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.
26 Reviews
A campy, but ultimately unremarkable film.
shaun830530 August 2021
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.
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.
"People never change Roy".
lost-in-limbo19 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The irony of the above dialogue, which doesn't feel intentional in the scheme of things, really goes onto show up the script's inconsistencies. I've heard and read nothing but bad things about this project. Even Clive Barker disowned it, in spite of co-writing the screenplay from his own story. Strangely enough, director George Pavlou would also do another Barker adaptation the following year; the trashy, yet more entertaining "RAWHEAD REX". I won't argue that this film is not a complete shambles. It's one of those stories that sounded a lot better than what we get. An upper-class hooker is kidnapped from her bordello, which leads to a mobster turned businessman Hugo Motherskille hiring a former employee/and ex-lover of the girl Roy Bain (Larry Lamb sporting red streaks in his hair) to find her. Looking for clues he comes across a drug, which leads him to Dr. Savary and the discovery of an underworld of deformed humans in the sewers below the city.
The production looks bare, sloppy is how you describe the direction, performances from a familiar cast feel completely off (although I did enjoy an exuberant Steven Berkoff and it was good seeing Ingrid Pitt in a minor part) and the story is a shallow, utter mess that breezes by its allegorical themes and horror shades in favor for poorly realized pulp neo-noir and melodrama with predictable turns. Now for some reason I kept watching, maybe out of curiosity or in the hope Barker's dull, elaborate material would break out the twisted goods. Well that's not the case, instead it made less sense.
Still all hokiness aside, some of the distinctive lighting and offbeat atmospherics added much needed characteristics missing from the plot and characters. While visually it didn't always come off, sometimes looking like a cheap 80s music video with a misguided soundtrack to match, still it fared much better then everything else. This also included the unimaginative make-up FX, where sadly the glowing eyes were the best thing about these deformities (consisting of a couple bumps and sores). Oh and there's the climax of someone's head bursting into flames. Nothing real special, yeah, that's about it. These scrappy limitations, from special effects to directorial execution can only be contributed to its low-budget. Too bad you can't use that same excuse for the writing.
As for the longer American cut; "TRANSMUTATIONS". It was 10 minutes longer, but it didn't make much of a difference, as the inserted sequences felt more for show than plot development.
The production looks bare, sloppy is how you describe the direction, performances from a familiar cast feel completely off (although I did enjoy an exuberant Steven Berkoff and it was good seeing Ingrid Pitt in a minor part) and the story is a shallow, utter mess that breezes by its allegorical themes and horror shades in favor for poorly realized pulp neo-noir and melodrama with predictable turns. Now for some reason I kept watching, maybe out of curiosity or in the hope Barker's dull, elaborate material would break out the twisted goods. Well that's not the case, instead it made less sense.
Still all hokiness aside, some of the distinctive lighting and offbeat atmospherics added much needed characteristics missing from the plot and characters. While visually it didn't always come off, sometimes looking like a cheap 80s music video with a misguided soundtrack to match, still it fared much better then everything else. This also included the unimaginative make-up FX, where sadly the glowing eyes were the best thing about these deformities (consisting of a couple bumps and sores). Oh and there's the climax of someone's head bursting into flames. Nothing real special, yeah, that's about it. These scrappy limitations, from special effects to directorial execution can only be contributed to its low-budget. Too bad you can't use that same excuse for the writing.
As for the longer American cut; "TRANSMUTATIONS". It was 10 minutes longer, but it didn't make much of a difference, as the inserted sequences felt more for show than plot development.
The kind of film they should be remaking
udar5513 July 2011
Future London where lots of neon bathes everything. Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) is hired by old cohort/crime boss Motherskille (Steven Berkoff) to find Nicole (Nicola Cowper), one of his prostitutes who was kidnapped and is, naturally, Bain's ex-flame. A group of genetic freaks who live under the streets grabbed her because her body might provide the answers to their mutations. Seems they got hooked the synthetic drug "White Man" by unethical bio-chemist Dr. Savary (Denholm Elliott) and Nicole is the only addict whose visage isn't turning into the Elephant Man.
