UNDERWORLD Shoots to the Top

I loved the 1st Underworld. I havent gotten a chance to see Evolution yet, I hope its as good as the 1st one.Hoodwinked seems ok for kids but is any one really interested in this Shrek wanna be??I still cant believe that Narnia is still going strong. I thought it was a soft core porn to Lord of the rings.
The new world was supposed to be amazing.. did any 1 actually see it???ohh well....

I saw Underworld and thought it was consistant with the first movie - not great, not terrible, but entertaining once you buy into the concept. Like the first one, I also thought it was more engaging than the average fantasy shoot-em-up. I had more issues with the original one - the mixture of vampires and werewolves with modern weaponry and technology took a little getting used to, and I didn't particularly care for the "American Werewolf in London"-on-speed werewolf transformations. But having established all that in the first movie, it was easier to accept it in this one. Since Wiseman directed both movies, they both have the same visual style, the rapid cuts and bathed-in-blue lighting, which also took some getting used to in the first movie but I not only expected it but rather enjoyed it in this one. Of course I have to add that I think the whole series would be reduced a notch if not for the presence of Kate Beckinsale, both as visual eye candy and the touch of class she gives to the lead role.

I'm surprised the studio didn't make it available for review - it's better than most movies withheld from review. I'm sure it would have taken a critical lashing just because of the nature of the movie, but it always looks worse when it's simply withheld (plus I think critics tend to really lambast any such movie when they finally do get around to reviewing it).

Narnia's got legs. It deserves it. It's the best family movie of the past year, and such movies are usually rewarded with long lifespans at the cineplex.

Snally, I agree about Narnia. Though far from perfect, it obviously hit the right chord with audiences. My two sons loved it, and I got a kick out of it just from their excitement of it. It reminded me a lot of when I was 12 and my dad took me to see this film called Star Wars. I loved it, and he seemed to enjoy it because of me(and he told me later that he DID enjoy it). So I can relate to why Narnia is doing so well.

I haven't seen either 1 or 2 of Underworld, yet, but I AM a big fan of Kate Beckinsale. She's very easy on the eyes. Super sexy and a great voice, and a good actress. I may have to rent the first, then go see the second one.

I must agree with post #2...Underworld 2 didn't stink, but it wasn't great either, just more of the same. I love the visual style and mood of the films and Kate looks smashing and sexy as always. The storylines are somewhat interesting, although not always fleshed out enough for me. All in all, I didn't feel I wasted my $7.50 to see it.

I see Kong's finally slipped from the top 10 (it will be huge though when it hits DVD I'm sure), and I'm glad to see Narnia's still got legs (my girl's kids asked to see it again, which they've never done before). I haven't read anything about greenlighting more books in the series, but that would be great. Dick and Jane really surprised me; I never thought it would get close to $100 million.

I am stunned that no one has brought up the many inconsistancies between the first movie and the second. After my friends and I watched #2, we went home and watched #1 and we were appalled. Just to name a few:
1. The pendent/key: In #2 it was twice as big and 3 times as thick as in the original.
2. Selene's age: In movie #1 they should bits of her being a child when her blood was used to wake Victor, in those scenes she was wearing dresses that dated around 1930 - 1960, with patten leather shoes, short curly hair with cute little bows. In #2 she was born in the 1400's.
The Lycan's looked anamatronic when they changed, the time it took to get places seemed way off, the ending was predictable, but that's fine, but why use a helecopter, there should have been more of a change/effect in Selene when she drank the ubber immortal's blood (being able to be in the sun is a nice side effect and that scene was shot beautifully)
I did like Markus, both in bat and human looks. I thought the scene in the crate was done well. Derek Jacobe was good, as always. Craven died at the beginning, big plus. The movie would have been so much better if they had just used a little common sense and had been more consistant with the first

To answer the above inconsistences.

1. Who cares.

2. See #1.

It's a movie... get over it. If you want consistency, go do some algebra equations.

The first Underworld was okay, but I still bought it on dvd anyways. The second was better than the first... and that is all that matters to me. I love that mouth ripping thing they were doing to the werewolves, though it did not have the impact they were probably expecting because I saw Kong do it to a T-Rex and it was way cooler and unexpected.

I watched the 1st Underworld via the extended cut... I didn't see the 1st in the theater. The extended cut rocked.

I'm seeing this on Tuesday and I'll let you know my view after that!

I've seen both Underworld movies now and personally thought they were both better than average. In fact the 2nd was one of the better Monster movies I've seen. I think they did a good job with the mythology and though there is always a few discrepencies when talking CGI (unless you have Kong money to spend). And any heterosexual male must see this movie simply because of the Kate Beckinsale love scene....nuff said. It was a good movie that wasnt created to win any oscars, and I thought in the end it was entertaining. Worth the admission price...

For post #5, I agree somewhat that sometimes little inconsistencies can throw one off in a movie. The thing w/ the pendant was a good catch, it went right by me. The thing w/ the dress I find somewhat funny, because unless you're some sort of tailor/historian, that shouldn't throw you off too much. I can't remember if Selene's age was mentioned in the first movie, but the second solidified her at 600 years, I believe. If this were a period piece that whole clothing thing would be more pertinent, but it's kind of like finding something historically wrong w/ one of the BLADE movies. Still, every movie has at least one mistake. Taken as a whole, I really enjoyed the movie.

You'd probably find more inconsistencies if you went to see Mallick's NEW WORLD.

Whatever inconsistancies there were between the two Underworlds flew way over my head. I haven't seen the first one since it was first released -- what was that, five years ago? While I generally see flashbacks to the previous movies to be a bit of a cheat, I'm really glad they had them in this movie, otherwise I would have been lost. One thing I do recall about the first movie is that the plot was more complex and required more attentiveness than I expected in a fluffy action picture (usually I can just put my brain on hold and watch things blow up). This one required equal attention, but if some of the dots didn't connect between the two, I didn't notice. I suppose I may have had some quibbles if I had re-watched the first just prior to seeing this one.