Underground

A typical horror/action film that undercuts the budget and repels the audience by it's lack of direction. A group of young adults attend a rave, get chased into the underground and realize it is a Army bunker with only two ways out. What they don not see it that they are not alone.

The lighting and editing are very poorly done in this film, the storyboard very loose and unoriginal. NO outstanding performances, in fact most if not all seemed pushed and phoned in. I think the best part was the humanized creatures. The film had potential but quickly falls off pace. A misery of a 3 out of 10

It's your usual 'young people get trapped (this time underground) and have to fight for their lives against mutants' movie.

It's all very much in the Wrong Turn vein. You know, the cast are good looking. There are lots of pretty, short-skirted females screaming the place down. The guys run around all tough and are, funnily enough, the easiest slain.

But underground it's dark, and thus we're often faced with a too dark picture. Half the time I couldn't see what was going on.

The ending couldn't have come quick enough as I was becoming increasingly bored with this movie. It's 'b' rated stuff, nothing special.

4/10.

After a fight gets out of hand a group of friends run for cover but find themselves fighting for their lives against ravenous creatures lurking beneath their rave party.

Over dramatic, low budget horror flick that has some fantastic makeup and special effects in amongst the unnecessary fights,hammy dialogue and slow motion scenes.

Underground starts off very promising with the opening of an army squad fending off some nasty looking super genetic humanoids, then director Rafael Eisenman introduces us to an underground rave in an air hanger on a military base that goes on far too long. Writer Charles Morris Jr. borrows heavily from Marshall's Descent (2005) and Smith's Creep (2004).

Underground's weakest link is that it's not very tight and scenes are drawn out. It's well lit and shot with some good pumping tracks in the soundtrack.The score is a mixed bag there's some great music cues but then it borrows from familiar scores and overcooks them.

The young cast of actors including Eric Abercrombie and Mira Antonova do there best with the script. The Eli Wallach with a German accent lookalike aside - there's some nice touches, a creature bursting out of urinal, torn off ears, lobbed off arms, spooky tunnels and creepy corridors.

A lot of effort has clearly gone into Underground, it has a 'film' look and with some tighter editing it may have helped the viewing experience. Rafael Eisenman uses every film trick in the book and clearly has ability but it just isn't a polished enough production, nevertheless it's a lot bloodier, effective and atmospheric than the abundance of cheap looking horror DTV films.

Despite it's unevenness there's worst ways to burn a hour and a half.

Some of the comments here are just a tad bit too good for this movie, as it really does suck and will bore anyone out of their mind, if not get him quite mad because it lacks the basic logic also! You could say that indeed it is some sort of breed between The Descent and The Cave, probably & Creep also, but I think that Underground only got the bad parts from them.

Seriously, this is one of them very bad movies, even the camera work is terrible, as you will see it shaking from time to time, the characters are not so bad OK, but the plot, well we really have a problem here! Cheesy cheesy, cliché, cliché and you can always tell when someone else is going to die! As for the creatures, when you'll hear the explanation for them, you'll probably start laughing, only good part of the movie to be honest.

Bottom line, do try The Descent, The Cave, Creep even Stag Night, but stay awaaaaay from this one! I gave it a 3! Solid 3!

Being in the "biz" it was more or less evident to me that this film was unfinished and it's a shame that it was released this way since it had the potential to be a decent B horror flick.

Aside from some unremarkable acting (which is excusable when dealing with low budget horrors) the score and cinematography were competently executed. Make-up and special effects were decent aside from one horrendous CGI shot of snow. Where we get into trouble is in the edit.

An unforgivable number of scenes were disjointed and leaves the audience wondering "what is going on," "where am I now" or "who am I looking at?" I've seen such scenes before in what we call an assembly or rough cut. This is when the editor takes his/her first stab at a complete edit. It's usually after this that the production team gets a clear idea of what scenes need to be re-shot or what extra shots are needed to make the edit work or flow.

For whatever reason (lack of funding, actor availability, location no longer available, etc.) this was clearly not done which makes the film extremely frustrating to follow.

I recommend staying clear of this one. I'm a huge fan of horror films but I ended up fast forwarding the last 10 minutes just to get to the end because my brain got tired of trying to fill in the gaps.