Kate Beckinsale is Seline, a death-dealing vampire who has the sole purpose of hunting down the vicious lycans (calling them werewolves would be too nerdy). Apparently, a war between the two species has been raging for centuries. The battle strategies of these supernatural beings are most bizarre. Instead of planning their next attack, the vampires choose to sit around their mansion drinking and looking posh while the lycans wrestle each other in the sewers. Enter Scott Speedman as Michael, a medical intern who's being hunted by the werewolves for reasons that aren't revealed until the end of the film. Of course, Seline reaches him first, but not before the clueless chump is bitten by a werewolf.

This film is much more "Matrix" than anything else, and I'm not just talking about the leather outfits or the blazing gun battles or the jumping up really high in the air. The stories of the two films are identical. Instead of rebels and machines chasing Neo we have vamps and wolves chasing Speedman. The problem is that "Underworld" is presented on a much lesser scale. The action scenes are sparse and lack any originality. At one point they become downright stupid as a vamp soldier fights a werewolf with two whips. He gets eaten in a few seconds. Maybe he should have tried two pitchforks or maybe even two unripe bananas. Between the blood and bullets, we are introduced to the various characters of the vampire and lycan clans. I was much more interested during these moments, mostly because whenever I became bored with the talking heads I turned my attention to the stylish cinematography, the real star of this film. If anything else, "Underworld" makes for great eye candy. A warning to anyone looking for an epic, forbidden romance set between the travesties of violent conflict: the filmmakers equate the idea of a love story to Beckinsale giving Speedman a peck on the lips. That's it. There is no chemistry whatsoever between the two actors. They barely come into contact with each other.

Don't you think it's so cool how vampires and werewolves are totally evil, legendary monsters. Screenwriter Danny McBride doesn't. His reinterpretations of these classic beasts are of the lamest, failing at almost every point to use their full potential. Instead of coming out during a full moon, the lycans can change whenever they want. Silver bullets only work if you use about a hundred of them. And the wolves are the more formidable of the two species. The so-called-vampires aren't even really vampires. They have reflections, don't drink blood, and run away like panicked deer at the first sign of danger. Without guns, the lycans tear them apart like wet tissue paper. It seems like the only reason McBride calls them vampires is so that there is an excuse for their gravity-defying stunts. After having vampires updated with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and the "Blade" films it's a letdown that this is the best McBride could imagine.

Had "Underworld" made its debut a decade ago, it may have been the groundbreaking hit that "The Matrix" was. Having come out now only makes it a rehash of things we've seen before. Still, the style of the film and some interesting characters save it from being a straight-to-video type disaster.

Grade: C or 2 stars out of 4.


Best Movie this year! A+++++   September 25, 2003
 104 out of 165 found this review helpful

Kate Beckinsale stars as the Lycan hunting vampire Seline. When Seline notices a gang of Lycan's hunting a lone human, she becomes intrigued, little realizing that the group is part of a centuries old conspiracy, thus inevitably drawing her into a world of mystery, murder, and betrayal.

What can I say? I LOVED underworld. I loved the costuming, the plot, and the fantastic cinematography. The vampires looked exceptionally cool with their white skin, cerulean eyes and black gothic clothing. I appreciated the fact that the lead character was female, and no 'wilting flower waiting for the hero to rescue her,' in fact, it was quite the reverse! The love story was cute, and filled with romantic tension.

I thought the vampires were well portrayed, and the motivation complex. If you are a fan of vampire/werewolf movies you'll like Underworld. My only complaint, was I thought the werewolves were a bit TOO easy for the vampires to overpower, and looked a bit 'stumpy.' Also I saw no real advantage to have them running along the walls. Otherwise, Excellent! Excellent! I really hope for a sequel!


