Transmutations

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!

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.

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.

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

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.