Underworld 2 (1 Viewer)

[Shawn_KE]

And in sequels the body count is higher. Thought the first one was ok, mimicked lots of other films, but was entertaining. The Victor guy was pretty kewl, but the rest of the vampires were wimps.

The thing that ticked at me was everytime Beckinsale's character was driving, she was FLOORING the car everywhere she went, in all the rain and snow lol, silly vampire.

 

[Vlad D]

Is this still scheduled to open this friday? I haven't seen any trailers on TV.

 

[David Williams]

Evolution opens on January 20. I've seen ads on TV but they've haven't been supersaturated.

 

[Josh.C]

Can't wait to see this movie! I though the 1st one was a surprise, and this may be one of the few movie's that actually outperforms the original. Granted, all I've seen is trailers, but WOW!, they look awesome.

Vampires and Warewolves with Guns, Kate Beckinsale in tight leather. How can it not be good.

 

[Dave Mack]

true that....

 

[Cassy_w]

So this film has no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Wow. It opens tomorrow! BAD sign. :frowning:

Loved the original, but this one looks like it may turn out to be a stinker.

 

[Cory S.]

Well, Sundance has a little bit to do with that. Screen Gems didn't screen the fllm but that's happened before with Screen Gems.

But, I have read the novelization and it's quite good and adds to the story. This story is really about Michael and Selene. It has great action and strong character moments between Michael and Selene, especially Selene.

Also, Viktor is seen in a new light.

Again, this is from the novelization. And if the film matches the novel, it's going to be a good time at the theatre.

 

[mattCR]

I get to go see this in about 20 minutes

 

[mattCR]

Not great, but not bad. If you saw the first one and liked it, you'll probably enjoy it a good deal. The action is pretty good. There will be a few comments regarding "smurf" moments, but I don't think they are nearly as bad as they may be made out to be.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I know one thing, the television is promoting the living hell out of this movie! I swear that every show I watch I see a tv spot at least twice during an hour long show, and a couple of weeks ago I even saw the entire full length theatrical trailer on the WB, or at least I think it was the WB.

I feel like i've seen the film already LOL.

 

[Cory S.]

Soon, Markus will take the throne. A tide of anger and retribution will spill out into the night. Differences will be set aside. And soon, I will become the hunted.

These are the words of Selene at the end of Underworld. It seems quite evident that in Underworld Evolution, the natural storyline/plot would be of Vampyres and Lycans joining forces with Markus as their leader to track down and find Selene.

The anger and retribution that Selene spoke of is evident in the sequel but not in the manner most might think. Instead, Markus has entirely other plans and it's up to Selene and Michael to prevent them.

This is the story of Evolution. Taking parts 1 and 2 together, you end up having this tale of two people who's lives were stolen from them in this blood feud and are now the central focus of ending it, especially Selene.

Is Evolution better than the original if you quite enjoyed the story and mythology of the first film? Honestly, it's a lesser film only because the pace of the film is dictated by the circumstances our two leads find themselves in. They are on the run from the outset and the film doesn't slowdown. They gather their information on the way that leads them to the ending of the entire conflict.

This may not be the sequel that audiences are looking for but, for me, it seems like the right one for the Selene character. Underworld, these two tales, are about her learning the entire truth and gaining what she lost.

If people were upset with the fact that a film with Vampyres and Werewolves didn't have as much gore as the first film did, Evolution more than makes up for it. Plus, there is more hand to hand combat in this one which is quite good.

As it stands now, I'd give both Underworld and Evolution 3 stars but, I'm convinced that an extended cut of Evolution would bump the film up a notch. The film, as it sits, needs a bit room to breathe. But, I can see why Wiseman made it a faster pace. He took major critism for having the first film's pace the way it was. As it stands now, this film is a good 15 minutes shorter than the Theatrical Cut of Underworld.

Again, an extended cut in the right places would help the film more.

Still, I enjoyed this tale greatly. At least these two films have more story than most action films released today.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

29% Fresh.

 

[Cory S.]

It didn't screen for critics; Screen Gems decision. Still, the critics will loathe it, no matter what.

It's pure entertainment with a solid story that continues from the first.

 

[Adil M]

It's a stepdown from the original, but that one caught me offguard and I tend to enjoy DVD's more than the cinema.
If the first was 2.5 stars, this was 2 stars.

 

[Simon Massey]

I seem to be one of the few who liked the first Underworld film and I thoroughly enjoyed the sequel and thought it was as good as the first. Having said that if you didnt like the first one, I doubt you will like this either. It simply picks up straight after the last one - you could easily simply cut these 2 films together into 1 long film. It's seems to me, at least on first viewing, that the writers have made an effort to come up with a story that naturally follows on from what went before. However this is clearly for fans of the first and you are going to be pretty confused if you havent seen the first as well despite the numerous flashbacks.

:star::star::star: 1/2 out of 5

 

[Cory S.]

"It simply picks up straight after the last one - you could easily simply cut these 2 films together into 1 long film. It's seems to me, at least on first viewing, that the writers have made an effort to come up with a story that naturally follows on from what went before."

That's exactly right. And, I'm on the same boat with you. Throughly enjoyed the first film and this one just continues naturally where that one left off.

It really is one movie, these two, with an intermission prologue in the middle.

One last note: The production budge was 48 million, doubt from the first film. And it made 10.6 million yesterday which means it'll land somewhere between 24 and 28 million for the weekend. I'm hoping for at least 30 million. Still, it'll get it's money back by the end of next weekend and then some. Everything else is icing.

 

[Vlad D]

Count me as one who really enjoyed the first Underworld and I thoroughly enjoyed the second. One thing I didn't like with this one was some of the CGI effects with the werewolf transformations, especially in the very beginning of the movie. They seem to have been better in the first film.

A couple questions. (Since this isn't an official discussion thread, I'll spoilerize.)

Where do Corvinus' human descendants (Michael) come from? Corvinus' two sons, William and Marcus gave rise to the Lycans and Vampires. Are we to assume that he had another son or daughter from who Michael is a descendant, or did Marcus or William have children before they were bitten?

Also, it seems that this movie takes place somewhere in Europe but I didn't get that impression from the first film.

 

[Cory S.]

"The sons of the Corvinus clan. One bitten by bat, one by wolf. One to walk the lonely road of mortality as a human." This is from Viktor in Underworld.

Alexander Corvinus had a third son sometime after Markus and William that carried the bloodline that resides within Michael. While carrying the bloodline, that third son obviously wasn't immortal.

This film does take place in Europe and the first film hints at that as with it's architecure and some of the writing during the subway shootout scene.

 

[Simon Massey]

I never thought Underworld specifically mentioned where it is set. I think its just an unknown place in the first one. Cant remember them mentioning a location in the second either though its definitely Europe rather than the US.

 

[Jason Hughes]

Not quite...the general rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make double its budget to break even (don't forget, the theaters get a cut, plus there are marketing costs that are not counted as part of a films budget). Thus, by the above numbers, it will need to do 96MM to break even. Doubt it will make that much domestically, but with overseas grosses and DVDs, cable rights, etc I have little doubt the movie will end up well in the black, hopefully well enough to do a third one.