Underworld

1986 "A horrible experiment. A criminal empire. One thing in common..."
3.9| 1h32m| R| en| More Info
Released: 17 April 1986 Released
Producted By: Limehouse Productions
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

When high class hooker Nicole is kidnapped from her brothel, Rich businessman Hugo Motherskille hires her ex love Roy Bain to find her. Investigating the disappearance, he eventually finds traces that lead to Dr. Savary, 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.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Limehouse Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.
Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.
Smoreni Zmaj 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
kane-3 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.
Paul Andrews 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).
EDDIEBLKMR 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.