This isn't really a good movie, but it is unique and well made enough for me to enjoy it. Debuting director George Pavlou gives it a retro- future vibe like STREETS OF FIRE and TROUBLE IN MIND. The film is probably best known for being co-written by Clive Barker (Pavlou would adapt Barker's RAWHEAD REX after this). I know Barker dismisses it now, but it still has some interesting ideas and you can even see a bit of the genesis for his CABAL/NIGHTBREED in it. This is the kind of film studios should be picking up and remaking as it had a germ of a good plot, but not the budget to carry it out. You can definitely tell that Clive had a fondness for BLADE RUNNER when he wrote this though. But, unlike that film, this can't escape its 80s-ness with lots of shoulder pads, trench coats and neon on display. The cast is good although Lamb is an odd choice for a romantic/heroic lead as he looks like a cross between Steve Coogan and Bill Maher. The mutant make-up leaves something to be desired though as their leader looks like a bulbous Andy Dick. Supporting players include Miranda Richardson as a mutant and Ingrid Pitt as a madame. There is also a moody synth score by 80s band Freur. Fans of the VHS sleeve will be disappointed that no one is shrunk and put into a vial (although I'm sure it gave distributor Charles Band some fantasies).
This isn't really a good movie, but it is unique and well made enough for me to enjoy it. Debuting director George Pavlou gives it a retro- future vibe like STREETS OF FIRE and TROUBLE IN MIND. The film is probably best known for being co-written by Clive Barker (Pavlou would adapt Barker's RAWHEAD REX after this). I know Barker dismisses it now, but it still has some interesting ideas and you can even see a bit of the genesis for his CABAL/NIGHTBREED in it. This is the kind of film studios should be picking up and remaking as it had a germ of a good plot, but not the budget to carry it out. You can definitely tell that Clive had a fondness for BLADE RUNNER when he wrote this though. But, unlike that film, this can't escape its 80s-ness with lots of shoulder pads, trench coats and neon on display. The cast is good although Lamb is an odd choice for a romantic/heroic lead as he looks like a cross between Steve Coogan and Bill Maher. The mutant make-up leaves something to be desired though as their leader looks like a bulbous Andy Dick. Supporting players include Miranda Richardson as a mutant and Ingrid Pitt as a madame. There is also a moody synth score by 80s band Freur. Fans of the VHS sleeve will be disappointed that no one is shrunk and put into a vial (although I'm sure it gave distributor Charles Band some fantasies).
SO EIGHTIES - IT'S PAINFUL
EDDIEBLKMR4 September 2004
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.
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.
Fails in every aspect
DonJohn8016 April 2005
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.
Plain Awful
Witchfinder-General-66614 February 2007
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!
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!
Even Clive Barker Hated This Movie
Theo Robertson16 August 2011
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
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
Well, that was weird...and bad!
Coventry24 March 2005
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!
Subterranean Standard
owen-471032 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Famously disowned by author and co-screenwriter Clive Barker, and cited as one of two experiences (both with director George Pavlou) that convinced him to write and direct his own film adaptations, this bizarre 80's time capsule has a clever premise, interesting cast and more New Wave styling than you can poke a stick of blue neon at, but is hamstrung by an evidently miniscule budget, appalling acting and a script that never properly coheres.
The self-conscious effort to create a stylish, uniquely British sci-fi horror is admirable in its self-evidence: a script concept by edgy horror author and playwright Barker, a score by synth-pop outfit Freuer, a cast comprised of models, stuntmen and venerable character actors like Denham Elliot and Steven Berkoff, as well as Ingrid Pitt playing a brothel madam, and direction by ex-music video auteur Pavlou all make for, a least on paper, an exciting genre prospect. It is, then, all the more lamentable how desperately the finished film fails to live up to the promise of its constituent elements.
The convoluted and poorly articulated narrative swivels on the abduction of a high-class teenage prostitute, by a group of rubber-faced mutants living the sewers. Larry Lamb, offering probably the least convincing tough-guy persona ever filmed, is her former bodyguard and lover, who is hired to track her down by Berkoff's crime boss, and uncovers a confused plot involving a mad scientist (Elliot, natch) who has developed a new wonder drug that causes people to physically transform into the image of their dreams.
