Subterrâneos - A Revolta dos Mutantes

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.

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 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.

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.

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!