Habitantes del infierno

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.

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.

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.

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

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.