With liberal borrowings from film noir, body horror and fantasy forerunners, this story has the potential for a classy genre epic. However, it's evident that Pavlou has no idea how to construct a scene, let alone draw convincing performances from his cast or choreograph effective action sequences. Much of the climactic shootout has the scruffy, amateurish atmosphere of a mid-80s Dr Who episode, and the final denouement, lifted almost entirely from Scanners (1980) is bungled by lousy practical effects and the lack of any consistent buildup. Besides these signature failures, the film's general level of assembly is often alarmingly slipshod; sound recording is muffled and shoddy, the poverty-stricken direction endearingly persists in failing to find an appropriate camera angle for almost any shot, the photography alternates between eye-strainingly dim and glaringly overlit, and the editing was performed with an axe.
In the end it's not hard to see why Barker refuses to acknowledge this one; the germ of his style and concepts are lurking somewhere in this ugly soup of a picture, but the delivery is so poor, and the technical quality so desperate that its surprising anyone associated with this misbegotten farrago will admit to their involvement.
The self-conscious effort to create a stylish, uniquely British sci-fi horror is admirable in its self-evidence: a script concept by edgy horror author and playwright Barker, a score by synth-pop outfit Freuer, a cast comprised of models, stuntmen and venerable character actors like Denham Elliot and Steven Berkoff, as well as Ingrid Pitt playing a brothel madam, and direction by ex-music video auteur Pavlou all make for, a least on paper, an exciting genre prospect. It is, then, all the more lamentable how desperately the finished film fails to live up to the promise of its constituent elements.
The convoluted and poorly articulated narrative swivels on the abduction of a high-class teenage prostitute, by a group of rubber-faced mutants living the sewers. Larry Lamb, offering probably the least convincing tough-guy persona ever filmed, is her former bodyguard and lover, who is hired to track her down by Berkoff's crime boss, and uncovers a confused plot involving a mad scientist (Elliot, natch) who has developed a new wonder drug that causes people to physically transform into the image of their dreams.
With liberal borrowings from film noir, body horror and fantasy forerunners, this story has the potential for a classy genre epic. However, it's evident that Pavlou has no idea how to construct a scene, let alone draw convincing performances from his cast or choreograph effective action sequences. Much of the climactic shootout has the scruffy, amateurish atmosphere of a mid-80s Dr Who episode, and the final denouement, lifted almost entirely from Scanners (1980) is bungled by lousy practical effects and the lack of any consistent buildup. Besides these signature failures, the film's general level of assembly is often alarmingly slipshod; sound recording is muffled and shoddy, the poverty-stricken direction endearingly persists in failing to find an appropriate camera angle for almost any shot, the photography alternates between eye-strainingly dim and glaringly overlit, and the editing was performed with an axe.
In the end it's not hard to see why Barker refuses to acknowledge this one; the germ of his style and concepts are lurking somewhere in this ugly soup of a picture, but the delivery is so poor, and the technical quality so desperate that its surprising anyone associated with this misbegotten farrago will admit to their involvement.
Pretty bad film featuring a good cast.
poolandrews25 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Underworld starts as English high class hooker Nicole (Nicola Cowper) is kidnapped from her brothel. Rich businessman Hugo Motherskille (Steven Berkoff) hires her ex love Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) to find her, he heads straight for the brothel where he finds out she was addicted to a new drug called 'WhiteMare' developed by posh Doctor Savary (Denholm Elliott) as a cure for heroin addiction. Unfortunately while it cured the test subjects of their addiction to heroin they became addicted to WhiteMare itself & it also has unwanted body deforming consequences & side effects. Not good really. However Nicole seems immune to the drugs side effects & a group of deformed users want to know why, it's up to Roy to sort this mess out & rescue Nicole...
