Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Underworld More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 13 reviews in total |
10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
SO EIGHTIES - IT'S PAINFUL, 4 September 2004
Author:
EDDIE BLAKEMORE from BOLTON, ENGLAND
Given that this is based on a Clive Barker story, and contains some
major acting talent it should be good. It's NOT good, and the blame for
that rests squarely with director George Pavlou.It could have been an
interesting melding of the crime/horror genre, but takes every wrong
turn possible.
Larry Lamb is a good actor, but he is so hopelessly miscast here as the
hard man reluctantly dragged back into the criminal underworld, that
there is a gaping hole at the heart of the film where a central
character should be. In fact most of the normally reliable actors here,
turn in awful performances.
The sets are awful (the neon tube underground lab looks like a Gary
Numan stage set). The costumes are awful (the gangsters dress like
Duran Duran). The music is awful, and the dialogue is awful. The script
is so bad its difficult to imagine Barker had anything to do with it.
At one point "our hero" is injected with the deadly transmutating drug,
absolutely nothing happens to him, its simply not referred to again !.
In playing down the horror element, and playing up the crime element,
the producers missed an opportunity to produce a piece of contemporary
horror, and instead produced a cheap looking Mockney version of Miami
Vice. Most of the people involved leave this off their c.v.'s. I'd
certainly leave it off your shopping list.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Not THAT bad!, 6 January 2007
Author:
deadelvis1988 from Atlanta, Ga.
Yes Clive Barker wrote this little schlocky mutant tale back in the eighties. This film can perhaps only be described as a British answer to American schlock horror and sci fi. I can only compare it to certain directorial styles developed by Herschell Gordon Lewis, Tim Ritter, Jean Rollin, Lucio Fulci and some early works by Peter Jackson. The story is a but sub par but interesting. The effects were as good as the money set forth for the production would allow of the film which translates into very limited. That is not to say that these special effects were bad, they were actually quite good. The superbly lustful and gorgeous Candy Davis who had a lengthy run with "Are You Being Served?" and Gary Shail who starred as "Spider" in the infamous "Quadrophenia" epic lend their support.
7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Fails in every aspect, 16 April 2005
Author:
jordan_tyrell from Canada
Clive Barker has stated this film was one of the reasons he directed Hellraiser himself, so I first watched this movie knowing that it was going to be terrible. I also hoped it would be the watchable kind of bad, no luck there. First off, this isn't even really a horror movie. The possibility is there but mostly it's mutants in bad make-up, so it's more sci-fi. The costuming and direction looks like a bad new wave music video with less budget than a three minute video would have. The use of red and blue lighting puts me in mind of Dario Argento, and as such blasphemes his name. The acting and script were also terrible, causing the movie to drag on until it feels like you've been sentenced to hell for renting/buying this film. The only reason I kept watching is because I'm a Barker fan through thick and thin. The only mildly redeeming quality I a brief bit at the end, which seemed tacked on anyway. It was hardly connected to the story and focused on a subplot of sorts that had no development. I would guess it was only mentioned to permit a horrific ending, but it ended up the wrong kind of horrific.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Plain Awful, 14 February 2007
Author:
Benjamin Gauss from Salzburg, Austria
I recently bought George Pavlou's "Underworld" aka. "Transmutations" of
1985 (which was sold as "Clive Barker's Underworld) for 4 Euros, and I
my expectations were not very high. It is hard to believe that the man
who created such an essential and influential cult Horror flick as
"Hellraiser" is obviously also (partly) responsible for such a piece of
crap. I bet Barker's story must have differed a lot from the
end-product of this lousy flick. I'm personally a big fan of B-Movies,
especially Horror B-Movies, and I would never condemn a movie for just
being cheaply made or for poor scenery. "Underworld", however, just
fails in every aspect and is easily the worst 80s Sci-Fi/Horror movie
(if one can even call it a Horror movie) I have seen - And I have seen
a lot.
After his former girlfriend, high-class prostitute Nicole (Nicola
Cowper) is kidnapped by 'eerie' mutants (well, that's what they're
supposed to be), private detective Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) starts to
investigate and stumbles across a new, extremely effective drug with
atrocious side-effects.
Most of the acting is absolutely terrible, the only two good actors in
this piece of crap are Steven Berkoff and Denholm Elliott, and due to a
terrible script their appearance can't save this pointless movie
either. The sceneries are terrible, the costumes are just ridiculous.
Some of the mutant's make-up is OK, but it's not good either, the plot
is just plain awful and nothing in this movie makes the slightest
sense. There is no doubt that Clive Barker is a highly influential and
rightly respected horror author and director, and I bet he was ashamed
when he saw his name put on this. Some movies are so bad they are good.
