Underworld (1986)

Waste of time

The Age of Commercialism

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Although you can clearly feel spirit of Clive barker, this is most probably the worst flick he was involved with. Idea is decent, but story is poorly developed, acting is lousy, directing terrible and music completely inadequate. There are movies that are so bad they are good, but this one is not one of those. It's not even funny, not even slightly. Simply complete catastrophe.2,5/10

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!

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.

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.