Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
RandomEffects
Apr 3, 2004

"That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Directed by: Len Wiseman
Starring: Kate Beckinsale

Underworld: Evolution may be one of the most incorrectly named movies since "Cheech and Chong Sober and loving it". If we go by creationist theorys then we have only god to blame for creating this monstrosity, the rest of us have to wonder if Darwin ever allowed such a thing as backward evolution. For truly this film was a step back form the original. While the First film was not a classic piece of cinema, it was enjoyable for what it was, Vampires fighting Werewolves. A simple premise that trhe original film actually made enjoyable. The new film however decides to just skip anything of that sort.

Anyone who saw the original knows that no film had such an obvious lead up to a sequel since Mortal Combat. And much like Mortal Combat they pretty much skipped any sense of plot continuity aside from "Hey its the same people from the last film". The film kills off all previous side characters in the first five minutes and introduces the worst example of a character, and the audience, learning about what happened. when Marcus is released he can learn evrything you knew after drinking some of your blood, including how to use computers. I will avoid any other major plot points for now, what few there are.

My biggest problem was that nothing in the film was consistent. At one point Soldiers are saying that their rounds are only UV which will only hurt the vampires but be useless against the lychen(werewolves), and minutes later Selene(kate Beckinsale) use those rounds to kill said lychen. The opening lines of the film state that there were twins, Marcus and William, one bitten by a bat and the other a wolf, apparently this is where the two species come from. But absolutely no reason is given as to why their father, who is of neither species, is also immortal!

The first 45 minutes of this film were a series of different clips that had most people looking at each other and saying "who is that?" "why are they even here?" "how does that guy do that?". A whole new variety of vampire seems to be introduced without any explanation. The whole concept of michael being the a hybrid is pretty much ignored unless you just need someone to kick some rear end, or come back form the dead

All in all this film was a waste of the reel it was printed on. Never have i had to check my watch to see how much time was left till it ended. The lack of any consistency or respect for the average IQ of the audience(and if you know what the average iq of an audience is) left a bad taste in my mouth and stomach. It also violates one of the basic rules of phsyics. IF you are standing on the ground without any sort of mooring and pull on a rope/cord that is attached to... say a helicopter, unless you weigh a few tons, no matter how strong you are you cannot pull the helicopter to the ground. All you will do is pull yourself up the rope. And oh my god who guessed that the somehow still intact and spinning blades would be used to kill the villian?!?!?!?!?

On the Plus side i did get to see a full screen trailer for silent hill, so i guess i got my ten bucks worth there.

EDIT: To be fair I came into this movie expecting nothing, and was still let down.

RATING: 1.0

PROS: Kate beckinsale in A tight leather outfit and Out of said outfit
CONS: just about everything else

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401855/

RandomEffects fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jan 21, 2006

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Raptor10001
May 7, 2003

Bend over and show me your Dark Side.
If you were a fan of the first one, you'll get some mindless entertainment out of it.

It continues the story from the first one quite well while introducing some interesting 'twists'.

The effects were really cool in this one too. They really took it to the next level.

A decent film, just nothing too amazing.

Kate Beckinsale gets naked as well. No nips however.

The guy who played 'Winston' in Lock Stock is in this as a vampire historian/playa. It brought the movie up in terms of enjoyment when I randomly yelled "chill winstaaaaan" in the theatre.

That is all.

3.5/5

Raptor10001 fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jan 21, 2006

Robert Downey Jr.
Nov 27, 2002

by Ozma
I can't help but agree with everything that's been said about this movie so far. I honestly thought there were some enjoyable moments Kate Beckinsale's side boob being one of the few. However, the most enjoyable and by far the greatest moment of the movie was Derek Jacobi's (Corvinus) swat-like team being in the old castle and one of the members of the team is seen falling backwards down a flight of stairs. It was timed ever so perfectly at the beginning of a new scene. The special effects and the action were actually kind of cool, but the computer-animated blood in the beginning of the movie was abysmal. The whole helicopter thing wasn't cool, but killing people with the blades was. I really think this movie could have been much better, but it was full of small errors and plot screw-ups. What it honestly felt like, to me at least, was taking a fine Italian wine (what the story could have been), and mixing it in a glass with Coca-Cola and Pop-Rocks (the bad twists, and the humorous action.) I truly wanted this movie to be good so I could give it at least a 4 out of 5, but unfortunately I can't. Instead I received an almost completely naked-on-film, loving hot Kate Beckinsale, and a movie full of dumb loving story holes.

