Screen Gems | Release Date: January 20, 2006
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 558 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
475
Mixed:
43
Negative:
40
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
hoops2448Dec 11, 2011
How can a movie as bad as Underworld get any worse? That was what I found myself wondering at the end of Underworld Evolution, a film so colossally bad it deserves some kind of award to emphasise the fact its dreadful. It has a terribleHow can a movie as bad as Underworld get any worse? That was what I found myself wondering at the end of Underworld Evolution, a film so colossally bad it deserves some kind of award to emphasise the fact its dreadful. It has a terrible script, two wooden leads, a boring supporting cast and some awful set pieces. It's just bad. Really, really bad. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
3
ChadS.Mar 3, 2006
Pride? Hubris? If the vampires discharge firearms, why do the lichens constantly put themselves at a disadvantage? Don't they have opposable thumbs, too? Another thing of fascination for me was how the film artfully hides Kate Pride? Hubris? If the vampires discharge firearms, why do the lichens constantly put themselves at a disadvantage? Don't they have opposable thumbs, too? Another thing of fascination for me was how the film artfully hides Kate Beckinsale's nipples during her nude love scene. And that she curses twice. You can at least admire "Underworld: Evolution['s]" refusal to tone down for a PG-13 rating. But it's boring. And possesses no sense of humor. In the opening scene, a filmmaker with any flair would've given his audience vampiric horses. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JasonY.Jan 30, 2006
Anyone who sees this movie should be prepared to feel just a little taken advantage of after all is said and done. Clearly it's intended for lower life forms. Although, I think even plankton or jellyfish would be bored slimeless by this Anyone who sees this movie should be prepared to feel just a little taken advantage of after all is said and done. Clearly it's intended for lower life forms. Although, I think even plankton or jellyfish would be bored slimeless by this pathetic tour de farce. They manage to make Kate Beckinsale in tight leather depressing for God's sake! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
[Anonymous] Feb 17, 2006
This sequel makes even less sense than the mediocre and boring first movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MattJan 21, 2006
The critics are right this is a 2 or 3 out of 10 movies. The fact the user score is 9.1 scares the hell out of me. It's people like that are responsible for hollywood to continue to make these generic, lame, stupid, retread movies.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarcDJan 22, 2006
Another waste of time from Beckinsale. First Underworld...then Van Helsing...and now...this mess.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MaxL.Feb 1, 2006
Crappy movie. What the heck was all the fuzz about? Terrible and even worse dialogue than the first one. Yes, Beckinsale is still looking way hot in latex but that's just not enough. Gorier and bloodier than the first but not better and Crappy movie. What the heck was all the fuzz about? Terrible and even worse dialogue than the first one. Yes, Beckinsale is still looking way hot in latex but that's just not enough. Gorier and bloodier than the first but not better and the first one wasn't that good to start with. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AndyP.Jun 20, 2006
I found this movie hilariously bad! The sex scene with Scott Speedman humping Kate Beckinsales abdomen was especially great. The plot was incoherent, the action was kind of boring, and the acting was mediocre. How this has as high a user I found this movie hilariously bad! The sex scene with Scott Speedman humping Kate Beckinsales abdomen was especially great. The plot was incoherent, the action was kind of boring, and the acting was mediocre. How this has as high a user rating as it does baffles me, but it did give me more laughs than any other movie this year! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GrantN.Jan 20, 2006
If you like this movie you probably are 10, like movies like The Cave, and will give a movie a score above an 8 if it has nudity in it. Underworld: Evolution is a dreadful movie that is worse than its predescor in every way concievable. The If you like this movie you probably are 10, like movies like The Cave, and will give a movie a score above an 8 if it has nudity in it. Underworld: Evolution is a dreadful movie that is worse than its predescor in every way concievable. The horendous dialogue would be forgivable if the action was intense and thrilling, but alas it is not. And neither is the second installment in the Underworld series. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TomD.Jan 28, 2006