This one is not one of them. "Underworld" is not good-bad, not even a
bit funny-bad, it's just bad bad. Avoid!
7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A Very Weird and Confused Story, 4 January 2004
Author:
Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
This movie looks like those from the end of 1950s or beginning of the 1960s, only badly directed. A very weird and confused story, ham actors and actresses, I believe nothing is worthwhile in this film. The unique curiosity is the name of Clive Baker in the credits. But my advice is: - Do not waste your time! My vote is three.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Even Clive Barker Hated This Movie, 16 August 2011
Author:
Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
A prostitute called Nicole is abducted from a high class brothel and
businessman Hugo Motherskille hires private detective Roy Bain to find
Nicole
I spent years looking for this movie after seeing a making of feature
on FILM 85 . It struck me as a sci-fi horror film , a kind of
QUATERMASS meets the body horror of David Cronenberg but for some
strange reason it never appeared in any media reviews and this was a
time when horror movies were rather fashionable , even an enjoyable
mess of a movie like LIFEFORCE would be hyped by studios . UNDERWORLD
didn't as far as know even receive a video release and the only time it
seemed referred to was in Barker interviews when he stated he was so
upset by the way George Pavlou ruined his work in this movie and
RAWHEAD REX that the only way he wanted to make HELLRAISER was to
direct it himself . Surely UNDERWORLD couldn't be that bad ?
After seeing UNDERWORLD after a 25 year wait I have to confess it is
indeed that bad . In fact the only recommendation I can give the movie
is that everyone should watch it to see just how bad a film can be .
The reviewers aren't kidding when they claim this one terrible movie .
If a the screenwriter himself is so angry about the final product then
that says everything you need to know as to a film's merits
Much of the problem lies in the entire look of the movie for which
director Pavlou must take full blame . It's like a very cheap and
cheerless pop video and much of the acting is absolutely painful to
watch . It's the worst type of bad acting - wooden acting which gives
the impression the entire cast have been mainlining Valium . It says
something when you're expecting Steven Berkoff to do his usual camp .
OTT luvvie spiel but he's as wooden as everyone else
Barker himself isn't entirely blameless for this fiasco because there's
a problem with the storytelling . Effectively UNDERWORLD is a cross
genre movie where film noir meets horror but the hand is played in the
opening sequence where it's obvious that the kidnappers who abducted
Nicole are not human . Perhaps the film would have worked better if the
entire story had taken place through the eyes of Bain similar to Mickey
Rourke's character in ANGEL HEART . As it stand the narrative is very
very dull with the audience being one step ahead of the characters
This is a bitterly disappointing horror film which is very dated in
look and feel and it says something when Clive Barker himself hated it
. The only good point is that it's so bad that it motivated Barker to
take on the helm of HELLRAISER which in my opinion is the best horror
movie of the 1980s
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The kind of film they should be remaking, 13 July 2011
Author:
udar55 from Williamsburg, VA
Future London where lots of neon bathes everything. Roy Bain (Larry
Lamb) is hired by old cohort/crime boss Motherskille (Steven Berkoff)
to find Nicole (Nicola Cowper), one of his prostitutes who was
kidnapped and is, naturally, Bain's ex-flame. A group of genetic freaks
who live under the streets grabbed her because her body might provide
the answers to their mutations. Seems they got hooked the synthetic
drug "White Man" by unethical bio-chemist Dr. Savary (Denholm Elliott)
and Nicole is the only addict whose visage isn't turning into the
Elephant Man.
This isn't really a good movie, but it is unique and well made enough
for me to enjoy it. Debuting director George Pavlou gives it a retro-
future vibe like STREETS OF FIRE and TROUBLE IN MIND. The film is
probably best known for being co-written by Clive Barker (Pavlou would
adapt Barker's RAWHEAD REX after this). I know Barker dismisses it now,
but it still has some interesting ideas and you can even see a bit of
the genesis for his CABAL/NIGHTBREED in it. This is the kind of film
studios should be picking up and remaking as it had a germ of a good
plot, but not the budget to carry it out. You can definitely tell that
Clive had a fondness for BLADE RUNNER when he wrote this though. But,
unlike that film, this can't escape its 80s-ness with lots of shoulder
pads, trench coats and neon on display. The cast is good although Lamb
is an odd choice for a romantic/heroic lead as he looks like a cross
between Steve Coogan and Bill Maher. The mutant make-up leaves
something to be desired though as their leader looks like a bulbous
Andy Dick. Supporting players include Miranda Richardson as a mutant
and Ingrid Pitt as a madame. There is also a moody synth score by 80s
band Freur. Fans of the VHS sleeve will be disappointed that no one is
shrunk and put into a vial (although I'm sure it gave distributor
Charles Band some fantasies).
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Pretty bad film featuring a good cast., 25 July 2007
Author:
Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Underworld starts as English high class hooker Nicole (Nicola Cowper)
is kidnapped from her brothel. Rich businessman Hugo Motherskille
(Steven Berkoff) hires her ex love Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) to find her,
he heads straight for the brothel where he finds out she was addicted
to a new drug called 'WhiteMare' developed by posh Doctor Savary
(Denholm Elliott) as a cure for heroin addiction. Unfortunately while
it cured the test subjects of their addiction to heroin they became
addicted to WhiteMare itself & it also has unwanted body deforming
consequences & side effects. Not good really. However Nicole seems
immune to the drugs side effects & a group of deformed users want to
know why, it's up to Roy to sort this mess out & rescue Nicole...
Known as Transmutations in the US this English production was directed
by George Pavlou & quite frankly is crap. The script by James Caplin &
Clive Barker based on one of his stories never really gets going, it
never involves you, you never care about anything, it's slow, it's
dull, it's utterly predictable with a pointless twist you can see
coming a mile off & it's just not much fun to watch either. Being based
on a story by Barker you would expect plenty of monsters & gore but
Underworld features a few tardily made up creatures who get about 10
minutes worth of screen time & absolutely no gore whatsoever. I'm sure
the artwork on any DVD/video release plays up the mutants involvement
in the film but seriously they don't feature properly until past the
hour mark & even then their presence is underwhelming. Most of Barker's
work deals with religion & mystical reasoning behind his monstrous
creations but here it all revolves around a drug, yawn. Then there's
the fact that London seems deserted, the character's & dialogue are
poor & for some reason everyone has bizarre names like Pepperdine,
Motherskille, Fluke & Nygaard. We never learn why Nicole is immune to
the drugs side effects either even though it's an important plot point,
it's a film where you just don't care about anything that's happening
on screen.
Director Pavlou also directed the Barker penned adaptation of Rawhead
Rex (1986) a year later, why did Barker choose him again? Underworld is
a totally flat, dull & lifeless 100 odd minutes. He seems to think as
long as he bathes every shot in pink, purple, orange & blue neon that's
enough to turn in a stylish flick, well he's wrong as it gets very
samey very quickly & since the on screen action is so dull the awkward
lighting stands out like a sore thumb. Disappointingly the film lacks
imagination as well, the underworld mutants are just actors with lumps
on their faces & apart from one brief scene at the end when someone
pulls some skin of their cheek there isn't a single drop of blood in
the entire thing. It's definitely not scary, it's certainly has no
tension & has precisely zero atmosphere.
Technically the film is pretty good actually, it's well made I suppose
& looks very professional. How on Earth did they get such a good cast
to agree to appear in this? Denholm Elliott, Steven Berkoff, Art Malik,
Ingrid Pitt & Miranda Richardson all deserve better than this.
Underworld is a poor Clive Barker penned film, I'd imagine most of the
blame has to go to first time director Pavlou who probably ruined
Barker's scripts (Barker himself admitted he directed Hellraiser (1987)
himself because of his dissatisfaction with the results of both
Underworld & Rawhead Rex). A disappointing waste of time, steer clear
which won't be a problem as it's pretty obscure & hopefully it'll stay
that way. Not to be confused with the Kate Beckinsale big budget horror
action flicks Underworld (2003) & it's sequel Underworld: Evolution
(2006).
A poor introduction to Clive's work., 16 May 2012
Author:
Prolox from Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After his former lover is kidnapped from her very own bedroom by a
group of mutants, a retired gun man named ROY (Played well by LARRY
LAMB) is hired by a gang boss (BEVERLY HILLS COP'S own STEVEN BERKOFF)
to rescue her. During his investigation, he finds that the mutants live
underground & are the victims of a drug experiment gone wrong, created
by a mysterious doctor (DENHOLM ELLIOT) that has left those who took it
horribly disfigured & addicted to the drug & who need Roy's girlfriend
as a possible cure from the side effects, since she appears to be
immune to them. Having seen CLIVE BARKER'S TRANSMUTATIONS (Released as
UNDERWORLD in some countries) three times, once upon it's first release
when I was a kid, the second time in the mid nineties & currently
before writing this review, the one thing that remains consistent with
all three viewings is this, the film bored me to tears! Seriously
TRANSMUTATIONS is a very weak debut based on a Barker novel & it's no
wonder that Barker directed HELLRAISER himself rather than let someone
else do it, since it scares one to think how bad HELLRAISER would have
been if it had been made by the same people who made this film. The
whole film bores you right from the beginning, the suspense is almost
non existent, the director has no idea on how to set up scares & shock
sequences, there's no suspense & the whole film looks & has a cheap
1980's music video/Miami Vice look with all the purples, reds, blues,
yellows, oranges & green neon colours that permeate the film. The
mutant make-up is bad & completely unscary, not to mention cheap
looking & the film is more of a mystery than a horror film & that's
precisely the problem, since the mystery surrounding the mutants & the
drug is not even remotely interesting, even more so in one sequence,
the hero is injected by the drug only to have nothing happen to him,
nor the fact that he was injected with it, is mentioned ever again.
