Not as Good as First One
31 January 2006
I watched the first installment on DVD, and loved it. I went to the theaters for this one, and though I did not find it to be disastrous, I thought it was much inferior to the first one. The story is pretty bad. The dialogue is only OK. Without disclosing much about the movie, my feeling is that it loses out compared to the first one, by not being set as much in an urban environment, where your vampires and lychens could interact with humans more freely. You also had a nice "Gotham-City" like atmosphere that you totally lose in this one.

Having said that, the cast has to be somewhat blamed here. Decent, at best performances, from everyone, aside from the truly evil looking Bill Nighy, can't pull this average story anywhere. Kate Beckinsale in particular should thank her lucky stars that she looks amazing in tight latex spandex-o-pant-o-glue-on-thingies, because unfortunately her acting skills were clearly saved for another movie (hopefully not Underworld 3).

I don't think anyone will find this movie satisfying at the theaters. For the die-hard fans out there, if you haven't seen it already, wait until it comes out on DVD. For anyone who has not seen "Underworld" (i.e. the first installment), save your money and rent that on DVD instead.

Kate Beckinsale (Selene) - 4/10 - Gorgeous actress who looks great in latex tights, but really doesn't show much acting skill here.

Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin) - 5/10 - Decent, but should not quit his day-job.

Tony Curran (Marcus) - 6/10 - Decent, but non-issue.

Derek Jacobi (Corvinus) - 6/10 - Decent, but non-issue.

Bill Nighy (Viktor) - 8/10 - Scary as always. Check him out in the Constant Gardener.

Len Wiseman - 5/10 - Must bear some blame for pretty bad acting throughout.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed