Home > The Melting Pot > Underworld: Evolution... How can a movie so good have such a sequel?

Underworld: Evolution... How can a movie so good have such a sequel?
Okay, only go see this movie if the first one completely stole your brain. Not only will you get your brain back, but you might have a good time.

The first Underworld had such a strong and subtle storyline... Let's just say that I hope Mr. Wiseman and Mr. McBride get their acts back together for the third flick, which is supposed to be a prequel.

If you like the action sequences or the lovely Ms. Beckinsale, then you might like this movie, but the only kick I got out of it was seeing my favorite chars (except for Lucian and Singe and Kahn and... you get the idea) walking around on the screen again.

One thing, though, gives me such solace. As bad as Underworld: Evolution was ...it still kicked the ever-livin' crud out of Van Helsing.
Exept Gremlins and a few others, all sequels are bad.
Still haven't seen it. Loved Underworld, but largely because I thought Victor was a dude (werewolves? schmerewolves). It all seemed very Vampire: The Masquerade to me, but with slightly less lace and brooding.

I did quite enjoy Van Helsing, though. I thought Richard Roxburgh as Dracula was fantastic, amd I'm a fan of the old Universal monster movies, so I enjoyed all the in-jokes.

I didn't think Underworld #1 was that great. Pretty to look at, sure, but no plot point was really a surprise and the werewolf effects had that sort of video-game look that I really don't like.

Not all sequels suck. Evil Dead 2 is generally considered to be superior to Evil Dead, for example, and Rescuers Down Under 2 was quite fun whereas the first one was very dreary and slow as molasses in January.
You're right about the Rescuers!^^
G2G for a few days, be back soon!

Does this mean I should wait until Underworld hits the free rental section at Blockbuster? LOL I did enjoy the first one, and I liked Van Hellsing, if only because I found out after four movies that David Wenham could act. (Three I returned unfinished.) As for sequels, I found that the Lethal Weapon franchise got better up to #4. It was the first series I have seen that the first one was good, and the following only got better. I agree that most sequels do not live up to their predesessors. (Fast and the Furious; anything AFTER the first Land Before Time.)
I thought David Wenham was alright in LOTR (the character assassination of Faramir aside), but he was very good in Van Helsing.

Some sequels are awful. It is sometimes painful when the potential is there, but nothing is done with it. Ex, the Alien franchise after Aliens. It could have been great, but they really messed up on Resurrection, and don't even get me started on AVP...

I'm hoping that they never get this Indy IV thing off the ground, because I know I'll go and see it regardless of the fact that it will probably anger me beyond belief.
How many "Land Before Time" sequels were there, anyway?

And pokemon ~shudders~ I like the gameboy games, but Ash Ketchum deserves a death sentence for being so...so...God-Mody! I don't think I ever saw him lose before in an episode. He wasn't a very realistic character, either.
You've never seen Ash lose?

You clearly haven't seen that many episodes. =P
I saw all of season one and 2 and most of 3 and quite a bit of 4 and some of five, then they didn't air it in England unless I decided to get fox kids.