Yet another franchise takes a swing at the difficult 3rd film. In this age of franchise trilogies, the format seems to go one of two ways. More often than not, the first film is a breath of fresh air; original, somewhat intelligent and successful enough to have studios and audiences hankering for more. Then things tend to get a little complicated. Either the second film will improve on everything set out in the first, only for the series to fall flat in the third (see Spider-Man and X-Men), or the second will try too hard to improve everything from the first, leaving the third the difficult task of picking up the pieces (see Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix).

Time certainly seems to be a factor in this. With the former examples, each film was evenly spaced out and treated as a stand-alone project, resulting in due care and attention being paid to the second, and ideas running sadly thin by the time they got around to the third. With the latter, the second and third films were made as one long project, meaning the focus got lost, the second is a mess, and there's barely enough time to right those mistakes in the third.

Underworld, however, is an odd one. The first film didn't enjoy the kind of critical and commercial success of the aforementioned films, but did just enough to warrant a sequel, which I personally thought was superior in every way to the first. When I read that it was infact planned as a trilogy from the start, with one of the films telling the back-story to the whole war, I struggled to see how that could work.

Nevertheless, this is promising...