Underworld: Awakening


Beckinsale bites back, bloodlessly

If the previous three Underworlds weren’t to your Lycan, there’s little reason to seek out this fourth instalment, even if it does see Kate Beckinsale back in the leather corset-cum-career straitjacket as gun-toting bloodsucker Selene.

In a direct lift from Aliens, this year’s vampire-werewolf face-off sees her awake from a 12-year cryogenic freeze to find not only that her hairy nemeses have the genetic upper hand but also that she is now a mom to raven-haired cutie Eve (India Eisley). What to do? Why, launch a one-woman assault on wolf-man HQ of course, no doubt hoping we won’t notice Swedish co-directors Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein are now brazenly ripping off The Matrix.

With no Michael Sheen this time around and Charles Dance stepping in for an AWOL Bill Nighy, there’s a distinct sense of sloppy seconds to a film that’s humourless throughout and, thanks to murky 3D, visually dull to boot.

OK, so gore hounds may relish the constant throat-slashing, vein-slicing and one ingenious moment when Kate rips open a stomach for some DIY heart massage. For everyone else, though, the only point of interest will be the villain’s henchman’s uncanny resemblance to Coldplay’s Chris Martin.

Film Details

User Reviews

    • McSerious

      Jan 20th 2012, 22:58

      Woulda been more concise to say 'more of the same' yknow? Always found Underworld films (well the first two at least) to be something of a guilty pleasure, so I expect I'll end up seeing this at some point.

      Alert a moderator

    • writerdave87

      Jan 21st 2012, 3:18

      Although, kudos for the 'weren't to your Lycan' pun :p

      Alert a moderator

    • umafan1

      Jan 21st 2012, 13:33


      You do half go on bashing this franchise Totalfilm, don't you? It's supposed to be fun and entertaining. It's not ripping off Aliens, she was asleep for 57 years not 12 and how is it directly linked to Aliens when it's not anything close to it?!?! How is it ripping off the Matrix either? You do talk some rubbish. I was entertained and I liked it. I ignored the 3D so... just bashing the film alongside the 3D is a bit stupid, I was enjoying the movie and kept doing so the 80 mins or so it carried on (very short). I even forgot it was in 3D whilst watching it as I liked the film so... give it a rest. The only criticism I have is that it was too short and ended like a part 1 of a part 2 movie.

      Alert a moderator

    • thedanieljson

      Jan 21st 2012, 16:33

      I thought the first was bad enough.. Are they REALLY this popular? They could atleast throw in a joke or two but they're just bland bland bland.

      Alert a moderator

    • FBGRoberts

      Jan 23rd 2012, 11:57

      Umafan... you enjoyed it. That's fine. You're the demographic. TF is explaining that it's a half-arsed film by way of production, which cannot be denied. People enjoy different things and have opposing opinions, but in terms of actually judging something for what it is, we remove opinion and look at the product for what it is, comparatively. Compare this to similar films in terms of style, genre, budget, casting, writing, directing and it's not very good... This is however, something lots of people don't like hearing...

      Alert a moderator

    • FBLRumbolt

      Jan 23rd 2012, 12:56

      Good point FGBRoberts. These films are a total waste of everyones time. The first was sub Blade it so obviously wanted to emulate that so why not compare it to something else in the genre and surprise surprise it falls short. I can understand someone declaring it a guilty pleasure but to rail off at TF for panning your favourite film franchise, well that's called blinkers (umafan1)

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular