Underworld: Evolution

Well, that wasn’t offensively bad. Just lacking any kind of internal logic. And a sense of direction. And some idea of what the hell is going on with Marcus, and what Selene is “becoming”, and, oh, sod it. It’s a bit crap. It takes ages to warm up (although I suspect it would work better if viewed immediately after Underworld), the action sequences lack a sense of danger, and the whole thing is really dark. (I know it all takes place at night and in gloomy locations, but surely they could have added a bit of sparkle.)

Still, Kate Beckinsale looks nice, so the time wasn’t entirely wasted.

3 thoughts on “Underworld: Evolution

  1. AlistairL

    There are constants in life, the anchors on which we can rely when all is crazy.

    One of those is the leading lady comment in a sunpig review 🙂

  2. martin

    Hey, this is a film series whose very *existence* is predicated upon Ms Beckinsale’s bottom, and how good it looks in black PVC. There’s no way it would have got green-lighted had the male movie-going audience not already proved (with the original _Underworld_) its willingness to shell out good money to spend a couple of hours ogling her taut buttocks.

    (And having said that, the rather fit Mr Speedman spends a significant part of the film with his shirt off, so there’s something there for the ladies, too.)

    I feel it’s therefore entirely appropriate to compliment the film–and bump up an otherwise one-star rating to a generous two out of five–on such excellent use of its prime ass(et).

  3. Tom

    The problems with Kate are:

    a) She was better in shooting fish (a hugely underrated flick) and she wasn’t in brassed off, despite what people think;

    b) Her dad was in porridge;

    c) She was Flora Poste! The most practical character ever in the one of the best books ever! And not annoying! What went so horribly wrong?

Comments are closed.