This little vehicle staring Kate Beckinsale was rumoured to have cost about $50 million to make and yet I felt like I was watching a poor quality, low budget horror film.
Most of Underworld was shot in the dark which was poor show as I paid to watch a film, not hear it, but had the film being a little more supenseful or scarier, I may have overlooked the poor lighting and shadowy scenes but no such luck!
2006-07-27 03:19:04 · 10 answers · asked by MrSandman 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Any vampire vs. werewolf movie is going to be campy B-grade'ish type right? How serious can you get doing a vampire movie?
I enjoyed it even more than first since we get to see Kate Beckinsale in the flesh, albeit not nude, but this was good enough. Underworld 3 will blow for sure if stories of it being a prequel are true and she will NOT be in it...
2006-07-27 13:10:20 · answer #1 · answered by DarthFangNutts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I usually love vampire and werewolf movies, and I didn't mind the first Underworld movie - I figured, two in one? Great!
But Underworld: Evolution? Was bad. It seemed like they threw together a bunch of scenes at the last minute and called it a movie. Nobody did anything "spectacular", and I kept waiting for that, so it got boring. At the end, the pure blood, and nothing "WOW" happened? Annoying. You're right, it was dark. I had to watch it in pitch-blackness to see anything (and I hate that). I was very put out by the fact that I spent $15 on the DVD.
2006-07-27 10:30:52 · answer #2 · answered by K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was better than the original!
It was supposed to be dark... aka vampires and such. Not exactly creatures that you can make a film of in the a hot sunny day on the beach.
And it is not supposed to be horror flick, but suspense, drama, and action.
2006-07-27 10:30:23 · answer #3 · answered by Lordstylz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw Underworld when it first came out and loved it. Based on that I saw Underworld:Evolution immediately. Seems to me to be a case of being too successful your first time out. When you score a surprise hit, they throw too much money at you for the sequel and you end up with a bigger budget and try to do too much, forgetting what made the first one so much fun. Yeah, I definitely was disappointed.
2006-07-27 10:35:42 · answer #4 · answered by mercutio_41 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the underworld movies. I thought they were put together well and have a cool story that hasn't really been done before. Plus I'm a sucker for hot vampire chicks.
2006-07-27 10:29:05 · answer #5 · answered by nin9nls 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw it and it was ok , reminded me of Van Hesling with Hugh Jackman.
I only went to see it because of Kate Beckinsale.
2006-07-27 10:23:05 · answer #6 · answered by mick987g 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked the movie... I saw nothing wrong with it!!
But i also see a movie to enjoy it not to pick out the mistakes or quality of it!!
I'm sorry it disappointed you!!
2006-07-27 10:24:03 · answer #7 · answered by DeeDee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
much better than the 1st. the pace is even unlike the 1st & it's one of the more entertaining movies this yr.(besides kate beckensale is red hot !!!)
2006-07-27 12:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by r.j, 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was pretty good to me I enjoyed it better that the first one
2006-07-27 10:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by ttbird117 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was ok but wasn't what i'd watch twice...
2006-07-27 11:12:16 · answer #10 · answered by hickskicks 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