. People get confused if you don't do that.

I've always heard that movie is pretentious, I'll have to check it out one of these days. Telling someone to go and die is abit extreme though.

Yes, Richard, I read it. I was bored out of my skull this past week. The Colts are out of the playoffs. NBA sucks. ACC games haven't been on TV fo rme in LA and I can only watch Episode III and Wedding Crashers so many times. I decided to read something.

Talk about Underworld:Evolution in the Underworld: Evolution thread.

i caught this yesterday and was really entertained. you have to hand it to len wiseman -- he doesnn't waste any time getting right to the blood and ass-kicking. and he sure does like his flesh (or at least his wife's).

i'm one of those that really enjoyed the first... but i thought this film did a much better job with character development, particularly michael. i was left with one question, though: we're led to believe that markus and william were alexander's only two sons... so, where does micheal fit into the corvenus bloodline? who does come from?

and i have to report that, just like speedrazor, my theater was packed... at 5:30pm! $10m opening night? not much to scoff at there...

Michael's bloodline comes from the third son mentioned in the first film...

"The sons of the Corvinus clan. One bitten by bat. One by wolf. One to walk the lonely road of mortality as a human."

word. its alllll coming back now. thanks for clarifying that, don.

think wiseman'll do a prequel?

Honestly, I hope not. Techincally we don't need it. We get a pretty good handle on the entire backstory, or at least the most important aspects of it.

If he were to do a prequel, it would probably be the story of Lucian and Sonja or the story of Markus, William, and Alexander and how the fallout happened.

But given the two films (which really is one film), he needs to leave it alone. It ends on a perfect note with Selene and Michael.

Another vote here for The People Who Liked UNDERWORLD.

It was a piece of slick entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. The recut version also helped to make the narrative flow smoother.

What a drab movie. A lot of the action was good, but somewhat repetitive. The monotone acting got old after the first 15 minutes. The gore was good, especially the last scene.. you could tell they did it with love. Everything else was so ho-hum.

Its strange, when I left the theatre everyone seemed amped..I literally heard one guy said "Good! From beginning to end!" Maybe the trick with these kind of movies is to end on a high note, so no matter what came before, its the last thing people remember.

Kate bekinsale was really stunning in "normal mode" (those blue contacts were unflattering), but the sex scene seemed really out of place for some reason.

Id give it a 6.5

Thats what Underworld:Evolution needs as well - A recut version to make the narrative smoother, much much smoother.

There's no doubt that there will be an extended cut of the film when it hits DVD in 6 months.

No, the extended cut will wait until everybody has bought the initial no-frills version. That's how DVD works now.

If I recall correctly you visited the set.

Nick, what did you think of Underworld:Evolution?

obviously. I even seem to have thrown Nick off with the sarcasm

I enjoyed it --- really, some good bloody fun. Much better than the first movie. The werewolves looked 5X better, CGI was a big improvement. I liked the fleshing out of the back story as well.

Marcs was a seriously cool vampire. The character design was excellent, and put old Roxbury and Purcell completely to shame.

Spoilers
*************************

One nitpick --- In the opening fight with the vampires/gondorians fighting, Amelia was a major billy-bad-ass. Cut back to the first move and she died way to easily in the train fight when the council was assassinated. Sort of disappointing considering she was one of the oldest, and therefore one of the strongest vampires.

Best part of the movie -- Shane Brooly getting the top of his head smacked off before he could ruin part II.

Regardless of what people thought of the end product the first Underworld was successful in part because of what it brought in compared to its relatively modest budget. Does anybody know what the second one cost? It probably won't be as profitable as the first, but I'm just curious about the details.

How did a sequel to Underworld even get made? I saw the first on opening night, and no one was in the theater, and I forgot everything about the movie except how badly it sucked(and some dude turned all blue at the end, oh wait everyone was blue in it). It just plain wasn't entertaining. Wild horses couldn't drag me to see this one, the firrst was that much of a let down.

My numbers will be rough but I think it had something to do with the first one costing about 30 million and bringing in about 100 million. It may not be 'good', but it was profitable.

I believe in an article in the new Maxim I read, Wiseman said he got $50 million to make this one.

