Metascore
36

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 21 Critics What's this?

User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 296 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Underworld: Evolution continues the saga of war between the aristocratic Death Dealers and the barbaric Lycans (werewolves). The film traces the beginnings of the ancient feud between the two tribes as the beautiful vampire heroine Selene (Beckinsale) discovers that she has been betrayed by her own kind and seeks her revenge. (Screen Gems) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 21
  2. Negative: 9 out of 21
  1. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    70
    Overall package is potent. A few rock-the-house scenes of slam-bang derring-do -- are nothing short of sensationally exciting.
  2. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    63
    True to its serial roots, this equally silly but undeniably entertaining sequel to "Underworld" (2003) picks up right where its high-grossing predecessor left off and offers more of the same.
  3. 50
    They're still fighting in this sequel. But this is a more visually inspired, muscularly made movie than its predecessor.
  4. 40
    It's not quite quick enough to be anywhere near as gloomily engaging as the cast's original outing.
  5. 30
    With her long, black coat and midair karate-chop skills, Selene is more Matrix-y Neo than Count Dracula, which may explain why this movie is so brutally un-fun.
  6. Reviewed by: Jeannette Catsoulis
    30
    The fascist undercurrents of this battle remain unexplored. Maybe one day, Hollywood will figure out that pouring acting-challenged starlets into black neoprene and sticking them in front of a blue screen do not a movie make. We can but hope.
  7. Reviewed by: Stephen Metcalf
    20
    Beckinsale is an elegant woman—before she was the Emma Peel of the undead, she was Jane Austen's Emma, and before she was Emma, she was passing A levels in German, French, and Russian literature—and all her stalking and seething keep the movie from being totally unwatchable.

See all 21 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 96
  2. Negative: 20 out of 96
  1. RyanW.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    Underworld: Evolution was a continuous of forbidden love. It explored all the elements of protecting that love, something Lucian and Sonja (Viktor's Daughter) weren't granted. Expand
  2. DianaJ.
    Jan 25, 2006
    10
    The movie was great, I hope there is another part to this, I love the scenes in this one, it was better than the first.
  3. Feb 14, 2011
    10
    why are "professional critics" so dense?
  4. JackS.
    Jun 7, 2006
    8
    Better than the first and better than I expected. They developed the history more which was nice but was still able to be inventive with the action. Overall a good popcorn flick. Don't take it too seriously. Expand
  5. KelvinL.
    Mar 15, 2006
    7
    Decent enough popcorn fantasy/action movie. And Ms.Beckinsale does look good doing her Lara Croft impressions. The film could do with a few more twist and suprises as you never really thought Ms.Beckinsale was ever in danger of losing her fight against the main villain. I think that has to be one of the main critisms of both Underworld movies. The main villains are bigged up to be some indestructable, invincible beast but when they finally get it on with Serena they some how lose their destructive powers and Serena never seems to have to struggle THAT hard to overcome her main foes. Would like to see Serena take a lot more damage physically in her battles so that it adds a bit more grit to the proceedings. Still it was a sight more entertaining than a lot of so called "serious" films. Expand
  6. Oct 1, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "Underworld: Evolution" is just annoying. Why are the vampires and Lycans just fighting consistently? No plot twists, witty script, or even chilly scares. It's a movie you'll get to watch and forget in a few moments. Expand
  7. Mott
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    The movie is about a 2 or 3, but I am giving it a zero because its stupid people that go to these movies and rate it 8s and 10s that make someone in hollywood make worse sequels off of already terrible movies. Expand

See all 96 User Reviews