2.5/5

What also kind of upset me was the fact that I only heard one song throughout the entire movie that came from the official soundtrack. There are some really cool remixes on that CD.

Robert Downey Jr. fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jan 21, 2006

Kenor
Jun 5, 2002


"IGN, arguably one of the last bastions of credibility in game reviewing"
Some of these reviews make me think I am the only person here who can enjoy mindless action. Sheesh.

I hated the first Underworld for many reasons: the action was poorly cut and dull, the plot dragged, and it pretty much seemed like a mediocre copy of every recent vampire movie combined with every recent action movie. For me, then, the killing off of a couple of extremely annoying characters at the start of 2 was a breath of fresh air. The flashback preceding that is undeniably cheesy at times, so I suppose if you liked Underworld for the great characterizations (?) and riveting storytelling style (??), Underworld 2 might get off on the wrong foot with you. It is also worth considering that if you care about proper helicopter physics in your movies, you may want to steer cleer of a film based on immortal monsters that can change shape, heal their wounds with blood, and magically fix their clothing after every scuffle.

Personally, I paid to see a mediocre movie that I figured would be worth it for the gunfights, as it has been a while since a film has been released with a satisfying number of bullets fired. Aeon Flux just did not make the grade in that respect. I was pleasantly surprised, however, to find that my ticket was actually for an extremely intense action film that also had shockingly good acting, story, and cinematography given the precedent of Underworld.

What really struck me was how much Kate Beckinsale's acting had improved, how tolerable Michael was this time around, and how the director had apparently had some epiphany that caused him to cut the shakey-cam way down (it is still present, but used far more effectively) and actually pace the film properly. Could the directing be better? Of course. Could the actors be more convincing? Clearly, especially the main villain. Could the action be better? Hmmm... I suppose there is always room for improvement, but I would have a hard time thinking of any recent action movie that made me think, "gently caress yeah!" more often.

The thing that really sealed the deal for me was the ending. It had been building up to something big for the whole movie, and amazingly it did not disappoint. I would hate to spoil it for anyone, but how anyone could watch that scene and not love every second of it is simply baffling to me. Compare that to the trainwreck that concluded Underworld and, well, I guess by now it is obvious which film I consider superior.

If you are looking for a totally unpredictable and smart movie with oscar-worthy performances, you should slap yourself for even thinking about buying a ticket to Underworld: Evolution. I do not think the trailers, as well as the fact that it is a sequel to Underworld, could have made much more clear what kind of movie it was going to be. The surprising part for me was that it rose above a potential jumbled mess and ended up being a very fun, very exciting movie. I would compare it directly to something like Predator or possibly even Die Hard. Eh, one of the sequels at least. Dumb? Clearly. If that is a problem for you, you have missed the point.

4.5

Ash.W
Aug 2, 2004

bonk bonk
I haven't seen the first film, and I watched Evolution expecting decent fights - and not much else. I was quite happy to see Kate Beckinsale in leather for the entirety of the film as well, though.

Continuity and plot seemed absurd at times, so don't expect much. Fun film, but I'm glad a large group of us watched it so at least we could take the piss a lot.

3.

Gluehead
Jan 19, 2006
This movie is completely unnessecary and very forgettable, but that doesn't mean you won't get any fun out of it. The makers seemed to realize that people want more in a sequel, so they've loaded this thing up with loads of blood, a bunch of surprisingly good CGI, and a lot more sex. It's not exactly a good movie, but it's an entertaining one.

3.

The Frogs
Jul 13, 2004
meow
This movie is much more enjoyable if you watch underworld 1 before going to see it. A couple of the plot holes that people have mentioned here are explained in the first movie and it is a good refresher for characters like Victor who are mentioned a lot in this movie, but not actually in it very much.

I love the occult and werewolves and vampires are two of my favorites. I think underworld's explanation of their origins and history is interesting and fun, plus the fighting between the two is really well done. That is what I like about the first one and that is what I liked about this one.