Known as Transmutations in the US this English production was directed by George Pavlou & quite frankly is crap. The script by James Caplin & Clive Barker based on one of his stories never really gets going, it never involves you, you never care about anything, it's slow, it's dull, it's utterly predictable with a pointless twist you can see coming a mile off & it's just not much fun to watch either. Being based on a story by Barker you would expect plenty of monsters & gore but Underworld features a few tardily made up creatures who get about 10 minutes worth of screen time & absolutely no gore whatsoever. I'm sure the artwork on any DVD/video release plays up the mutants involvement in the film but seriously they don't feature properly until past the hour mark & even then their presence is underwhelming. Most of Barker's work deals with religion & mystical reasoning behind his monstrous creations but here it all revolves around a drug, yawn. Then there's the fact that London seems deserted, the character's & dialogue are poor & for some reason everyone has bizarre names like Pepperdine, Motherskille, Fluke & Nygaard. We never learn why Nicole is immune to the drugs side effects either even though it's an important plot point, it's a film where you just don't care about anything that's happening on screen.
Director Pavlou also directed the Barker penned adaptation of Rawhead Rex (1986) a year later, why did Barker choose him again? Underworld is a totally flat, dull & lifeless 100 odd minutes. He seems to think as long as he bathes every shot in pink, purple, orange & blue neon that's enough to turn in a stylish flick, well he's wrong as it gets very samey very quickly & since the on screen action is so dull the awkward lighting stands out like a sore thumb. Disappointingly the film lacks imagination as well, the underworld mutants are just actors with lumps on their faces & apart from one brief scene at the end when someone pulls some skin of their cheek there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. It's definitely not scary, it's certainly has no tension & has precisely zero atmosphere.
Technically the film is pretty good actually, it's well made I suppose & looks very professional. How on Earth did they get such a good cast to agree to appear in this? Denholm Elliott, Steven Berkoff, Art Malik, Ingrid Pitt & Miranda Richardson all deserve better than this.
Underworld is a poor Clive Barker penned film, I'd imagine most of the blame has to go to first time director Pavlou who probably ruined Barker's scripts (Barker himself admitted he directed Hellraiser (1987) himself because of his dissatisfaction with the results of both Underworld & Rawhead Rex). A disappointing waste of time, steer clear which won't be a problem as it's pretty obscure & hopefully it'll stay that way. Not to be confused with the Kate Beckinsale big budget horror action flicks Underworld (2003) & it's sequel Underworld: Evolution (2006).
Known as Transmutations in the US this English production was directed by George Pavlou & quite frankly is crap. The script by James Caplin & Clive Barker based on one of his stories never really gets going, it never involves you, you never care about anything, it's slow, it's dull, it's utterly predictable with a pointless twist you can see coming a mile off & it's just not much fun to watch either. Being based on a story by Barker you would expect plenty of monsters & gore but Underworld features a few tardily made up creatures who get about 10 minutes worth of screen time & absolutely no gore whatsoever. I'm sure the artwork on any DVD/video release plays up the mutants involvement in the film but seriously they don't feature properly until past the hour mark & even then their presence is underwhelming. Most of Barker's work deals with religion & mystical reasoning behind his monstrous creations but here it all revolves around a drug, yawn. Then there's the fact that London seems deserted, the character's & dialogue are poor & for some reason everyone has bizarre names like Pepperdine, Motherskille, Fluke & Nygaard. We never learn why Nicole is immune to the drugs side effects either even though it's an important plot point, it's a film where you just don't care about anything that's happening on screen.
Director Pavlou also directed the Barker penned adaptation of Rawhead Rex (1986) a year later, why did Barker choose him again? Underworld is a totally flat, dull & lifeless 100 odd minutes. He seems to think as long as he bathes every shot in pink, purple, orange & blue neon that's enough to turn in a stylish flick, well he's wrong as it gets very samey very quickly & since the on screen action is so dull the awkward lighting stands out like a sore thumb. Disappointingly the film lacks imagination as well, the underworld mutants are just actors with lumps on their faces & apart from one brief scene at the end when someone pulls some skin of their cheek there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. It's definitely not scary, it's certainly has no tension & has precisely zero atmosphere.
Technically the film is pretty good actually, it's well made I suppose & looks very professional. How on Earth did they get such a good cast to agree to appear in this? Denholm Elliott, Steven Berkoff, Art Malik, Ingrid Pitt & Miranda Richardson all deserve better than this.