Director GEORGE PAVLOU only made three films in his entire career,
this, the bad, but fun, RAWHEAD REX (Also executive produced by Charles
Band & directed by Pavlou & also dis-owned by Barker) released a year
after this & the rarely seen, scantly distributed, 1993 horror flick,
LITTLE DEVILS: THE BIRTH, before seemingly disappearing off the face of
the earth & after seeing this film, it's no surprise. He never done
anything note worthy in his career. Some of the acting (mainly the
leads) are not bad, but not great & the rest of the acting is not worth
mentioning. All in all TRANSMUTATIONS (The title I saw it under on VHS)
is not worth tracking down to own, much less seeing, even if you are a
die hard Clive Barker fan & are curious about it. The whole film is a
bore & as far as I know the film hasn't gotten a DVD release yet & more
than likely would have been forgotten by even the few horror fans who
do know of it's existence, had it not been for Barker's involvement & I
don't even want to talk about the DURAN DURAN dressing, look-a-like,
badly acted gangsters in the film. The mutant monster seen on the VHS
cover is nowhere to be seen in the film (nor for that matter people
being shrunk & put into glass beakers either) Co-written by Barker
(from his own novel) & JAMES CAPLAN. Executive produced by B movie
prince CHARLES BAND (uncredited).
* star
Hard to really recommend, 18 September 2008
Author:
slayrrr666 (slayrrr666@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Transmutations" is an overly-long and not-that-worthwhile creature
feature.
**SPOILERS**
Abducted from her house, Nicole, (Nicola Cowper) finds herself in the
possession of Hugo Motherskille, (Steven Berkoff) a ruthless gangster.
The abduction forces Roy Bain, (Larry Lamb) a former associate of the
group, into action, which he finds is not his doing and wants her back
as much as he does. Investigating the disappearance, he eventually
finds traces that lead to Dr. Savary, (Denholm Elliott) who has
produced a strange white powder that's coveted by a race of deformed
human beings who live in the underworld in the sewers below the city.
Finding they are engaged in a war with him over the control of use of
the powder in experiments he conducted years ago that turned them into
their deformed state, he agrees to help them in their battle against
their demented enemies.
The Good News: There's only a few minor points in here that make this
worthwhile. The main thing with this one is that the final
confrontation is actually really good. The shootout between the two
sides is really nice, taking out some members from each side in
acceptable gunfights while also utilizing some grenades as well. Mixed
with the final confrontations in the underground lairs, including the
brutal gassing sequence and the single worthwhile kill in the film,
where one's head is set on fire and melts away, all make these scenes
the best part of the film. It's twenty minutes of pure excitement and
interest, mainly since it's the only part of the film that has any. The
only other point of interest is the storyline, which isn't that bad and
doesn't really feel all that complicated or hard to figure out, it just
takes a while to get out. These here are all the film has going for it.
The Bad News: This was a woefully underwhelming effort for several
reasons. The biggest one, and the most interconnecting one is the
absolute and utter dullness. Pretty much everything in here is either
way to long to get to the point or just nothing happens. The mystery
angle would've been nice had it lead to anything, but here it just
leads to tediously long stretches where he spends the time talking to
everyone around, which is just plain dull, and when it just seems to go
on and on, such as the sequence in the club with the dancers or
searching the lab for ideas about what's going on, all of which are
just plain boring and overlong and make the film just plain tough to
get through. Since the only action scene is the final twenty minutes,
everything else until that time manages to feel very plain hard to get
through. That's the biggest flaw with the film, that nothing happens in
here. The other flaw in here is the fact that the cheese level isn't
good at all. The creatures look lame, the disco soundtrack isn't any
good and it's hard to determine what other elements are here are caused
to help the film. It's still not as damaging as the other flaw, but
these here are the film's biggest problems.
The Final Verdict: Hardly anything worthwhile in here manages to be the
main spoiler to a terribly underwhelming effort. Really only give this
one a shot if these kinds of cheesy creature features are interesting
for you, otherwise then just ignore this one and seek out more
worthwhile entries.
Rated R: Graphic Language and Violence
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Ratings | External reviews |
| Parents Guide | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.