And for the all the males and select females, kate beckinsale = meow whereas kate beckinsale - clothes = MEOW


pros: cool history of vampires and werewolves, good gore, Marcus the original vampire looks badass, improved acting
cons: you will be a little lost if you haven't seen the first one or don't remember it all that well, sappy unbelievable love story subplot

4.5/5 <-- won't be as high if you didn't really like the first one

Ape Agitator
Feb 19, 2004

Soylent Green is Monkeys
College Slice
I'd call it pretty much exactly what you should expect from a January/February release.

The film, although steeped in flashbacks, pretty much requires you to have seen the first film as it takes place moments after the end of the original. The movie spends a lot of time referencing what happens in the first while spending a lot of time ignoring the rules it established. Where the first movie establishes silver nitrate as the default method of killing Lycans, going so far as to create custom hand weaponry to aid in this, the sequel kills them with UV bullets, wood, and knocks on the head.

The first movie was heavily concerned about Michael as some new hybrid between the two. This movie is subtitled Evolution, but nobody seems to care about Michael or evolving and the only real evolution is that they've gotten Kate Beckinsale to wear a little less (now that's a good case for evolution).

Instead the movie is focused on the two original vampire and werewolf patrons, sons of an immortal some 800 years ago. The werewolf, out of action all this time, is the head of the bloodline of all the Lycans. But the vampires have been fielding deathdealers, of which Serena is the best, for centuries now killing werewolves. The movie goes to great pains to say that killing either Marcus or William will kill off all the vampires and werewolves, respectively. So why, if they've spent so many years and so much resources fighting werewolves, didn't they try and find this first werewolf a long time ago and stop their crusade in one single kill?

Marcus is quite the character himself. In the extensive flashbacks, he's a wimp to his second in command Viktor. But years of oversleep appear to have made him irritable. He's got big bat wings that let him hover over a fleeing truck like he's got a jetpack and can pull helicopters down from the sky and knock trucks around like toys but he can't seem to do more than get in bland fistfights with an unremarkable vampire and a hybrid. Serena, knowing he's a powerful vampire, does little more than shoot bullets at him. Lots and lots of useless bullets at him. Nearly every one of their many encounters has her or her comrades firing useless bullets at their adversaries, reloading, and firing more useless bullets at them. But there's something he's not invulnerable to! his own wing and a helicopter blade

Now, all of this is not to say the movie is without some fun moments. There is a pretty fun CGI fest of an intro giving some out and out werewolf versus medieval vampires that some good fun. And there's an action sequence in the forest where Serena dispatches a squad of regular humans. This one is notable because it is both visually exciting, well paced, full of painful looking activities, and highlights that vampires are something special. Every other encounter is basically them standing absolutely still firing at enemies who make no attempt to do anything but run straight at her so that she can kill them without breaking a sweat. If only one other fight were done with that level of creativity and desire to illustrate that we're watching a vampire movie, Underworld and its sequel might be something.

Oh, and the reason nobody tried to dig up William the Original Werewolf? Killing him does nothing. The end voice over tells us there are still werewolves and vampires even though both of the originals are puréed, so all the exposition throughout the movie that those two must not be killed is conveniently forgotten. Oh, but Selene can now be out in the sunlight. Is that because she has big poppa's blood in her? Is it because she killed the original? Is it because the movie ever so desperately wants her to be Blade? Only the next sequel will tell.

PROS: Two good action sequences, nearly naked Beckinsale
CONS: Ignoring plot points and rules from both movies, lackluster action sequences through most of the movie

Rating: 2.5

Ville Valo
Sep 17, 2004

I'm waiting for your call
and I'm ready to take
your six six six
in my heart
This was the absolute slowest action movie I've ever seen. Typically you'd want this movie to keep plowing forward to the next fight scene or explosion, but instead Underworld: Evolution drags along with almost every scene having several beats of silent scenery shots. There seemed to be very little dialogue in the movie as a whole, and several of those lines were repeated over and over, as flashbacks and the like. When an action sequence qould finally come up it'd be downright boring, with very poor effects in comparison to other movies released in the past couple months. I liked the first one as mindless fun just fine, but Evolution was quite painful to sit through.