A million more render bars couldn't save this baby from the dingos [although count on the inevitable third film to include even more top dollar 720° camera moves]. If you're way into myspace-style goth, love dystopian mist over A million more render bars couldn't save this baby from the dingos [although count on the inevitable third film to include even more top dollar 720° camera moves]. If you're way into myspace-style goth, love dystopian mist over dark 'somewhere in Europe' landscapes and you have a sweet tooth for brainless visual stimulation, this may be the dog whistle you've been saving your ears for. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ThomasI.Jan 29, 2006
I made a mistake. I went in trusting the user reviews on this site when I should have have known that they exist only to berate critics that know what they're talking about. I haven't made such an error since "Mission to Mars" six I made a mistake. I went in trusting the user reviews on this site when I should have have known that they exist only to berate critics that know what they're talking about. I haven't made such an error since "Mission to Mars" six years ago, and I was humiliated beyond reason then. Stupid 15 year old goth kids and their bleak, bloody, Blade / Matrix clone junk. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ChelseaD.Jan 30, 2006
Did everyone who rated this movie so far have something to do with it or something? Even for popcorn movie bull, this movie was god awful. The first one was at least fairly decent, but I can't believe I wasted my money on this crap.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AlecB.Jun 13, 2006
This is got to be the worst piece of crap in movie history.i mean come on i couldve took my video camera to my basement and filmed a better movie than this crap.the first of the series was great so i thought that this was going to be good This is got to be the worst piece of crap in movie history.i mean come on i couldve took my video camera to my basement and filmed a better movie than this crap.the first of the series was great so i thought that this was going to be good but boy was i wrong.if it wasnt for all of the voilence i wouldve gave this crap a zero. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JayK.Jan 21, 2009
I'll give it a 1 because i like the color. other than that its just blood and guts with ridiculous storyline and characters. underworld 1 is much much better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CarlosFJul 18, 2009
Nothing new. Nothing better than the first one. Just Marcus character, but he's overacting. The lead actors are the same dumbs, Beckinsale and Speedman, who haven't much to say, but a lot to over act. The music is the same from the Nothing new. Nothing better than the first one. Just Marcus character, but he's overacting. The lead actors are the same dumbs, Beckinsale and Speedman, who haven't much to say, but a lot to over act. The music is the same from the first movie, the plot is even worse and more derivative than the first one. It's basically action scenes, which were too predictable, and CGI creatures, which were completely unreal (I mean, what the f--- were that werewolves?). So, this a boring overlong movie. And it's a ZERO. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MottJan 22, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BenK.Jan 22, 2006
Apparently Uwe Boll has followed up Bloodrayne with this stinker. Both films lack a soul. Within the first minute I regretted purchasing a ticket. Boring, pointless, confusing, this film has no redeeming value except to make money. Who cares Apparently Uwe Boll has followed up Bloodrayne with this stinker. Both films lack a soul. Within the first minute I regretted purchasing a ticket. Boring, pointless, confusing, this film has no redeeming value except to make money. Who cares about action or special effects if you have nothing to say and can't even tell a story. Taking someone to this film is akin to kidnapping. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ChrisW.Jun 24, 2006
What the hell was that? I enjoyed the first one because it was very unique, but this one... boring! I'm only giving it a 1 because Kate is smokin' in that outfit.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KeithJ.May 11, 2007
Beckingsale looks great in the outfit. Otherwise, this movie is very weak. I thought the first was pretty cool, but this one wastes all of its power. Victor was "the oldest and strongest of us" - except, NOPE, he's the third-oldest ... Beckingsale looks great in the outfit. Otherwise, this movie is very weak. I thought the first was pretty cool, but this one wastes all of its power. Victor was "the oldest and strongest of us" - except, NOPE, he's the third-oldest ... er, make that the fourth-oldest. And the sixth strongest now, by my count. When the movie continually tops itself, it makes it hard to take seriously. The final battle was a foregone conclusion. We already know Kate's stronger than Marcus going into it. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
This Underworld, only slightly better than its predecessor, is a sex filled gore fest, which would fine, except that the film takes itself way too seriously.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews