Mania Forums

gloom_cookie · 01-20-2006, 07:29 AM

I had the pleasure of seeing Underworld: Evolution last night, thanks to a screening hosted by a local radio station. Now the first film had its problems, but if you're going to go to a film for entertainment, and you've already bought the idea that vampires and werewolves battle over the centuries, it's all good fun. If you thought the last film was good stuff, the new one should keep your eyes on the screen in a similar fashion. The blue-shifted look is the same, most of the time, Kate Beckinsale is still beautiful, and everyone bleeds a lot. The sets, violence and filth are laid on thick and it's quite a treat.

I have a gripe, though.

****Spoilers****

****Here they come****

This issue comes from the standpoint of someone who, while in the theater seat, buys into the fact that this Lycan vs. Vampire world exists... and is worth a peek. This movie, even more than the last, knocks the history out of itself. In the first film, many vampires died, including the long-lived Viktor. I truly love what little work I've seen by Bill Nighy, and I like him in the Viktor role. He was a baddy, so he was dispatched in Underworld. The crime I see in Underworld: Evolution is the continued ruin of vampire and lycan history. So much talk about the age of this battle comes up, and then we see the end of the last sleeping vampire elder (also the first vampire), his brother, the first werewolf, and their father. These, along with the deaths of other lesser baddies leave us with Selene (Beckinsale) and the hybrid (Scott Speedman). Unless there are unmentioned "ancients" in other lands, we're left in a very modern (under)world* I understand that the "evolution" title can refer to great change in the monster roster, as well the hybridization of the main characters, but I do mourn a bit of the dusty history. It's a little like we've been shown an old building, been asked to note the ancient date on the cornerstone, and then the wrecking ball comes crashing in.

That's my issue, and I can't say the movie itself suffers for the past bashing. Considered as a world we can slip into, like the Matrix, the Federation, Hogwarts or Middle Earth, it seems a little wreckless. I don't think the mythology begged so hard to be scrubbed clean of cobwebs.

*This supposes that you consider Selene "modern", given her great age versus fabulous skintone.

Deacon · 01-21-2006, 05:41 AM

I wasn't a particular fan of "Underworld", but I gave this one a shot. I figured it couldn't be any worse than the first.

And it wasn't. In some ways - a number of ways - it's better. But it still has some of the same flaws.

Mainly in its dialogue, which is dull, and frighteningly free of humour. I don't think there was a single (intentionally) humourous moment in the whole film. But it also (like the first) goes on for too long, doesn't develop its characters enough, and covers similar ground to other (better) horror/action movies.

But it feels less like a "Matrix"/"Blade" rip-off than the original, it ditches the techno/rock soundtrack of the first, and it certainly ups the amount of blood shown - although the only interesting kills happen at the end of the film. It also gets off to a decent enough start, with an entertaining flashback, and an early chase sequence involving a truck and the flying villain being better than anything in "Underworld".

But I still wouldn't really recommend it. Maybe as a DVD rental, or on cable, but not in theatres.

dvdaddicted · 01-21-2006, 02:56 PM

I saw the screening of this too. I thought it would good, mindless entertainment. It was mostly style and very little substance as far as story or dialogue goes. I didn't really care so much about the changing of the old vampire/werewolf guard as some fans might. I just worry that if the do another sequel who will be their adversaries? Are there going to be a bunch of monster genetic mutations? A super Mummy carrying a bio-hazzard? updated Frankenstein robot with weapons? Do they try an unify the vamps and werewolves?

Magell · 02-09-2006, 09:31 AM

I liked this better than the original but I still don't think it lives up to its potential and I agree with gloom in that they kill off the major bad guys way too quickly and eliminate a ton of the vampires and lycans. I'm guessing from what is implied in the dialogue that the mansion that housed Marcus, Amelia and Victor was only one of the covens and that there are other groups of vampires that would house elders but those three are, from the flashback at the beginning, the most important of the elders. That's also going from some stuff I remember in Underworld but I could be wrong.

The action scenes were better this time although the final fights seemed overdone. I love the way taht Marcus dies though, it's awesome.

The thing I don't like about the series on a whole is how they treat vampires. They don't seem to be traditional vampires at all. They use their technological advantage over the lycans which makes sense but in hand to hand combat they are outclassed even though they have super strength as well. It's weird to me and the thing that really annoys me. Plus the fact that we get no normal vampires in Evolution at all.

KingVoyeur · 02-09-2006, 12:15 PM

What exactly is a "normal" vampire?

gloom_cookie · 02-20-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingVoyeur

What exactly is a "normal" vampire?

I think, in terms of U:E, it would be a vamp that's mostly human in appearance.

In this film, we see one vamp (Beckinsale), a hybrid vamp/lycan, an ancient vamp bat thingy, an ancient lycan wolf thingy, an immortal human, a lot of minor characters who die, and not much else.