2/5

SageSepth
May 10, 2004
Luck is probability given way to superstition
Got back from this yesterday and loved it, many of the gripes I had with the first one were addressed and I had few leaving the theatre. As has been said, seeing Underworld does help immensely with filling in some of the plot holes, however almost every reviewer here is misquoting or misremembering scenes. UV bullets do not kill Werewolves, only "slows him down". My biggest gripe with this movie, was the overuse of the flashback sequence's, seemed like lazy writing to me, as they were niegh constant. That and the fact that the movie starts out with red scrolling text, which is very "B". While the dialogue could be confusing to some, they never actually break any of thier own rules, and explain everything fairly clearly, that is if you listen anyway. It's mindless to an extent, but at the same time, if you're simply sitting there slack jawed and stareing at the screen, you may miss important bits of dialogue. Still all that being said, the action was 10 times better then in the first, and the blood was more extensive. My only main other gripe besides the helicopter, is that other then Marcus, no vampire or Lycan drinks, the whole movie(unless you count that horrible midevil sequence in the beginning), while it's said in both movies that without feeding both races weaken and the "hunger" eventually takes over. Both main charecters technically feed, but they feed off the dead, which just seems to be odd, so I dunno take that how you will but it seemed odd for a vampire movie that they never feed.

Pros: Excellant excellant battle sequences, they really accentuate the Vampire speed and the Werewolf brutality in this movie, giving you a good contrast between the two. As well as "lol Kate beckinsale boobies"*sigh* grow up
Cons: Overuse of flashbacks to tell the story, Not enough epic battles(would've liked to have seen a nice vamp v werewolf battle in modern times)

4/5

jeomk
Dec 2, 2005
I thought the movie was great, exactly what I was expecting. It entertained me with action and relatively good story. The plot had some holes in it that should have been filled but instead they used their time by figuring out a way to get some boobs in the movie which I didn't mind at all. All in all I believe if you liked the first one, you will enjoy this.


4/5

antwann
Jan 21, 2005
...
I thought the movie was pretty decent, but like everyone else, there seemed to be some inconsistencies between this movie and the first one. Is it just me, or was the first movie in New York? or at least in the US? Suddenly (about 30 seconds after the first movie ended), they're in Russia? She specifically says that it will take less than an hour and a half to get back to their mansion, in the US, from Russia... That just doesn't seem right.

Outside of that though, action sequences were pretty good, and the movie was enjoyable, but not as good as the first one in my opinion.

Oroborus
Jul 6, 2004
Here we go again

SageSepth posted:

My only main other gripe besides the helicopter, is that other then Marcus, no vampire or Lycan drinks, the whole movie(unless you count that horrible midevil sequence in the beginning)
4/5

the historian drinks (poured into a goblet which was shot by selene the second time), the vampire chicks with the historian drink (from him during sex). Just for example.

As for the 'plot holes' the historian clearly makes it a point to mention that the death of marcus and william is a fear tactic. The werewolves that were being killed by the UV bullets where not dying from the UV, but the amount of damage i believe, as it has been shown immortal or not, to much damage and they die. This also goes with why some were able to be beaten to death, see viktor killing the scientist with a single punch etc. Do not forget also that some had not yet changed completely.

The father was immortal because he held the original strain of the virus. Marcus was bitten by bat, william by wolf. This was explained in the first movie as well.

Finally if you had a problem with the physics in the movie, in regard to the pulling down of the helicopter then you should never watch anything to do with superman or the incredible hulk or anything of the kind. It's been done.


I liked this movie, if you are looking for shakesphere then go see romeo and juliet, if you are looking for vampire/werewolf fighting and great CGI and yes leather/boobs then this is the kind of romeo and juliet for you.

4/5

Oroborus fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Jan 25, 2006

bipolarbear
Jun 15, 2005

Droppin the Funk Bomb!
This movie was pretty straightforward, and I knew what to expect coming in thus I wasn't let down by expecting some great cinematic masterpiece. It had lot's and lot's of good bloody violent badassery. Alos, the the attractive leading man and woman were nice too. I think the best part is that it leaves a wide opening for another sequel which should be quite interesting given some of the events in the film.

To get persnickety though, therer is one part where the special effects look like they are straight out of '92. It was after the cieling caved in. The water dripping down looked terrible. Or maybe it was real and I'm just a moron who should have brought his glasses.

