Critic Reviews



Based on 16 critic reviews provided by
The fifth film in the series still executes creative kills; if only the same attention were paid to the rest of the movie.
While the film may justify its title in terms of the viscera on display, it is badly in need of a funny bone.
Blood Wars concludes with the threat of further sequels, but this is clearly one franchise that's been fully drained of its blood.
There's a story, and a mythology, and a prestige actress who knows how to push moodiness to the point that, in this series, it's just about her only mood, but none of it, in the end, gets in the way of the splatter.
The only notable aspect of the film is that it marks the feature directorial debut of Anna Foerster, a rare example of a woman being allowed to direct a reasonably large-scale franchise film. Alas, all it proves here is that a female director can make a film of this sort that is just as listless, derivative and perfunctory as one made by a man.
If you like sexy vampires or ferocious werewolves, you can do much better than this exhausted, computerized sequel.
The New York Times
This film is so heavy with exposition that you would think that the director, Anna Foerster, and the screenwriter, Cory Goodman, had set out to complete a dissertation instead of a sequel.
The action is nearly relentless, only occasionally interrupted by humorless, tedious exposition, but despite the freneticism it's almost all completely boring.
Selene seems ready to put this story behind her for most of Underworld: Blood Wars, and it's hard not to wish that for Beckinsale, as well.
Like the four franchise fillers that preceded it, Underworld: Blood Wars is undoubtedly impervious to bad reviews. What it needs is a stake through the heart.

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Underworld: Blood Wars (2016) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews | Message Board