Underworld is a poor Clive Barker penned film, I'd imagine most of the blame has to go to first time director Pavlou who probably ruined Barker's scripts (Barker himself admitted he directed Hellraiser (1987) himself because of his dissatisfaction with the results of both Underworld & Rawhead Rex). A disappointing waste of time, steer clear which won't be a problem as it's pretty obscure & hopefully it'll stay that way. Not to be confused with the Kate Beckinsale big budget horror action flicks Underworld (2003) & it's sequel Underworld: Evolution (2006).
Not THAT bad!
deadelvis19886 January 2007
Yes Clive Barker wrote this little schlocky mutant tale back in the eighties. This film can perhaps only be described as a British answer to American schlock horror and sci fi. I can only compare it to certain directorial styles developed by Herschell Gordon Lewis, Tim Ritter, Jean Rollin, Lucio Fulci and some early works by Peter Jackson. The story is a but sub par but interesting. The effects were as good as the money set forth for the production would allow of the film which translates into very limited. That is not to say that these special effects were bad, they were actually quite good. The superbly lustful and gorgeous Candy Davis who had a lengthy run with "Are You Being Served?" and Gary Shail who starred as "Spider" in the infamous "Quadrophenia" epic lend their support.
Precursor To Nightbreed
kane-31 March 2015
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.
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.
Hard to really recommend
slayrrr66618 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Transmutations" is an overly-long and not-that-worthwhile creature feature.
**SPOILERS**
Abducted from her house, Nicole, (Nicola Cowper) finds herself in the possession of Hugo Motherskille, (Steven Berkoff) a ruthless gangster. The abduction forces Roy Bain, (Larry Lamb) a former associate of the group, into action, which he finds is not his doing and wants her back as much as he does. Investigating the disappearance, he eventually finds traces that lead to Dr. Savary, (Denholm Elliott) who has produced a strange white powder that's coveted by a race of deformed human beings who live in the underworld in the sewers below the city. Finding they are engaged in a war with him over the control of use of the powder in experiments he conducted years ago that turned them into their deformed state, he agrees to help them in their battle against their demented enemies.
The Good News: There's only a few minor points in here that make this worthwhile. The main thing with this one is that the final confrontation is actually really good. The shootout between the two sides is really nice, taking out some members from each side in acceptable gunfights while also utilizing some grenades as well. Mixed with the final confrontations in the underground lairs, including the brutal gassing sequence and the single worthwhile kill in the film, where one's head is set on fire and melts away, all make these scenes the best part of the film. It's twenty minutes of pure excitement and interest, mainly since it's the only part of the film that has any. The only other point of interest is the storyline, which isn't that bad and doesn't really feel all that complicated or hard to figure out, it just takes a while to get out. These here are all the film has going for it.
The Bad News: This was a woefully underwhelming effort for several reasons. The biggest one, and the most interconnecting one is the absolute and utter dullness. Pretty much everything in here is either way to long to get to the point or just nothing happens. The mystery angle would've been nice had it lead to anything, but here it just leads to tediously long stretches where he spends the time talking to everyone around, which is just plain dull, and when it just seems to go on and on, such as the sequence in the club with the dancers or searching the lab for ideas about what's going on, all of which are just plain boring and overlong and make the film just plain tough to get through. Since the only action scene is the final twenty minutes, everything else until that time manages to feel very plain hard to get through. That's the biggest flaw with the film, that nothing happens in here. The other flaw in here is the fact that the cheese level isn't good at all. The creatures look lame, the disco soundtrack isn't any good and it's hard to determine what other elements are here are caused to help the film. It's still not as damaging as the other flaw, but these here are the film's biggest problems.
The Final Verdict: Hardly anything worthwhile in here manages to be the main spoiler to a terribly underwhelming effort. Really only give this one a shot if these kinds of cheesy creature features are interesting for you, otherwise then just ignore this one and seek out more worthwhile entries.
Rated R: Graphic Language and Violence
**SPOILERS**
Abducted from her house, Nicole, (Nicola Cowper) finds herself in the possession of Hugo Motherskille, (Steven Berkoff) a ruthless gangster. The abduction forces Roy Bain, (Larry Lamb) a former associate of the group, into action, which he finds is not his doing and wants her back as much as he does. Investigating the disappearance, he eventually finds traces that lead to Dr. Savary, (Denholm Elliott) who has produced a strange white powder that's coveted by a race of deformed human beings who live in the underworld in the sewers below the city. Finding they are engaged in a war with him over the control of use of the powder in experiments he conducted years ago that turned them into their deformed state, he agrees to help them in their battle against their demented enemies.