4/5

fine_misanthrope
Apr 30, 2005
fine_young_misanthrope
Naked girl in skin tight leather beats gay cowboy movie. As crappy as this movie is as long as that’s true, I hold some hope for mankind.
Overall 2.5/5

MONKEY TRASH!
Jan 8, 2006

I personally thought it was better then Underworld 1, but they both were bad. The most depressing thing is how much money they made.

Fbi2thegrave
Jul 19, 2004

Decent movie, much better than the first. naked beckinsale was probably the best part in the entire movie, though.

Ramrod Hotshot
May 30, 2003

Never saw the first one, so this movie was very confusing for the first hour or so. I guess it didn't help that I'm not even a fan of horror movies, but I thought this one was decidely average. Sci fi/horror movies like this are practically assembly-line made these days, especially ones that have the old "badass chick in latex saves the day" shtick. I'd skip it.

2.5/5

opks22
Dec 12, 2003

Something wicked this way comes.

I actually liked it, but i think the reason for this, was i was expecting exactly what i got. There just aren't enough action movies out there these days. What happened to the latter half of the 90s when Bruckheimer was out there producing action film after action film?

Anyhow, my only complaint was it was generally dark and a bit tough to see what was going on. This could have been my lovely eyesight. I also do realize it is a vampire/werewolf movie, so it was supposed to be that way. The mvie was rather enjoyable.

4/5

14 characters+1
Nov 20, 2003

by Ozma
The next edition of this will be a love drama now that Kate can survive under the sun

3.0

pearofducks
Jan 21, 2003

quack?
This is an awful mess of a movie. Characters are more powerful than each other only when convenient, then suddently will be destroyed in a single blow. There is at least 20 minutes of filler material that doesn't contribute at all to the plot or anything at all, it just seems like something the writer thought would be cool.

2.

Axl
Mar 9, 2005

by Ozma
Alright, I was a pretty big fan of the first one and I wondered why this one didn't have its predecessor's hype. I assumed that it was just me being out of touch, and that the dumping ground month release had nothing to do with the film. I am sad to report that I was too optimistic. Not to say that this is a bad vampire movie, just that it was a letdown.
What I liked about the first one was that it explained the Vampire/Lycan world in history but never got bogged down in it, and avoided the prophecy heavy and ÜberVampire plot of Blade and its lovely sequels. This one takes both of those points and makes them almost central. Where as Underworld 1 had a few cryptic flashbacks done at just the right times, this one seems to go back to the childhood flashbacks in every other scene.
At least there were no Vampires in suntan lotion. :(
The movie starts out interesting enough. Eastern Europe has a monster problem, and the new big character suffers a betrayal that will shape his future. All empathy you feel for him is lost, however, when you see what a shallow villain he makes. Even the trials of Michael, with his newfound powers, are boring in this one because of inplausibly stupid minor characters, and the focus on the boring bad guys.
Things worth seeing it for: One sex scene that seems to drag out way past what it should be able to, but if the chick's your thing then live it up. Chase scenes are actually very good, even if the action is seperated by long periods of mundane backstory. Every Lycan fight scene, especially the last one, is really good.

The weakest character in this movie is Alexander Corvinus. The problem is that you spend the first half of the movie guessing as to who he is, what his powers are, and what purpose he intends to play. Unfortunately, he turns out to have no apparent powers, is apathetic to the whole situation, and is is boring until the very end.

Bottom line: More Blade now than Anne Rice, but still better than Blade. 3/5 C+

Headhunter
Jun 3, 2003
One - You lock the target
Terrible, terrible film.

I love my mindless action films, but this one was just...bad. I actually enjoyed the first film, despite it's many faults, but they took everything that was good about the first one and threw it away.

1/5

Iridium
Apr 4, 2002

Wretched Harp
The first movie, while far from great, was at least sort of engaging. This one was just crap.

The acting was piss poor except for Alexander, who had a very limited role. The action didn't impress me at all. The story was just annoying (this time by, vampires aren't just vampires, they're sort of were-bats). And now, just to keep you going, there are gratuitous sex scenes throughout. Woo!

All that this one really had going for it was a bit of pseudo nudity, a little backstory that might have been interesting in the first one, and the lack of super-obvious reasons for a sequel. The last was my favorite part.

1.5/5

Tomtrek
Feb 5, 2006

I've had people walk out on me before, but not when I was being so charming.



