Reseñas de usuarios

A mixed bag.

On the positive side, it was written by Clive Barker and has a number of his recurring themes and ideas. The central concept of a drug that externalizes the ugliness of addiction is quite compelling and had a lot of potential.

The colors, costumes, and atmosphere are otherworldly and impressive when you consider the low budget.

Denholm Elliott (from Indiana freaking Jones) is one of the villains and really helps elevate the film.

Also, the soundtrack is better than it has any right to be. It was done by a synth-pop-rock band called Freur. Interestingly, Freur later changed their name to Underworld.

On the negative side, many of the actors seem to be sleepwalking their way through the film. It's no wonder because the script does not include character development. There's a handful of clever lines but nothing to make you connect with any of these zombies. Many characters make impossibly dumb decisions in service of the plot.

At the end of the day, it's both underrated, and you can skip it.

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.

I stumbled across this as Clive Barker's Underworld on Prime, and intrigued I checked it out. Ultimately while interesting enough, it was ultimately a forgettable watch, which given that this was based off of the work I expected it to at least be interesting.

The story centers around an adventurer who is hired by a crime boss to find a prostitute that he once loved. In his search he stumbles across a sinister drug that has unforseen side effects on those who take it.

This movie started off strong enough, campy, but strong but quickly got boring fast. The characters are dull, and the effects on the creatures of the underworld was quite bland. In fact if anything it just looked like they had some skin sores and nothing more. The villains we're one dimensional and even the main character was no one you really cared of for. Overall this is a middle of the road flick, not bad but not good either. Just, meh.

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).

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.

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.

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!

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

Mostly boring, distant and very weird…That's the painful conclusion I have to make after watching "Transmutations". This sure isn't Clive Barker like we know him from "Hellraiser" and even "Rawhead Rex" (the other lousy collaboration between Barker and director Pavlou) was ten times better than this. The story isn't very original and – more importantly – it never seems to properly take off. Pivot element seems to be a very addictive new drug, developed by Dr. Savary, but the side effects cause people to mutate so that they're forced to live in a secret underground community. The mutants kidnap the fancy prostitute Nicole because she appears to be immune for the horrible side effects. Amateur hero Roy Bain attempts to rescue her…yawn! The acting of the entire is truly miserable and the Pavlou's directing is really, really weak. Luckily his repertoire only exists out of two films! There's no tension at all and the few action sequences are tame and unexciting. You wouldn't know if it was a Clive Barker script if it wasn't for the use of kinky outfits and bizarre sexual undertones. Really, what is the deal with Barker and his obsession for black leather? The overuse of bad music is really annoying and don't set your hopes on seeing gross-out gore, neither. The only slightly imaginative aspect is the make-up on some of the mutants and even then you get the feeling that they easily could have done more with it. I surely expected a lot more from this film (especially considering the fact it was so hard to track down) but I hope to convince people not to watch it! Transmutations (a.k.a Underworld) definitely is one of the worst 80's horror movies…and that says a lot!

Most Clive Barker fans will never be satisfied with filmed adaptations of his work. Even the strongest movies based on his work, (the best still being those directed by Clive himself), will leave his readers wanting more.

Transmutations (aka Underworld) is a fun, charming 80s precursor to Barker's better film adaptations. Is Transmutations as bad everyone says? No. Is it good? Well, no. But it definitely has Clive's stamp on it (there's a heavy Nightbreed theme throughout).

Don't watch it expecting Hellraiser and enjoy it as an 80s oddity. Or, watch it as an early introduction to Barker. The film, condemned by Barker himself, is not the complete failure most reviewers make it out to be.

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 a long 80's video clip. Based upon a story by Clive Barker (Hellraiser, Nightbreed)about a new breed of mutants and their addiction to a drug that allow them to survive. There's no emotion in this film, everything is cold and this is the reason why I think the film is not able to create any kind of emotion.

Anyway you can see this film as a dark (and disappointing) movie containing some good scenes (and intentions).

