Underworld: Evolution
Two stars. Disappointing.
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.
Comments
AlistairL
Sun Jan.22.2006 20:21
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 :)
martin
Sun Jan.22.2006 20:36
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).
Tom
Fri Mar.24.2006 23:36
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?