Films

Underworld: Evolution (2006)
[2nd watch]

Last time I saw this was in cinemas, about six years ago, and I'd forgotten (or never realised) just how different it was to the first film.

Whereas that's very much a modern urban-fantasy -- all blue-grey perma-night constant-rain Gothic cityscape with cars and leather coats and dripping sewers and guns and more guns -- here we're back in the traditional vampire/werewolf realms of Eastern European forests (albeit filmed in Canada, apparently) with decrepit castles and ancient myths and all that kind of thing. Sure there's still high technology and guns, and characters new and old digging around in the ashes of the first film (an 800-year-ago prologue aside, this one picks up where that left off), but the general tone is different. And I don't like it as much.

There are plus points though. It wraps up all of the first film's hanging threads -- whereas that was ultimately inconclusive, here the mythology is completed (quite what's left for the prequel I'm not sure; more detail on events we already know the end result of I suppose). Indeed, Underworld: Part 2 would've been as apt a title, so closely is it linked to the first film. The acting's better too. I wouldn't necessarily say the script is, but with Shane Brolly dispatched early on and Sir Derek Jacobi added to the cast, the average performance quality is significantly raised.

It's also much more violent -- the first's a 15, this is an 18, and it's earned, though it didn't strike me as much as it did in the cinema (more desensitised I guess).

So, in conclusion, shame they couldn't have stuck to the first film's urban settings -- it was what made the franchise feel a bit different and Cool. Tomorrow night, I intend to see what I make of that prequel. Considering it's obvious time setting I'll allow it more of the old-fashioned-ness, but will it actually be any good?