Subterrâneos - A Revolta dos Mutantes

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.

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.

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!

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.