[Screen It]

 

"UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION"
(2006) (Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman) (R)

If you've come from our parental review of this film and wish to return to it, simply click on your browser's BACK button.
Otherwise, use the following link to read our complete Parental Review of this film.

QUICK TAKE:
Horror: A werewolf-hunting vampire sets out to stop the world's first vampire and werewolf from wreaking havoc on the world.
PLOT:
Selene (KATE BECKINSALE) is a contemporary werewolf-hunting vampire, known as a death dealer, who's at a crossroads in her life. Having killed scores of Lycans (werewolves) over the past centuries in a revenge-filled spree for her family's murders long ago, she's come to the realization that the real culprit was her mentor Viktor (BILL NIGHY) who she subsequently killed.

Knowing the latter act has her in hot water with the rest of her kind, Selene seeks out Marcus (TONY CURRAN), the king of the vampires, in hopes that he'll spare her life. Little does she know that he's turned into a hybrid monster -- much like her only ally, Michael (SCOTT SPEEDMAN) who's part werewolf and part vampire -- although Marcus is even more powerful and can sprout wings with which he can fly and easily impale his victims.

Seeking info from Adrian Tanis (STEVEN MACKINTOSH), official Coven historian, Selene learns that Viktor wasn't the most powerful vampire after all. Instead, it was Alexander Corvinus (DEREK JACOBI), the father of Marcus (a vampire) and William. The latter was an uncontrollable and incredibly dangerous werewolf who Viktor imprisoned centuries ago in a hidden location.

Now that he's emerged, Marcus wants to find and free his brother so that they can rule the world. With time running out, and with Michael's assistance, Selene does what she can to prevent that from happening.

OUR TAKE: 2 out of 10
Although they certainly look better than they did many moons ago, special effects have become a crutch for some filmmakers who become lost in the woods and/or simply don't know what to do with the material with which they're working.

For example, in the old days, werewolf effects were done by either using stop motion photography (stopping the film, adding some fake hair or teeth, etc., starting the film and then repeating the process until the "transformation" was complete) or having the actor bend down out of the camera shot for more such makeup. Since that was time consuming, expensive and not particularly realistic looking, filmmakers of old had to rely more on the story and characters than said "magic" (imagine that).

Such techniques were eventually replaced by hydraulic prosthetics (in films such as "The Howling" and "American Werewolf in London") and then computer-generated imagery. While that made the human to werewolf changeover more realistic, the effects became more of the focal point. And although some of those earlier works did maintain a good balance between the visuals and plot, we simply knew that couldn't last.

And thus we were offered films such as 2003's "Underworld" that put a somewhat novel spin on the old werewolf and vampire tales. While it and its star (the leathered-up Kate Beckinsale) looked good, it was essentially all slow-motion style over substance, as if "The Matrix" had been affected by too many full moons. Yet, since it was a moderate success from a box office standpoint, it -- like any reputable monster movie is known to do -- begat an offspring.

The result, "Underworld: Evolution," may prove that special effects have indeed evolved (although the film is hardly state of the art), but that the filmmaking and storytelling behind this effort certainly have not. With the main cast and crew members returning for the second-go-round, this is just more of the same stylistic but empty-headed nonsense and hooey about vampires and werewolves battling each other.

With the "novelty" of the original now gone and the basic story already set up, returning director Len Wiseman and screenwriter Danny McBride go backward (in terms of plot exposition) to try to go forward (with this story) but end up spinning their wheels in all of the spilled blood, guts and gore (over which more attention was obviously paid than trying to make a decent or engaging film). Considering the first picture was hardly a masterpiece, this sequel is even worse and far more boring.

You instantly know you're in trouble when the main character recaps what happened in the first film (as if any new non-fan is suddenly going to want to see this and thus need to catch up) or when we then see various flashback images from it. But that's exactly what occurs here and it immediately gives the film an obvious "B movie" aura, but not in a good way (although Bill Nighy, briefly reprising his role, seems to be clued in as to how goofy it all is as he chews up the scenery with a ferocity not usually seen in wide releases). And with so many flashbacks to the original as well as scenes preceding it, I kept waiting for the stereotypical harp sound and wavering picture to begin each plot backtrack, but that never occurs.

All of that back-story is presumably supposed to make us care more about what transpires before us, but it made no difference to me about who fathered whom, which character was locked up, etc. It's so nonsensical and poorly explained that we have to make a pit stop with the usual secondary character who clears the air before predictably breathing his last gulp of it.

Such plot maneuverings are really just designed to pad and presumably given some reason for the action sequences, but even they're bungled. Wiseman obviously likes showing off Beckinsale doing her thing in her cat suit (and in one scene without it) -- then again, he's her husband in real life -- but the filmmaker doesn't even manage to capture the slick coolness that the original film sported. All of the action, fighting and other stunts are so over-directed and edited that they and the film lose their figurative and literal punch. It's just a bunch of empty if busy mayhem that does nothing for the viewer from any standpoint.

It certainly doesn't help matters that -- not surprisingly -- character depth, exploration or anything worth noting is kept to a bare minimum. We don't care about any of the characters or their well-being, and we only root for the bad guy -- Tony Curran giving an intense if empty performance - to lose by plot default. While Beckinsale was the only decent thing about the first film, here it's like she's just going through the motions to please the hubby (although her filmed sex scene with costar Scott Speedman -- who looks even more lost and bored than the first time -- is somewhat creepy considering the relation of those involved.

Unfortunately, that's about the only creepy thing the film can offer where the only truly scary moment comes near the very end when hints are dropped about a possible second sequel. At that point, I ran screaming ("Oh, the horror!") from the theater for fear of my sanity (okay, I made up that list bit, but I was tempted, and more than once). While Kate may still look quite fetching in her skintight cat suit, she's about the only thing worth watching in this over-directed and sloppily edited mess that will likely make viewers think more of devolution than any sort of cinematic advancement. "Underworld: Evolution" rates as a 2 out of 10.




Reviewed January 19, 2006 / Posted January 20, 2006


Privacy Statement and Terms of Use and Disclaimer
By entering this site you acknowledge to having read and agreed to the above conditions.

All Rights Reserved,
©1996-2023 Screen It, Inc.