The Good News: There's only a few minor points in here that make this worthwhile. The main thing with this one is that the final confrontation is actually really good. The shootout between the two sides is really nice, taking out some members from each side in acceptable gunfights while also utilizing some grenades as well. Mixed with the final confrontations in the underground lairs, including the brutal gassing sequence and the single worthwhile kill in the film, where one's head is set on fire and melts away, all make these scenes the best part of the film. It's twenty minutes of pure excitement and interest, mainly since it's the only part of the film that has any. The only other point of interest is the storyline, which isn't that bad and doesn't really feel all that complicated or hard to figure out, it just takes a while to get out. These here are all the film has going for it.
The Bad News: This was a woefully underwhelming effort for several reasons. The biggest one, and the most interconnecting one is the absolute and utter dullness. Pretty much everything in here is either way to long to get to the point or just nothing happens. The mystery angle would've been nice had it lead to anything, but here it just leads to tediously long stretches where he spends the time talking to everyone around, which is just plain dull, and when it just seems to go on and on, such as the sequence in the club with the dancers or searching the lab for ideas about what's going on, all of which are just plain boring and overlong and make the film just plain tough to get through. Since the only action scene is the final twenty minutes, everything else until that time manages to feel very plain hard to get through. That's the biggest flaw with the film, that nothing happens in here. The other flaw in here is the fact that the cheese level isn't good at all. The creatures look lame, the disco soundtrack isn't any good and it's hard to determine what other elements are here are caused to help the film. It's still not as damaging as the other flaw, but these here are the film's biggest problems.
The Final Verdict: Hardly anything worthwhile in here manages to be the main spoiler to a terribly underwhelming effort. Really only give this one a shot if these kinds of cheesy creature features are interesting for you, otherwise then just ignore this one and seek out more worthwhile entries.
Rated R: Graphic Language and Violence
What could be
BandSAboutMovies6 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The synthpop band Freur did the music for this, but they ended up getting better known when they took the name of this movie as their own: Underworld.
They're not the only famous people who are part of this movie - also called Transmutations - that nobody really talks about. Clive Barker - yes, that Clive Barker - wrote the story and co-wrote the script with James Caplin. As for the lead, it's Denholm Elliott - yes, Marcus Brody - as Dr. Savary, a doctor who has created a mind-controlling drug that he uses to keep an army of deformed sewer dwellers under his command. And the main reason, beyond Barker, that I chose this as my underground sewer movie? It has both Miranda Richardson and Ingrid Pitt in it!
But when Savary abducts high class hooker Nicole (Nicole Cowper, who went below the crust again for 1988's Journey to the Center of the Earth) from her brothel, businessman Hugo Motherskille (Steven Berkoff, Octopussy) gets her former lover Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) on the case. Meanwhile, all these proto-Nightbreed creatures are doing monster cocaine to stay alive.
So how did this weirdo movie ever happen? George Pavlou wanted to direct a movie (he'd also direct another early Barker script, Rawhead Rex). Barker wanted to write one, so he put together a mash-up of mobsters, monsters, film noir and horror. The money people wanted something else, so they got it rewritten and Barker washed his hands of the whole thing. And then Vestron Video released it as Transmutations.
It looks great though! 1985 great, all blue color and billowy dresses and face paint and movie punk and you know, who cares if it's kind of silly? Monsters in sewers kidnapping prostitutes who can enter your dreams with the power they get from magical powder? Sounds kind of wonderful, when you think of it.
They're not the only famous people who are part of this movie - also called Transmutations - that nobody really talks about. Clive Barker - yes, that Clive Barker - wrote the story and co-wrote the script with James Caplin. As for the lead, it's Denholm Elliott - yes, Marcus Brody - as Dr. Savary, a doctor who has created a mind-controlling drug that he uses to keep an army of deformed sewer dwellers under his command. And the main reason, beyond Barker, that I chose this as my underground sewer movie? It has both Miranda Richardson and Ingrid Pitt in it!
