i'm in !

I think the first one was OK, but had buckets of potential, which is why it's generally seen as a flop. I'll see the sequel, but I would be more excited if they put a new director at the helm.

I really liked the first one, can't wait to see part 2. I really hope they don't screw it up.

The first one was ok up until the last 15 minutes or so. I bought it sight unseen and watched it once. I'm sure if I ever want to pop it in again I'll stop before I get to the crappy part.

I would be interested in seeing what they do with the second one....but I'll certainly rent it first.

Loved the first one and cannot wait until the second one!

agreed. loved the first except for kraven.

cant wait for #2!!

I totally agree with you there - waste of a nice rack.

I think I hyped the first one up too much in my head. While I liked it, it wasn't the film I wanted it to be. I'll make sure not to do this with this one, and will probably like it all the better.

My only gripe is that it was confirmed in the audio commentary of the unrated DVD that Sophia Myles (Erika) wont be back in the sequel. Too bad cos I thought she was real yummy (and I rarely ever like blondes).

I disliked the first simply because it seemed like the vampires were just goth wannabes in tight black leather with guns. When faced against the wolves they got owned.

But I'll still be up for a sequel.

I really enjoyed Underworld. Kraven was the ultimate in eye candy, that man was gorgeous. Could he act? No, but I would mind seeing him in the sequel. The story was cool.

Looking forward to it.

I liked the first one and look forward to the second. I agree that it would have been cooler to have vamps vs wolves without weapons, but the problem is that they made the wolves so much stronger in their "feral" state that I don't see it happening much in the second one either. Although, now that Michael is a hybrid and maybe Marcus will be too, that could lead to some cool fight scenes.

X

If I'm a vampire, and the only way to kill a werewolf is with a silver bullet, why would I engage in hand-to-hand combat with one?

I agree with the director. Don't add gratuitous scenes like hand-to-hand combat just to have mindless action when it doesn't serve the story.

mindless actions rules

I thought the first one was a turd of a film although I really liked the art direction. The script and acting were pretty horrible. That being said, I'd probably give a second movie a shot since I like the genre.

Sir Derek Jacobi the Underworld 2 Baddie
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/under...ws.php?id=7174

http://www.moviehole.net/news/4513.html

pics in case you do not what he looks like:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...img-t&toggle=1

The title appears to be Underworld: Evolution with a release date of Dec. 9, 2005

http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=7080

They trying to make it next year's Blade:Trinity?

Jakobi is a fine actor, but so was Nighy, and he couldn't really ascend the material.

Derek Jakobi

"S-s-s-s-selina!"

I enjoyed the first movie.
It's the way I like my horror-action movies to be. That very dark, brutal, eerie look the movie is presented in. I think it's called the cinematography of a movie.

Once you start adding bits of humor, decreasing the violence, and making the characters soft I feel the director has slipped.

Examples of movies I would have preferred seeing with a much darker and violent presentation:

Van Helsing (the monsters we grew to love/fear and a hero to finally vanquish them all--the set-up was perfect but...oh well)
Mummy (the one with Brendan Fraser)
Alien vs. Predator (come on, two of the most awesome franchises for a dark movie rolled into one and what we got instead was semi-garbage).
Pirates of the Caribbean (I know this was a Disney franchise but screw the Disney liscence and give me a fresh, new movie with Pirates, blood, and a dark atmosphere-sweet!)

Anyway, I hope the sequel to Underworld (whatever they decide to call it) continues to have the same cinematography as the first.

OK. Now I've got my flame jacket on.
Let's hear it.

Enjoyed the first movie but did not live up to potential completely. Idea of fights with werevolves and vampires was cool. I enjoyed the gunplay and matrix style action scenes rather then lame hand to hand fights. As someone said only silver can kill a werewolve so what would the point of hand to hand. but bill nighly did seem to kill that one guy with a punch. ending was shaky and I cannot stand ben from felicity. One thing to keep in mind the original underworld only cost something like 23 million and the director did do quite a bit with that meager budget. in contrast van helsing cost 160 million.

Viktor was able to kill Raze(werewolf) because Viktor is/was very old. This is why I don't get why the Female Vampire Elder was taken out so fast. The older both races get the stronger they get. i.e. Lucian was able to to expel the silver bullets out of his body under his own will.

I thought it didn't have to do with age. Instead, Lucian was able to push out those silver bullets only because he had the Corvinus blood in him.

Remember, I'm not a vampire or werewolf expert so don't quote me.

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure about that. I don't think he had Corvinus blood but I could be wrong.

Sorry, my error. I should have clarified.

I believe the scene with Lucian pushing out the bullets occured only after he bit Michael Corvinus.

I'll have to check again. This is probably something that was overlooked by the editors or director.