Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is a major letdown if you were satisfied by the last two. The origins of the battle between the supernatural werewolves and aristocat vampires was not fully explained, and Bill Nighy doesn't have a patch on Beckinsale. The actual fighting between the two rival races are downright awesome though, and it features some breathtaking Medieval-esque choreography. Still, a pretty lame attempt to capture attention from movie-goers.
In this prequal to The Queen, Tony Blair is a slave werewo......wait. Never mind. This film is let down by Bill Nighy's mugging, Rhona Mitra's pouting and some dodgy werewolf effects. That said the wolf bit ARE pretty damned good, its a shame the Vampire's let it down...
Of the 3 I like this one the best...new Underworld girl new direction. They go into the history of the death dealers and lycans...the acting was alot better, and the action was good but this movie was the first movie to slow down the action and let the actors do more than run shoot kill and cuss...though there is nothing wrong with any of that at times
Average. This is a prequel that explains the fued between vampires and werewolves. I liked it because it explained a lot of stuff that happened in the first underwold and sucked way lot less than the second one. And Il iked the werewolf guy, Lucius, excellent choice. Worth a rental.
This is a laughably pointless "prequel" to the Underworld series. It also features some really terrible action choreography with people flipping around in the air upside down looking dumb. The horseback action sequences were the best thing about this movie but overall it's a tepid self indulgent Hollywood mess.
No Beckinsale in latex which was pretty much the only reason for anyone to watch the Underworld films. But surprisingly this is an improvement on the previous ones. Even though it's 90 minutes of something that was covered in a 5-min flashback in the first, the switch to a medieval setting and the focus on Nighy and Sheen improve this greatly. It's never good, but it's at least watchable and the direction is much improved over the last two. It's a shame the plot is so littered with gaping holes.
Let's be honest and cut right to the chase: I think it's pretty obvious if you'll like this or not. If you liked the previous two Underworld films, full of generic fights, generic costumes and crap storyline you'll be right at home with this because that's exactly what this is. Well technically it's a "Underworld: History in Brief" movie but still, it's the same stuff we've seen before. If you liked the first two you'll like this.
Better then 'evolution', but still a little boring and forgetable. Maybe because it's one and a half hour of watching the story which was told in first installment in a couple of sentences, and maybe a vampire film without real people taking place in some fairy-tale version of medival times is just not a thrill. Or maybe Nighy, the only real actor in the cast is not enough to pull this cross of Lord of the Rings with Van Helsing without Beckinsale's sex appeal.
The mythology behind Underworld is explored greatly and, for the most part, this is the best in the series. The acting is handled well between Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen, the two most interesting characters in the franchise. The problem, though, is that it is still rife with cliches and generic action sequences that, at times, it is hard to really be captured by. This may be the most interesting of the three so far but it's still falling short of greatness.
The prequel to the last two underworld movies. It wasnt as good as the last two but still it was ok. The special effects werent the best looked a bit unnatural. It just dwells deeper into myth behind both species. Its an extension of the flashback in part 1. If you like the underworld series you might like this part as well.