Well I gotta say it was better than the first one and a bit more entertaining.

If you like the colour blue, slow motion high jumps, ludicrous shootouts and gratuitous belly button fucking this is the film for you.

It was whatb it was. If you saw the trailer, it is exactly what you see in it. A giant cheese ball action story, with some werewolves and vampires thrown in for additional flavor.

I think some of the hate for these flicks, comes from how interesting the concept sounds. Then you get lots of cgi and not very original action scenes. Oh well.

The basic source of my hate is that there was no reason, story-wise, for the characters to be vampires and werewolves. They pull guns and shoot at each other, for god's sake. Anybody can do that. The vampires never suck blood, fly, transform, or any of the host of other vampirey things they're known for. Their only supernatural talent seems to be an ability to jump from great heights and land on their feet. Ooh, scary. If it weren't for their technological advantage, the werewolves would clean their clocks. They may as well have been FBI agents.

My bottom line is, if you're going to make a movie about vampires, it would be nice to include some vampirism. It was like going to see Jurassic Park and finding out that it was about slightly oversized iguanas.

Claiming that disliking or not enjoying a film equates to hating it is lazy debating used by people whose best defense is usually no more sturdy than "I liked it".

It's notable that nobody seems to "love" Underworld. The most positive things said about seem to be restricted to "This bit was dumb, and that bit didn't work, but I kinda liked it and Beckinsale is hot and there were some gory bits"

Defending this movie against "hate" makes about as much sense as going to bat for Resident Evil or Dracula 2000. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, but lets not pretend that this is some great battle that needs to be fought.

Oh, and if someone "hates" Shawshank Redemption because of the dancing, then they're an idiot because that movie is a mature and rich drama that has a lot more to offer than dancing.

Disliking the special effects in a puddle-shallow action movie about a sexy vampire chick is not even close to being the same, and it's a retarded comparison. Underworld has little to offer beyond its visual style, so visual complaints are perfectly valid criticisms.

I like the Josie and the Pussycats movie, but I'm not about to start comparing it to The Graduate in order to save it from "the haters".

The practical model work was also mostly awful.

It's good to know the movie can only be defended on the grounds of passable practical effects.

The Underworld "franchise" is a turgid, humourless and stultifyingly pedestrian mish mash of cliches lifted from obvious sources, all served up as a star vehicle for one of the least charismatic actresses around today, who slinks around in predictable MTV S&M costumes with all the grace and menace of a little girl playing dress up.

It's a non-movie, a vacuum, devoid of life or energy. It's a facsimile of a movie, placating the audience with the action beats they expect and a florid backstory masquerading as depth. It's a karaoke version of every tired teen goth power fantasy ever shat out into self-consciously moody Live Journal fanboy prose.

So the use of CGI comes quite far down a very long list of reasons why Underworld really isn't worth the breath required to defend it.

Whatever happened to enjoying crap for crap's sake? Everything's gotta be validated as quality now for people to enjoy it, for some odd reason.

It's the pretending it is something it is not that got to me. The utterly dour, serious tone saps the fun out of the punching-through-the-chest bits.

You know those poeple that complain that Halle Berry wasn't 'the real' catwoman because they think catwoman is real? That's who this is for. People who take this seriously. They are bad people, and must be stopped.

Did you watch the movie? Marcus bites just about everyone in the movie, he transforms into a big bat creature and flies, Selene starts burning up when she's exposed to sunlight, Selene drinks Corvinus' blood, Michael drinks Selene's blood, and Tannis and his whores are all biting each other and drinking blood.

I'm not about to start defending this movie, but this statement just isn't true.

I believe he was referring to UNDERWORLD Mk. 1, in which there is precious little vampage. Or wolfage. The mythology is mere window-dressing for yet another boring pretentious load of badly-made action. But I'll stop there-Dan said it all far more succinctly.

Wait, I do. I thought it was a great film, and one of the best of the year. I loved the fact they took it all so seriously, I thought that really helped make the (somewhat ludicrous) premise actually work. I loved the fact the war had evolved to weapons and tactics rather than just tooth and claw. I loved the back story that gradually got filled in regarding how the war started and who lied to whom. I think it's a brilliant film. I don't know what's wrong with y'all.