But when Savary abducts high class hooker Nicole (Nicole Cowper, who went below the crust again for 1988's Journey to the Center of the Earth) from her brothel, businessman Hugo Motherskille (Steven Berkoff, Octopussy) gets her former lover Roy Bain (Larry Lamb) on the case. Meanwhile, all these proto-Nightbreed creatures are doing monster cocaine to stay alive.
So how did this weirdo movie ever happen? George Pavlou wanted to direct a movie (he'd also direct another early Barker script, Rawhead Rex). Barker wanted to write one, so he put together a mash-up of mobsters, monsters, film noir and horror. The money people wanted something else, so they got it rewritten and Barker washed his hands of the whole thing. And then Vestron Video released it as Transmutations.
It looks great though! 1985 great, all blue color and billowy dresses and face paint and movie punk and you know, who cares if it's kind of silly? Monsters in sewers kidnapping prostitutes who can enter your dreams with the power they get from magical powder? Sounds kind of wonderful, when you think of it.
Weird and disappointing b-movie.
glue319 March 2002
This movie looks like a long 80's video clip. Based upon a story by Clive Barker (Hellraiser, Nightbreed)about a new breed of mutants and their addiction to a drug that allow them to survive. There's no emotion in this film, everything is cold and this is the reason why I think the film is not able to create any kind of emotion.
Anyway you can see this film as a dark (and disappointing) movie containing some good scenes (and intentions).
Anyway you can see this film as a dark (and disappointing) movie containing some good scenes (and intentions).
Truly, Truly Awful
davejessop-128 May 2013
Even with a few decent Brit actors (Lamb, Malik and Phil Davis in a minor role) a good one (Berkoff) and Denholm Elliott as a mad slightly effeminate doctor the acting was just so wooden and should have been much better - the dialogue was clichéd and seemed to be like a very bad 40's Film Noir B movie (everyone was doing a very bad Cagney impersonation) and every sentence said to the main character had to end in "Roy"
But wait!! It gets worse! - The soundtrack was just so bad - Whoever was responsible seemed to think he was Vangelis but was more like Vangelis' mum and TBH she would have been a better choice - It just had the feel of a bad 80s pop video and I kept expecting Meat Loaf to jump out and start warbling - gave it 2/10 and that was only because I got this for free and Meat Loaf WASN'T in it.
I recommended getting a tooth pulled - it's more entertaining and less painful - don't waste your time with this :)
But wait!! It gets worse! - The soundtrack was just so bad - Whoever was responsible seemed to think he was Vangelis but was more like Vangelis' mum and TBH she would have been a better choice - It just had the feel of a bad 80s pop video and I kept expecting Meat Loaf to jump out and start warbling - gave it 2/10 and that was only because I got this for free and Meat Loaf WASN'T in it.
I recommended getting a tooth pulled - it's more entertaining and less painful - don't waste your time with this :)
This Could be SO much better, IF...
trishthunderroads4 July 2022
They remade this with a decent budget, Clive Barker in charge like he needs to be and absolute NO 80's nostalgia. Are you out there, Mr. Barker? This is a very good story in need of decent film treatment.
(And yes, it does have a lot in common with Nightbreed, but Barker does like his labyrinths, dreamscapes and monsters without and within; call it style).
PS: I'm an 80's chick, too! But WAYYYYY to much Synth music-bleached denim-terrible eyemake-up and foofy hair for even ME! Once is enough.
(And yes, it does have a lot in common with Nightbreed, but Barker does like his labyrinths, dreamscapes and monsters without and within; call it style).
PS: I'm an 80's chick, too! But WAYYYYY to much Synth music-bleached denim-terrible eyemake-up and foofy hair for even ME! Once is enough.
Complete rubbish, sadly
fairlesssam15 July 2017
A high class prostitute is kidnapped from a brothel and taken to the Underworld. A business man hires her ex-lover (played by Larry Lamb) to find her. The Underworld is where a group of ex addicts who have been used as test subjects live, away from public view. They have been turned into mutants by the chemicals they were injected with and are seeking a cure to return them to their previous selves.
