So, Friday, I saw Underworld: Evolution. I give it an OK. I would not necessarily reccomend it to others, but I enjoyed it. It was similar to the first, basically a vampire/werewolf hack and slash movie. Kate Beckinsale was quite attractive. Bill Nighy, killed in the first one, had a couple of bits in this one, but not much. He was one of the good things about the first one. Still, all in all, a pretty good escape into fantasy fighting. And I'm OK with that.
3 comments:
I hated the first Underworld, Kate Beckinsale's hotness notwithstanding, and am surprised to find that it was not nominated for the worst film of the year at the 2003 Steves (though, admittedly, it had plenty of competition). I pretty much concur with the following review by Peter Hartlaub at the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/19/DD295794.DTL&type=moviese
I'm not a big action/sci-fi fan, but for vampires, I prefer Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. For more recent, goth-sci-fi-adventure, I prefer Batman Begins.
I'm surprised you saw the first Underworld, frankly. And I like a little more kick ass vamps. Stoker's are a bit old.
For kick-ass vamps, I prefer Van Helsing (although Coppola's vamps were plenty kick-ass, as I recall).
Post a Comment