It is entirely possible that Underworld 2 would make my current list of the top ten films of 2006.

This just in:

The word 'brilliant' finally lost all meaning today, giving up its long battle against gross misuse. It joins the ranks of its fallen comrades 'awesome' and 'spectacular'. A memorial service is expected this weekend. 'Brilliant', you'll be missed.

And now Bill with sports.

Van,

While I don't think it's a brilliant film, I'm with you. It entertained me to no end. I like the story. I like the Selene character. I like the backstory alot. And, I like the fact that it takes itself seriously.

The 2 films aren't the greatest thing in narrative filmmaking but for 3 hours plus, they're extremely solid and entertaining. Nothing more.

Plus, Kate Beckinsale is just too hot....

You don't know what's wrong with [i]us[/u]?!

Have you seen the RESIDENT EVIL movies? Because I tihnk you'd really love 'em...

I hate this qualifying stuff but, ok: First R.E movie was pretty good. Suspensful, exciting. I didn't buy the DVD but I enjoyed it. Second R.E movie was awful. Cartoonish, cliched, foolish.

Fixed.

I remember someone described Underworld as a film made by someone with the intention of sleeping with the lead actress. Looks like it worked.

I'm observing a moment of silence for this great lost word. Like "genius" before it, it went too soon.

While I would not consider this a "great" movie, it was quite entertaining. Rather on the gory side. It had many nifty "kills" and the audience loudly responded to them. It certainly felt like a third movie was a possibility at the end, even thought this one wrapped up well. I have definitely recommended it to others.

Saw it tonight. I thought it was a good time at the movies. I still find the concept interesting and the acting was quite fine in my eyes.

There are problems. Markus, when flying, looked silly. I still think they did a fine job on the Lycans, and thought William looked fine.

My big complaint is the directing/editing. I don't think the director knows how to properly shoot fight scenes. It is one of the cases of fast cuts, with much noise. You don't know who is hitting who, who is fighting who, and therefore can not really get into the fight scenes. You got to slow down and choreograph it better. The fight scenes were just bad.

Interesting concept, fun story, decent acting, lazy directing.

This is also a problem a had with Underworld, now moving on to Underworld evo...I guess they saw the Blade trilogy series and thought "now thats what we're missing..."

Underworld 2 was piss poor, made the first movie look not so bad after all and Blade Trinity good.

The opening LOTR style battle between Vampires and Lycans was cool after that the movie fell flat on it's face. I just wasn't interested in the very uninteresting backstory, nearing the end I kept dropping in & out of a coma like state.

The amounts of gore, blood was good and suprising but like the first the action scences were pretty standard. Scott Speedman is still a douche and this time around I just found Beckinsale bland and a turn off.

And oh yes that sex scene was laughable and just so unnecessary....

Sorry, but when someone calls UNDERWORLD "one of the best of the year" I have to try and define what kinda tastes they have. I can't see how UNDERWORLD can be distinguished from other poorly-paced, plothole-riddled, wannabe-cult, too-scared-to-embrace-its-genre clunkers like VAN HELSING of the RE franchise. The ludicrously serious backstory and exposition only serves as time-filler between the bad action scenes in all three, and the acting is just as bad across the board.

Interesting. So you think if a film doesn't stick to its tired old cliches, it's worthless. Well I don't think that way.

If you think these films were bad, I'd love to see your reaction to Razor Blade Smile.

I wouldn't wish that film on anyone.

I'm going to have to join the ranks who liked the 2 films (this one more). They have problems, yeah. Most horror and action movies do. Movies I *love* are things like Fight Club, Memento, The Usual Suspects...those raise the bar. So, no, I don't love Underworld...but I can't think, offhand, of a movie in either genre the films straddle that I love. So I have no problem with merely 'liking' them and dealing with the fact that they're flawed.

However, I did think Evolution actually played off of things from the first film and ran with them, making a different movie (so many sequels just rehash the original plot, instead of building on it.) Now, if you hated the first film, you're not really going to care, but I appreciated it.

Course, seeing it at the Alamo drafthouse may have helped.

Ah yes, the classic "There are worse, so this is good" argument.