Underworld: Evolution

Name: Underworld: Evolution
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller, Fantasy
Released: January 20, 2006
Duration: 106 min
Rating: 36
Cast: Bill Nighy, Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman

2006

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 21 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 637 Ratings

See All

8.5

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.5	Your Score
8.5	User Score Universal acclaim based on 637 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Underworld: Evolution

Now Playing: Underworld: Evolution

Movie Details & Credits

Screen Gems | Release Date: January 20, 2006 | R

Starring: Bill Nighy, Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman

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)

Director: Len Wiseman

Genre(s): Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller, Fantasy

Rating: R

Runtime: 106 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Joe Leydon

Overall package is potent. A few rock-the-house scenes of slam-bang derring-do -- are nothing short of sensationally exciting. Read full review

David Hiltbrand

A monster chiller sequel that is visually spectacular but rather overburdened with story. Read full review

Wesley Morris

They're still fighting in this sequel. But this is a more visually inspired, muscularly made movie than its predecessor. Read full review

Stephanie Zacharek

The plot is so convoluted that missing even five minutes at a stretch won't make any difference in your comprehension of the story. Read full review

Jeannette Catsoulis

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. Read full review

Chuck Wilson

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. Read full review

Stephen Metcalf

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. Read full review

SEE ALL 21 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

MaxC.

Jan 21, 2006

The critics are NOT right. Just 35% for the Sequel of Underworld 2? Tsss, the user votes are RIGHT. This movie is great. I don't understand the critics. This is not a 3/10 movie, it's more. Great action, great cast, nice story ... Marcus was great. he's the real Dracula and The critics are NOT right. Just 35% for the Sequel of Underworld 2? Tsss, the user votes are RIGHT. This movie is great. I don't understand the critics. This is not a 3/10 movie, it's more. Great action, great cast, nice story ... Marcus was great. he's the real Dracula and not the kid of Blade 3. I loved this movie and i must see it again! 10 Points!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

PaulC.

Jan 26, 2006

It was incredible.....I liked it more than the first, not to say the first one was bad, but with more gore, action and a story line that did make sense no matter what the boring critics say it was great. I saw it twice in the theatre and my friends loved it too. Its a must see, and i hope It was incredible.....I liked it more than the first, not to say the first one was bad, but with more gore, action and a story line that did make sense no matter what the boring critics say it was great. I saw it twice in the theatre and my friends loved it too. Its a must see, and i hope they make another one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JDnator

Feb 14, 2011

why are "professional critics" so dense?

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

Tokyochuchu

Jul 24, 2012

Although inexplicably maligned by critics, Underworld: Evolution is a superior sequel. It builds upon the first movie's lore and mythos, adding layers of intrigue and mystery. Evolution also brings a wealth of exciting action scenes that shoot right for the core of what makes monster moviesAlthough inexplicably maligned by critics, Underworld: Evolution is a superior sequel. It builds upon the first movie's lore and mythos, adding layers of intrigue and mystery. Evolution also brings a wealth of exciting action scenes that shoot right for the core of what makes monster movies such (admittedly) silly but compulsive fun. From start to finish, this Underworld sequel is a thunderously entertaining explosion of gothic horror and science-fiction fantasy. Highly recommended, snooty critical reaction or not.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

mbelizec

May 4, 2023

Liked the movie. Again story is great, but maybe presentation ia not as good as the first movie. Pretty close though.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Chrissy

Feb 11, 2006

Im somewhat surprised at how high the users have rated this movie. Although it most likely will greatly appeal to certain groups of people. It definately has an immature flavor to it. Not unlike the first movie, it makes little sense when you watch it. Not one of the worst movies of the Im somewhat surprised at how high the users have rated this movie. Although it most likely will greatly appeal to certain groups of people. It definately has an immature flavor to it. Not unlike the first movie, it makes little sense when you watch it. Not one of the worst movies of the year, but hardly worth the money. Definately find a better movie to go see.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Mott

Jan 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

SEE ALL 111 REVIEWS