Even with a few decent Brit actors (Lamb, Malik and Phil Davis in a minor role) a good one (Berkoff) and Denholm Elliott as a mad slightly effeminate doctor the acting was just so wooden and should have been much better - the dialogue was clichéd and seemed to be like a very bad 40's Film Noir B movie (everyone was doing a very bad Cagney impersonation) and every sentence said to the main character had to end in "Roy"

But wait!! It gets worse! - The soundtrack was just so bad - Whoever was responsible seemed to think he was Vangelis but was more like Vangelis' mum and TBH she would have been a better choice - It just had the feel of a bad 80s pop video and I kept expecting Meat Loaf to jump out and start warbling - gave it 2/10 and that was only because I got this for free and Meat Loaf WASN'T in it.

I recommended getting a tooth pulled - it's more entertaining and less painful - don't waste your time with this :)

This is a great movie. It has a great acting. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest movies I have seen. It so scary it will scary you. 4.2 is underrating it. This is a 7 out of 10. See this movie. It is a great movie.

They remade this with a decent budget, Clive Barker in charge like he needs to be and absolute NO 80's nostalgia. Are you out there, Mr. Barker? This is a very good story in need of decent film treatment.

(And yes, it does have a lot in common with Nightbreed, but Barker does like his labyrinths, dreamscapes and monsters without and within; call it style).

PS: I'm an 80's chick, too! But WAYYYYY to much Synth music-bleached denim-terrible eyemake-up and foofy hair for even ME! Once is enough.

As a horror movie it does not qualify as some sites or the poster say, but the truth is that it seemed like a good thriller to me since I feel that it has originality. The production on the other hand is low compared to the other Barker films that came later since this is more of a B movie and apparently this is the only B movie in Clive Barker's filmography since the production and the makeup don't look as professional as the other movies, but hey, Clive was just getting into the movie industry and sometimes you always start small. No wonder there are people who didn't like it, but I can't say it's Clive Barker's worst movie because even though it was a flat start for him, at least I found the story enjoyable. My grade for this movie is 8/10 because I think it's one of those B-movies that can be curious and weird, but enjoyable depending on how you see it.

A rich businessman named Motherskille (Steven Berkoff, "Octopussy") hires Roy Bain (Larry Lamb, 'EastEnders'), the former lover of pretty hooker Nicole (Nicola Cowper, "Journey to the Center of the Earth"), to find her. She's been abducted by mutants who live in the sewer, and what these mutants desire more than anything is for unscrupulous doctor Savary (Denholm Elliott, "Raiders of the Lost Ark") to restore them to normal. It was HIS fouled-up drug experiment that created them in the first place.

While I didn't really hate this the way that others are wont to do, I will say that this neon-drenched cult genre item wasn't as much fun as it could & should have been, given its pedigree. It was conceived by the great genre author Clive Barker, but it turned out rather uninspired, both in terms of script & direction, and Barker ended up hating the film. While it did keep me watching, I didn't find any of the characters particularly interesting, although I enjoyed the way that the mutants were ultimately made sympathetic, and it's Motherskille & his minions who are the real baddies.

The best aspect is an excellent cast (also including Art Malik ("True Lies"), the very sexy Irina Brook ("Captive"), horror goddess Ingrid Pitt ("The Vampire Lovers"), Sean Chapman ("Hellraiser" 1 and 2), Phil Davis ("Alien 3"), and Miranda Richardson ("The Crying Game"). They're entertaining to watch, although they certainly have had better material to work with than this. The production design & cinematography are good, giving the picture an effective atmosphere. Also helping matters a lot is the haunting synth / industrial score by a group called "Freur".

After Barker became so dissatisfied with the way that this and the subsequent "Rawhead Rex" (both directed by the same man, George Pavlou) turned out, he determined to adapt & direct his next project himself - which became the 80s horror favorite "Hellraiser", based on his novel "The Hellbound Heart".

For me, this was far from great, but I enjoyed enough about it to not consider it outright terrible.

Six out of 10.

A high class prostitute is kidnapped from a brothel and taken to the Underworld. A business man hires her ex-lover (played by Larry Lamb) to find her. The Underworld is where a group of ex addicts who have been used as test subjects live, away from public view. They have been turned into mutants by the chemicals they were injected with and are seeking a cure to return them to their previous selves.

This movie is awful. Words fail me to be honest. Not even the name of Clive Barker can save this one. It is badly acted, stiff, wooden and the creatures are laughable. It's frustrating and boring to watch. Another Z movie with many famous faces whom could have done much better.

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