This was surprisingly decent. My favourite character in the previous films was Lucien (Michael Sheen) and its good to see that he's the main focus of this prequel. Bill Nhy gets equal screentime as Vampire leader Viktor while the beautiful Rona Mitra has more of a supporting role. I'd say this is on par with the 1st film and much better than the 2nd.

Its by no means perfect - bad CGI and some crappy dialogue. But it was entertaining which is all I wanted.

BTW - I thought Rona Mitra would be replacing Kate Beckinsale but she isnt. She actually plays a different character.

I'd give it a B-.

I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this third installment. The story fits in perfectly with the other two movies and the action/CGI is much better done. I must say that nobody chews scenery better than Viktor and Lucian. These two put on a show.

A-

The best entry in the "Underworld" franchise to date. It's lean, mean, and well-made. Michael Sheen, recently seen giving a terrific performance in Frost/Nixon, is a charismatic and intense lead. Sheen lends legitimate gravitas to the role of Lucian, a werewolf (or Lycan) slave planning to rebel against his vampire masters. I would love further "Underworld" adventures connecting the end of this prequel to the beginning of the first film, though one wonders how much longer Sheen (verging on the A-list) will be willing to don the claws. Bill Nighy and Rhona Mitra co-star. She's a sexy, welcome newcomer to the franchise and he is obviously having a ball, giving a delightful and over-the-top performance as a vampire aristocrat.

There's more than enough creature SFX and gore here to please any genre fan. The monster-mashing action sequences are exciting and stylish. And the screenplay, while nothing award-worthy, is fine. It would no doubt react to subtlety the way vampires react to sunlight, but the soapy melodrama and chamber political intrigue won me over by the end.

Overall, definitely recommended.

A solid B+

I'm really surprised more people here at KJ haven't seen this considering it only has 4 replies and is supposed to be that good??

I must say that it wasn't bad. I think it was on par with the first movie or even a little bit better.

I give it a B.

I suppose it's not so surprising people are being so kind. The film has plenty of ridiculous gore, although precious little is truly inventive. It also may break the record for most ridiculous violence inflicted upon a character only for them to be fine in the next scene. Say what you will about Underworld: Evolution, but it least it had a quick pace. Here, the audience is forced to watch good actors slum around in claustrophobic sets and wait for the 300-lite plot to occur.
Spoiler for those unfamiliar with the previous two (although why you would then want to see this is beyond me): Try this triangle - a woman treasured equally by her father and lover, albeit for entirely different reasons, is executed. That the film can't make this set up have any dramatic tension or emotional resonance speaks volumes. Sure, tell me that it's Underworld, and I shouldn't expect shit. Maybe so, but that certainly attests to how completely not a A-/B+ this film is. One last example: in the final scene, we hear a sound clip from the first film where someone explains how Kate Beckinsale's family was slaughtered when she was a child by Viktor, only for him to spare her. The visual is the first scene of the first film. How lazy to not show this scene, which would have been such a stronger ending!

I just saw this and loved it! I loved the first film in the series too. And I liked
the second film. I enjoy the story in this series of the vampires and lycans,
and am shocked at the high level of acting in this kind of movie. Michael Sheen
is especially awesome as Lucian, but Nighy and Mitra are also very good.

Highly recommended.

A-

heh, I always take 'I'm fine' in movies to mean that they are looking for something to say when of course... It's sort of like a handshake. It's not the worst cliche IMO.



I view it as a question of orientation when it comes to a movie like this. It's pretty much made for visuals. I don't think the acting or many other aspects were that great in the first two films besides visuals and an interesting mythology. I just don't expect anything else from an Underworld movie. But yeah, more would always be better.



I still need to see it.

Exactly what you would think. intense, rapid paced, outrageous, and even fun-filled flick. The romance works as well, despite the ridiculous sex scene at the beginning, and the acting is surprisingly good.
B+

Bill Nighy has to be taking the piss in this. Its DTV levels of shite for me. I mean Rhona Mitra makes me happy in my pants, so happy that they escape and go have a wild weekend in Vegas but I can't deal with the utter crap this film shovels out.

The same dull blue colour palette, the dull as feck action scenes and the plot developments so telegraphed they need to be given their own signal station.

I'm with Moviedude avoid this like the plague.

UNDERWORLD: RISE OF THE LYCANS - 6/10 (C+)

This was alright, but the worst in the series so far. Each one gets a bit worse than the previous.

BJs Grade:

A-

outstanding eh.

Turns out I don't care about how it all started. It turns out I like seeing Rhona Mitra and Kate Beckinsale running around in tight jumpsuits killing things.

It's actually kind of boring. Lycans get slayed, Vampires get massacred.



Nighy and Sheen seem like they were having enough fun. Too bad I couldn't join them.

**

Was anybody else shocked at how bad the effects were in this movie? I didn't realize we were still in the 80s.

And why do werewolves fight in their human forms? That made no sense.

I did like it though. Sheen, Mitra, and Nighy all do good jobs. Yet stealing the show, atleast in my opinion, was the return of Kevin Grevioux! (The big black guy) I'd give the movie a B-. I think it would've been much better if they didn't have to follow prequel rules. For instance, Sonya didn't need to die, and Victor didn't need to live after having a sword shoved through his mouth.

?????? I thought they had to learn how to change at will.

Now I haven't seen an Underworld film before so I thought this would be a good place to start out since it is a prequel. The plot is decent enough with Lucian trying to get out of his slavery under Viktor. However, the film never tries to challenge or play with the plot to make it more intriguing other than a certain character's death. The film's CGI though couldn't be worse as it was so obvious to how the budget of the film was handled. The acting is average with Michael Sheen being the only real standout and Bill Nighy being an annoying enemy throughout. I'll give the other two films a try later on but I'm a bit cautious. *1/2

The first Underworld is pretty good, you should enjoy it.

Better than the second one, at least, but still not very good. Michael Sheen is fine, but he's clearly after the paycheck.