This movie is awful. Words fail me to be honest. Not even the name of Clive Barker can save this one. It is badly acted, stiff, wooden and the creatures are laughable. It's frustrating and boring to watch. Another Z movie with many famous faces whom could have done much better.
This movie is awful. Words fail me to be honest. Not even the name of Clive Barker can save this one. It is badly acted, stiff, wooden and the creatures are laughable. It's frustrating and boring to watch. Another Z movie with many famous faces whom could have done much better.
Please remove this from existence
Bored_Dragon29 October 2017
Although you can clearly feel spirit of Clive barker, this is most probably the worst flick he was involved with. Idea is decent, but story is poorly developed, acting is lousy, directing terrible and music completely inadequate. There are movies that are so bad they are good, but this one is not one of those. It's not even funny, not even slightly. Simply complete catastrophe.
2,5/10
2,5/10
Underrated
dopefishie10 January 2024
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.
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.
A curious B-movie thriller for the curious
Elvis-Del-Valle14 March 2023
As a horror movie it does not qualify as some sites or the poster say, but the truth is that it seemed like a good thriller to me since I feel that it has originality. The production on the other hand is low compared to the other Barker films that came later since this is more of a B movie and apparently this is the only B movie in Clive Barker's filmography since the production and the makeup don't look as professional as the other movies, but hey, Clive was just getting into the movie industry and sometimes you always start small. No wonder there are people who didn't like it, but I can't say it's Clive Barker's worst movie because even though it was a flat start for him, at least I found the story enjoyable. My grade for this movie is 8/10 because I think it's one of those B-movies that can be curious and weird, but enjoyable depending on how you see it.
Transmutations
Scarecrow-8827 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A white drug created by Dr. Savary(Delholm Elliot)causes both Euphoria and mutations for those who use it. Hugo Motherskille(Steven Berkoff)is living large through "manufacturing" and enlists the aid of a painter, Roy Bain(Larry Lamb), a former employee known for his sleuthing abilities, to find a kidnapped prostitute, Nicole(Nicola Cowpar), taken from her brothel(by the mutants) as a bargaining chip for the drug in Savary's possession. Because he loves Nicole, Roy will indeed seek out her whereabouts but as he pursues what happened to her, Motherskille's association with Savary raises red flags. Roy's life will be in constant peril as he seeks answers in regards to what caused the mutants' afflictions and how Nicole plays into the grand scheme of things. Savary is the key to it all and Motherskille may be using Roy for other reasons besides finding Nicole. Nicole's immunity to the hideous side effects of Savary's drug enhances her importance to the scientist who wants to know how to get rid of the mutations which derive from its use. Ingrid Pitt has a small role as the madam over the brothel for which Nicole works, seemingly hiding a secret vital to Roy in his success. I don't think anyone will be surprised that Berkoff is more than he says he is..he has been the villain in way too many films to have us accept him as anything other than the root cause of what is transpiring, with Elliot(given star treatment)the mad scientist who took junkies and introduced them to a drug which not only addicts them but causes grotesque side effects, such as facial sores and malformations. Lamb is pretty much a private eye of the future who eventually sides with the victims of Savary's experiments, when those behind his hiring betray him. Some pretty gross make-up effects and a heavy emphasis on dark and blue(rarely does the film take place at all during the day), opting for a more neo-noir look instead. I was startled to learn that this movie was based on a story/screenplay by Clive Barker. George Pavlou not only directed this film with Barker's name attached, but also the next year's RAWHEAD REX(the film Barker has disowned). The stunning, sexy Irina Brook is a prostitute named Bianca who is in love with Roy, even saving him at one point in the movie. Hard to believe that's Miranda Richardson as one of the mutants, constantly demanding more of the white drug as the addiction has taken complete hold of her.
1980s horror from Clive Barker
joshjack-3568015 August 2021
Great movie
jacobjohntaylor119 October 2019
This is a great movie. It has a great acting. It is very scary. It is one of the scariest movies I have seen. It so scary it will scary you. 4.2 is underrating it. This is a 7 out of 10. See this movie. It is a great movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