01-20-2006, 07:29 AM	#1
gloom_cookie Smell the untainted newbie freshness. Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 10	Underworld:Evolution Spoilers I had the pleasure of seeing Underworld: Evolution last night, thanks to a screening hosted by a local radio station. Now the first film had its problems, but if you're going to go to a film for entertainment, and you've already bought the idea that vampires and werewolves battle over the centuries, it's all good fun. If you thought the last film was good stuff, the new one should keep your eyes on the screen in a similar fashion. The blue-shifted look is the same, most of the time, Kate Beckinsale is still beautiful, and everyone bleeds a lot. The sets, violence and filth are laid on thick and it's quite a treat. I have a gripe, though. **Spoilers Here they come This issue comes from the standpoint of someone who, while in the theater seat, buys into the fact that this Lycan vs. Vampire world exists... and is worth a peek. This movie, even more than the last, knocks the history out of itself. In the first film, many vampires died, including the long-lived Viktor. I truly love what little work I've seen by Bill Nighy, and I like him in the Viktor role. He was a baddy, so he was dispatched in Underworld. The crime I see in Underworld: Evolution** is the continued ruin of vampire and lycan history. So much talk about the age of this battle comes up, and then we see the end of the last sleeping vampire elder (also the first vampire), his brother, the first werewolf, and their father. These, along with the deaths of other lesser baddies leave us with Selene (Beckinsale) and the hybrid (Scott Speedman). Unless there are unmentioned "ancients" in other lands, we're left in a very modern (under)world* I understand that the "evolution" title can refer to great change in the monster roster, as well the hybridization of the main characters, but I do mourn a bit of the dusty history. It's a little like we've been shown an old building, been asked to note the ancient date on the cornerstone, and then the wrecking ball comes crashing in. That's my issue, and I can't say the movie itself suffers for the past bashing. Considered as a world we can slip into, like the Matrix, the Federation, Hogwarts or Middle Earth, it seems a little wreckless. I don't think the mythology begged so hard to be scrubbed clean of cobwebs. This supposes that you consider Selene "modern", given her great age versus fabulous skintone. __________________ "That which you fear the most could meet you half way" - Williams Last edited by gloom_cookie : 01-20-2006 at 08:20 AM.*

01-21-2006, 05:41 AM	#2
Deacon Moderator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 225	I wasn't a particular fan of "Underworld", but I gave this one a shot. I figured it couldn't be any worse than the first. And it wasn't. In some ways - a number of ways - it's better. But it still has some of the same flaws. Mainly in its dialogue, which is dull, and frighteningly free of humour. I don't think there was a single (intentionally) humourous moment in the whole film. But it also (like the first) goes on for too long, doesn't develop its characters enough, and covers similar ground to other (better) horror/action movies. But it feels less like a "Matrix"/"Blade" rip-off than the original, it ditches the techno/rock soundtrack of the first, and it certainly ups the amount of blood shown - although the only interesting kills happen at the end of the film. It also gets off to a decent enough start, with an entertaining flashback, and an early chase sequence involving a truck and the flying villain being better than anything in "Underworld". But I still wouldn't really recommend it. Maybe as a DVD rental, or on cable, but not in theatres. Last edited by Deacon : 01-21-2006 at 05:43 AM.

02-09-2006, 12:15 PM	#5
KingVoyeur American Cthulu Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In some f*cked up dimension. They don't even have pie! Posts: 3,988	What exactly is a "normal" vampire? __________________ "If you're referring to the one night we slept together, I'd talk about your cock but I've got respect for the dead!" - From *Vampire Lesbians of Sodom* by Charles Busch

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-21-2006, 02:56 PM	#3
dvdaddicted Smell the untainted newbie freshness. Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	I saw the screening of this too. I thought it would good, mindless entertainment. It was mostly style and very little substance as far as story or dialogue goes. I didn't really care so much about the changing of the old vampire/werewolf guard as some fans might. I just worry that if the do another sequel who will be their adversaries? Are there going to be a bunch of monster genetic mutations? A super Mummy carrying a bio-hazzard? updated Frankenstein robot with weapons? Do they try an unify the vamps and werewolves?

02-09-2006, 09:31 AM	#4
Magell Thinks Phantoms is the bomb, yo! Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 87	I liked this better than the original but I still don't think it lives up to its potential and I agree with gloom in that they kill off the major bad guys way too quickly and eliminate a ton of the vampires and lycans. I'm guessing from what is implied in the dialogue that the mansion that housed Marcus, Amelia and Victor was only one of the covens and that there are other groups of vampires that would house elders but those three are, from the flashback at the beginning, the most important of the elders. That's also going from some stuff I remember in Underworld but I could be wrong. The action scenes were better this time although the final fights seemed overdone. I love the way taht Marcus dies though, it's awesome. The thing I don't like about the series on a whole is how they treat vampires. They don't seem to be traditional vampires at all. They use their technological advantage over the lycans which makes sense but in hand to hand combat they are outclassed even though they have super strength as well. It's weird to me and the thing that really annoys me. Plus the fact that we get no normal vampires in Evolution at all.