AMAZING   March 1, 2004
 59 out of 83 found this review helpful

I don't understand the many poor reviews I've been reading about
this movie. It is the best horror flick I've seen come along in
a long time. Like a mob war between two rival families, the
vampires and werewolves are at each others throats. Twists,
betrayals, and double dealings, lay around every corner.
Alliances are forged, alliances are broken. Pity and revulsion
intertwine with each other for these two sects as new revelations
come to pass. I thought the special effects were outstanding, and
the sound quality excellent. I had to turn the subwoofers down
to avoid blowing out the windows during the opening storm
sequence.(o.k., maybe I exaggerate just a little there, I think
the windows would probably have held, but I really did have to
turn the subs down.) I'm going to keep this review very general,
unlike so many other reviewers, I see no point in giving away
the entire adventure. I'll let you discover all the surprises
for yourself. Just let me say that London or Paris would not
survive these werewolves, and the vampires here are in no mood
to give an interview! This is an action packed, fun movie, and
I hope you enjoy it. Oh, and yes, it does have a good plot.
Thanks,
Tom


Great movie, but not exactly what I expected   September 21, 2003
 34 out of 37 found this review helpful

I had been looking forward to the release of this movie all summer long, and it was a great movie! It was just a little different from what I had thought it would be.

The movie, as most of you probably know, is about a war that has been going on between werewolves and vampires. And it is THIS that is the primary focus of the plot (as opposed to the vampires and werewolves themselves). The werewolves have been researching their bloodlines and discovered a human who shares a common ancestor with both the werewolves and the vampires. The werewolves seek out this human, and this is noted by Selene (Kate Beckinsale), who decides to make it her mission to discover the importance of this particular human.

Unfortunately, the writers decided not to delve too deeply into vampire and werewolf lore. I was pretty disappointed by the fact that the supernatural abilities of these supernatural beings were not really emphasized. Instead, the writers chose to merely stick guns in the hands of the vampires and werewolves. In addition, the mythology was slightly different from what I've read and seen before in previous vampire and werewolf books and movies. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but if you are going to change things from what people are used to, then it should be explained in slightly more detail.

Another thing that was a little disappointing were the effects. The previews led me to believe that the movie would be comparable to the "Matrix" in that department. Unfortunately, the best effects (with the one exception of the werewolf transformations) were all shown in the previews.

All of this aside, the movie was still pretty incredible. The plot was exceptional, which is not necessarily always the case with most action movies, and the action kept me entertained throughout the movie's entirety. The make-up and costumes were also outstanding, as was the acting. I actually saw this movie twice, and the second time around (once I got over the intial let-down of it being slightly different from what I expected) it was MUCH better. I anxiously await the sequel (and based on how the movie ended, there WILL be a sequel) as well as the DVD release!


Underworld in Superbit   November 25, 2004
 32 out of 38 found this review helpful

I'm sure there are many reviews about this movie under the regular release. I'll comment a bit specifically about the superbit version that costs more for higher quality video and audio (without the extras on the disk). To really get any advantage here you need to have a digital TV (preferably HD but ED will probably work too), a DVD player that puts out a progressive signal (vs. interlaced), and a component or digital connection between your DVD player and TV. IMO if you don't have all three of these you won't get the benefit of Superbit and should save your money.

This was my first Superbit disk, so I had high expectations. I'd say there's good news and bad news here. The good news is that I do think the picture is visibly better. There is definitely more detail and you can seem more subtle features (texture, reflections, etc.) in the picture. This also helps some of the dark scenes (many in this movie) with more visible detail. The bad news is that there's so much more detail that you can see the grain of the film. I know that's normal for a movie shot on film and it doesn't really bother me (unless I'm looking for it). However, I do think it detracts slightly from the perceived quality of the picture. Compare this, for example, to a movie shot in digital and you'll see what I mean. I'm sure there's some debate over what defines good picture quality so YMMV here. Finally, the sound is excellent on this DVD, but I can't say that it's significantly better than on the original release over a Dolby Digital system.

So, in the end I'd say that Superbit is great if you really love a movie and want the best PQ you can get for it. I think that Superbit is probably better for older movies that they can clean up for DVD transfer than for newer movies with a decent original DVD transfer.

Remember that if you want all the extras you won't get them on Superbit. My one complaint about this specific DVD is that they used the theatrical release rather than the (now available) director's cut.

Hope this is helpful!