Underworld

A terribly naive barrage of action that perhaps suffers from the inexperience of Wiseman as a director; he obviously shot the film with great passion, never letting the viewer breathe a sigh of relief with a relentless sequence of shootouts, chases and werewolf transformations. That's certainly a good thing, but with such a bland and silly story, it didn't really come together. I felt like the film was exactly the same from start to finish and ultimately didn't bring anything groundbreaking to make me remember it for a long time. Apart from Kate Beckinsale, the best was probably the demonic Bill Nighy, whom I couldn't recognize at first thanks to the thorough work of the make-up artists. (02/06/2012)

This was alright. Kate in the corset and latex is decent at least. The purposefully colorized black-and-blue-and-white film is pleasing to the eye, but that's about all there is to say about it. Dramatically, it’s too straightforward, so the only films it can beat on points in its genre are the infamous Twilight saga films. (01/08/2012)

The key to Underworld is your level of tolerance for the screenplay that pretends to be serious but is actually naïve and unintentionally funny in places. Len Wiseman may have fulfilled a childhood dream, but he’s either forgotten about the more mature audience or he still has a pimply face himself. Even so, I can’t give this less than three stars, which is thanks to the spectacular production. The childishness is justified by the fury of the action scenes, the sets and mainly Kate Beckinsale’s sexy costume. If you’re not an admirer of Federico Fellini, the visual and aural aspects of this film will appeal to you more than its content will annoy you. (21/11/2003)

A film that is the biggest disappointment of the year for me personally. The fact that the touted story of Romeo and Juliet in the world of vampires and werewolves never happens wouldn't matter so much, but an action horror film with entirely unimaginative and static action and without a single thrilling moment is already a problem. On top of that, the acting is mediocre, the make-up effects are crap, the script, besides being pretty simple, has tons of logical errors and the direction is very subpar. It's a shame, because with its premise it could have been so much more. (06/12/2003)

We are in the 21st century, gone are the days of individualists with two fangs, now we have whole families of vampires and lycans who organize themselves almost like political parties and wage wars among themselves like mafiosi. Vampires with electronic equipment and a massive arsenal of weaponry are nothing like the pleasantly decadent vampires from, for example, Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. Sorry, Director Wiseman, I prefer the decadent ones, or the posh Count Dracula, who with all nonchalance digs his fangs into an artery and needs no laptops or liquid silver bullets to do it. For a ridiculously low budget of 20 million I was treated to some very impressive images in places, but that’s not everything, script-wise it was as scratchy as Kate's tight leather outfit while walking, the war between lycans and vampires full of machine gun shots didn't entertain me at all, nor did the plot around the blood mixing. Basically, there was nobody to root for. A lot of silly fun, really. (13/07/2004)