Transmutations

Mostly boring, distant and very weird…That's the painful conclusion I have to make after watching "Transmutations". This sure isn't Clive Barker like we know him from "Hellraiser" and even "Rawhead Rex" (the other lousy collaboration between Barker and director Pavlou) was ten times better than this. The story isn't very original and – more importantly – it never seems to properly take off. Pivot element seems to be a very addictive new drug, developed by Dr. Savary, but the side effects cause people to mutate so that they're forced to live in a secret underground community. The mutants kidnap the fancy prostitute Nicole because she appears to be immune for the horrible side effects. Amateur hero Roy Bain attempts to rescue her…yawn! The acting of the entire is truly miserable and the Pavlou's directing is really, really weak. Luckily his repertoire only exists out of two films! There's no tension at all and the few action sequences are tame and unexciting. You wouldn't know if it was a Clive Barker script if it wasn't for the use of kinky outfits and bizarre sexual undertones. Really, what is the deal with Barker and his obsession for black leather? The overuse of bad music is really annoying and don't set your hopes on seeing gross-out gore, neither. The only slightly imaginative aspect is the make-up on some of the mutants and even then you get the feeling that they easily could have done more with it. I surely expected a lot more from this film (especially considering the fact it was so hard to track down) but I hope to convince people not to watch it! Transmutations (a.k.a Underworld) definitely is one of the worst 80's horror movies…and that says a lot!

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.

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.

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!