Screen Gems | Release Date: September 19, 2003
8.9
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 510 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
446
Mixed:
42
Negative:
22
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)
1
DanielC.Sep 20, 2003
Underworld, more like under"pants", this film was awful, for an alleged action film this really was pittiful. For a little over two hours i sat watching this film and the only time my addrenaline rushed was when my mate accidently broke Underworld, more like under"pants", this film was awful, for an alleged action film this really was pittiful. For a little over two hours i sat watching this film and the only time my addrenaline rushed was when my mate accidently broke wind. The acting, other than Kate Beckinsale, was appalling, especially head vampire 'Victor'. He was supposed to be a lord of the underworld though... he acted camper than a row of tents. I gave this film 1 because the special effects were good, but if it were for the plot, script, acting or action then this would have recieved nothing, perhaps even a minus if that were possible! oh and as for the comparisons to the matrix, well the only similarities were that they were both shown in a cinema. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
RirenJan 30, 2007
Atrocious, even for a popcorn flick. The action sequences and "plot twists" feel like the fat they cut off the Blade movies. Coincidentally, almost everyone in this world of eternal rainy nighttime dresses like they were expecting a walk-on Atrocious, even for a popcorn flick. The action sequences and "plot twists" feel like the fat they cut off the Blade movies. Coincidentally, almost everyone in this world of eternal rainy nighttime dresses like they were expecting a walk-on on Blade II. You can't expect too much creativity from a movie that basically steals vampires, werewolves and leather - but this is still insultingly bad, especially with its generic soundtrack and poor acting. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
HalfwelshmanDec 14, 2011
Underworld is a sloppy example of filmmaking. The acting is as wooden as a bed-side table, with a terrible script and ham-fisted direction by Len Wiseman. The effects and fight scenes might have been decent a few years ago, but they simplyUnderworld is a sloppy example of filmmaking. The acting is as wooden as a bed-side table, with a terrible script and ham-fisted direction by Len Wiseman. The effects and fight scenes might have been decent a few years ago, but they simply don't hold up today. What's more, the film is far too long - the story (what little there is) could have been told in half the time. The only saving graces are Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen, who both have an immense amount of fun as the leaders of the vampires and werewolves respectively, but don't get enough screen time to redeem the film. Underworld plays like it's trying to be somewhere between the Matrix and Blade, but in fact it's a poor imitation of both. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
hoops2448Dec 14, 2011
I was wrong. After watching Underworld again, I came to realise that not only is it the worst of the series, it has no redeeming features at all. It's garbage in the purest sense of the word. The acting is wooden with the best performancesI was wrong. After watching Underworld again, I came to realise that not only is it the worst of the series, it has no redeeming features at all. It's garbage in the purest sense of the word. The acting is wooden with the best performances being ones from bit characters like Bill Nighy's Viktor and Michael Sheen's Lucian (probably why Rise of the Lycans is much more enjoyable). Kate Beckinsale lumbers from scene to scene in a sort of daze, spouting words with no semblance of feeling or thought. I can only imagine its because she is having a severe allergic reaction to the amount of leather shes wearing. Scott Speedman is tragically miscast as Michael not because he doesn't fit the character but because he is just a terrible actor. However the acting is just the beginning. Underworld is poorly directed with almost every scene being both poorly shot, framed and edited with them feeling like they are being rammed down your throat instead of neatly wrapped for your enjoyment. The main problem with the direction (by Len Wiseman) is that it is so remarkably unimaginative. It pushes no boundaries and doesn't try which carries over into the editing, sound mixing and everything else related to the film. The man behind the wheel should at least be able to steer. Len Wiseman got into the drivers seat drunk and everyone in the car held on for dear life.
Summing up, its just rubbish.
Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
1
csw12Apr 2, 2012
I watched this movie in a hotel room which I believe made it even worse. The movie has terrible acting and the action is dreadful to say the least. The movie was atrocious.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
It tries to be The Matrix with vampires, but fails to have an actual plot or any coherent characters.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
3
MitchM.Jan 29, 2006
Vampires vs. Werewolves. Abbott & Costello? No. Not even. But hey, they're all armed with arsenals of automatic weapons! I thought the point of being a monster was you didn't need any of that crap. But I guess it's cheaper to Vampires vs. Werewolves. Abbott & Costello? No. Not even. But hey, they're all armed with arsenals of automatic weapons! I thought the point of being a monster was you didn't need any of that crap. But I guess it's cheaper to have cool looking, sexy model types firing off blank rounds harmlessly at each other than doing a complete CGI movie? The only drama here was whether I might throw my vote with the vampires ... or the werewolves. Tough choice. And no apparent reason to back either. Now, if Lon Chaney or Bela Lugosi had been in this ... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful