Welcome back to The Movievaures Time Machine, where I revisit iconic films from the past to see if they still hold up today. This time, we’re diving into the dark, gothic world of Underworld—the 2003 vampire vs. werewolf action film that spawned an entire franchise.

I have to be honest: Underworld has a special place in my heart. I loved this saga when it first came out, and seeing such a strong female lead like Selene (played by the amazing Kate Beckinsale) was a thrill. But as much as I’d love to say this movie aged like fine wine… well, it didn’t.

Let’s take a closer look.

---

Non-Spoiler Synopsis

In a centuries-old war between vampires and Lycans (werewolves), Selene is a fierce and highly skilled vampire warrior. She’s dedicated to eradicating the Lycans—until she uncovers a conspiracy that shakes the foundation of everything she believed about the war.

When she encounters Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman), a seemingly ordinary human with a hidden connection to the two species, she finds herself questioning her loyalties. As the battle intensifies, Selene must decide where she truly stands in this supernatural conflict.

---

A Look at the Movie

There’s no denying that Underworld had style. The blue-tinted cinematography, the leather-clad vampires, the rain-soaked action sequences—it all screamed early 2000s cool. And honestly? That aesthetic is still fun to watch today.

Kate Beckinsale owns this movie. Selene is a total badass, blending action-hero energy with gothic elegance. The concept of a secret war between vampires and werewolves is also one that will always have an audience.

But… this is where the nostalgia stops. Watching Underworld today, you realize just how early 2000s it is, and not always in a good way. The visual effects, once considered sleek, now feel a little clunky. The action scenes are cool, but they rely heavily on slow-motion (a lot of slow-motion). And the plot? Let’s just say it takes itself very seriously, sometimes to the point of feeling melodramatic.

While I still enjoy watching it, the flaws are more obvious now. The dialogue is overly serious, the story can be predictable, and some of the world-building feels rushed. It’s a great vibe of a movie, but not necessarily a timeless classic.

---

Public Reception Then and Now

Back in 2003, Underworld was a hit. It wasn’t a critical darling, but audiences loved its mix of supernatural action and gothic style. It did well enough to spawn multiple sequels, proving that people were invested in Selene’s story.

Today, it still has a cult following, but it’s mostly remembered as a product of its time. Some still appreciate its aesthetics and action, while others see it as an example of early 2000s filmmaking that didn’t quite hold up.

---

The Movievaures Time Machine Verdict

Unfortunately, Underworld does not pass the Time Machine test. As much as I still have a soft spot for it, I can’t say it aged well. Like many action/fantasy movies from the early 2000s, its once-groundbreaking style now feels a little outdated.

That being said, I don’t regret revisiting it. It’s still fun, and if you loved it back in the day, you’ll probably still enjoy it now—just with a bit more nostalgia than awe.

---

Conclusion

What about you? Do you think Underworld still holds up, or is it best left in the past? Let me know in the comments! And don’t forget to follow The Movievaures Time Machine on Instagram for more nostalgic movie reviews!