Okay, firstly, I kinda liked the first film.

It wasn't Shakespeare, but if you wanted to watch a pretty lady shoot things for a while (and who doesn't want to watch that every now and again), then it's a good divertion.

This film, however, was not. I was looking for a plot. I really was. I think it had something to do with a guy on a boat (who may have been a pirate), and his sons who were evil.

The rest of the 'story' seems to have slipped my mind.


But, what's this? Kate Beckinsale sex scene? This should work, right? Kate Beckinsale + naked = a good scene... right?

Not really. To me, the message of that scene was the director, (Mr. Beckinsale), saying "Hey guys, can you believe I'm hitting this? I totally bet you wish you were me, huh?". Maybe, MAYBE if there was nippleage it may have worked. But nope.

The simple fact that this film got a Kate Beckinsale sex scene wrong is the main reason why it just... totally fails.

1.0

Pyramid_head
Nov 11, 2004
what a piece of poo poo, when a vampire and a werewolf do battle it should be like the T1000 and the T-800 throwing each other around in T2 not a loving hissy fit.

InterceptorV8
Mar 9, 2004

Loaded up and trucking.We gonna do what they say cant be done.
I guess I was the only one who remembers the story Viktor told in the first movie, and one of the few people who listened to the words coming out of people's mouths and not just stared at Kate Beckinsale's rear end and titties.

It's explained in the first movie that Alexander Corvinus is the only person who lives through a nasty bug that kills everybody in his village, then goes off and makes babies, one bitten by bat, one by wolf. Also don't forget what the guy in the pimp daddy church said about killing Marcus or this brother, that it was made up to keep Viktor from killing them both. So there. Watch the movie, and listen to the movies and remember poo poo, then comment, or you'll bitch about them being so loving over the top with poo poo.


It's not a bad flick, but if you have ADD or ADHD, this isn't for you.

Korenchkin
Jul 23, 2005

Glory to the Many, I am a voice in their choir.
It has alot of the same problems as the first film, in that it's convoluted, too long and visually too dark. These are all things that can be fine in moderation, but combined in this film (and the first) it makes it an exhausting experience and not entirely satisfying. Whilst the first film had some interesting enough characters (backed up with incredibly silly dialogue and absurd plot twists), the sequel cuts down on character depth and tries to make up for it with vastly improved effects (and exceptionally more gore than the first film). Unfortunately, for any film to really work and have any lasting appeal, it has to have characters you care about, whether you like them as heroes or despise them as villains. Underworld Evolution fails on this count. Characters are inconsequential, the coolest villains from the first film are either shown only in flashback or are killed off within minutes of re-appearing. There are too many plot holes to be excusable, which shows up how over ambitious the film is. As has already been said, there are also many inconsistencies with regards to what characters are able to do, and not be able to do, and there are more than a few anti-climaxes during the film that spoil it.

Ultimately it was entertaining, but deeply flawed and in ways that could have been avoided if helmed by a better director, sadly.

Personally, throughout the latter portion of the film I was becoming quite eager to see what had become of the big 'ancient' werewolf that was kept in captivity for centuries. When it was finally revealed to be yet another big hairy dog just like all the other werewolves in the film, I was very disappointed. Here was an opportunity to throw something fresh into the mix, some kind of uber werewolf, bigger meaner and gnarlier than any others before it, and they just use 'werewolf costume 1B' instead. What a waste.

2/5

Stuntcock
Oct 15, 2000

Annoyed, but NOT DEAD
It's mindless entertainment, and you're wasting your time if go into it thinking/hoping otherwise.

Seeing Kate Beckinsale naked (strategically) was wonderful, but didn't save the film.

The only good thing about this was the CGI is improved from the last one, and the editing wasn't as bad, and there were less plot holes.

But the ending... Is she mortal, now? I mean, she was in sunlight after killing the main vamp... if she is, how'd she heal that last, final wound?

I haven't the time or energy to ask about all of my other nitpicks about this movie.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mezzanon
Sep 16, 2003

Pillbug
This movie was ninety minutes of me watching somebody else play Devil May Cry, complete with people getting power ups, and extra lives kate drinking immortal blood for the power-up, and michael coming back to life


1/5

  • Post
  • Reply