Underworld (Sin City) Review

Initial Thoughts
Michael Raven is supposed to be one of the best directors working in the hardcore industry, today. So when I saw how highly praised this film was, I thought I'd check it out.

The Film/Review
Based on the classic tale of Orpheus, Underworld tells the tale of Apollo Greenspan, a business tycoon (get it??? GREENSPAN?)who takes his own life. His son, Orpheus, travels via taxi to The Underworld, a hell-bent S & M bar, with the intent of "rescuing" his girlfriend Eurydice, and bringing her back to the world of the living.
However, The Underworld proves a more treacherous place than he had bargained for...
_____________________________________

It seems that Mr. Raven intended for this film to act as a possible breakthrough vehicle from the world of hardcore to the world of, at least low budget "mainstream" films. He fills the screen with as much style and glamor as the small budget allows as well as flashy, music video style editing (a technique which both helps and hurts the film).
Coupled with the facts that it is actually shot on film (I think Super 16mm, NOT 35mm as the box states) by industry cinematographer great Jack Remy, Underworld certainly looks better than 95% of new hardcore. In fact, the cinematography is so good at times that Remy's abilities outshine those of some of the most sought after Hollywood cinematographers of the last few years.
Another truly incredible aspect of this production is the music. A nice mixture of electronic composition and some damn good songs (take special note of the blazer played over the closing credits). It's nice to see a hardcore film with good, ORIGINAL, music.
Here, sadly, is where my praise must stop. Besides the glossy look many portions of this film have, there is a near constant feeling of cheapness about the production. The sets look tacky, especially Pluto's (Herschel Savage's) bedroom(???) set which looks like is was rescued from a dumpster behind a high school auditorium in 1980.
The acting is also far less convincing than I was initially led to believe. Although Dillon Day isn't all that bad in the lead role as Orpheus, the vast majority of the cast barely get by their lines.
Special mention must go to Taylor St. Claire and Asia Carrera, both of whom deliver surprisingly solid performances despite their small roles. Mike Horner and Hershel Savage both deliver fine performances as Apollo and Pluto.
What really kills the film is the over abundance of sex. Out of the film's 87 minute running time, only 36 minutes are dedicated to the genuinely interesting plot, a real shame in light of the truly outstanding pre-credits sequence which involves Horner (Apollo) committing suicide while watching a seemingly possessed porn video.
The scrip and characters are also sorely underdeveloped and leave a lot to be desired narratively.
Raven suffers from an affliction effecting the work of almost all modern directors in the sex industry who try to make intelligent, narrative hardcore films. Unlike veterans such as Chuck Vincent, Gary Graver, Gerard Damiano, or Armand Weston who were able to skillfully create films in which sex was an integral part of the story and effectiveness of the film as a whole, Raven has gone down the rather disappointing path of creating potentially standout narratives but then destroying them by ultimately too long and irrelevant sex scenes.
Case in point is the fact that of the film's five sex scenes, only one (the orgy in The Underworld) is shot with the same feeling and editing style of the rest of the film. In fact, one rather boring coupling even looks like it was shot on DV, instead of film, and really destroys the flow of this rather morbid tale.
Had Raven been sensible enough to fully develop his characters and plot (which would have required another 30 minutes or so of pure story) as well as at least shot the rather nondescript sex scenes with the same visual flare as the rest of the film, he could have had at least a very good film. He did not and the result is simply mediocre.

Sex, etc.
There are five sex scenes in this movie. The first sex scene last 12 minutes (NO!!!!!) and takes place on a couch (oh, how original). It's shot in a very porny way with tons of close-ups and actors refusing to stay in character throughout it.
The second is the only interesting sex scene in the film. Shot as a nice tableau of various debauched acts all taking place in The Underground, the camera work and editing style (as well as excellent use of music) maintain the mood of the rest of the film. This is also probably the most risqué scene due to the inclusion of some water (ehhh, you know what I mean ;)). The third sex scene leaves no breathing room as it occurs right after the second. It is a bit moody, but ultimately too long and does nothing to advance the plot.
Here is where I almost shut the film off: The fourth sex scene is a horrible, shot against a black background, piece of nonsense which not only seems out of place, but amateurish as well.
The final sex scene feels like nothing more than an excuse to throw in more sex because the lest 10 minutes of the movie contain none.

The Extras
As for extras, included are 4 minutes of bloopers which include one scary shot of a girl (mid coitus) screaming stop to her "co-star" and saying that he "hit her colon"(???)...Also included is a nice, and surprisingly informative 14 minute "making of" short which shows some behind the scenes stuff as well as features typical shots of dull porn stars 1)trying to ham it up in front of the camera and 2)throwing tantrums at not getting to do certain positions...Gimme a break!

Cuts Warning
This is a new film so I doubt anything would have been cut out in the last 5-6 years. The content is harder than most new porn and therefore I feel it's probably intact.

The DVD (A & V, etc.)
This DVD feels like something VCX might put out. The 16mm to DVD transfer is awful at best with near constant compression and MPeg artifacts constantly popping up on the screen. The aspect ratio of the film, aprox. 1.66:1 seems appropriate and is in keeping with the negative aspect ratio of Super 16mm. The sound reproduction is fine, although a great deal of air can be hear rushing through the film (this however might have been a fault of the original sound recording devices).
The real problem lies in the color reproduction. Now I've seen a lot of Jack Remy's work and I can certainly say that the washed out look that this film has was NOT his intent. For one, there are no blacks (instead only dark grays), there is also a recurring problem of to peachy skin tones and a generally foggy look to film which, despite the over abundance of fog machines, still seems more likely to be the result of a poor telecine rather than shoddy lighting.

Overall
A slightly better than average piece of music video age designer story-porn which doesn't hold a candle to any of the great films from the 70s or 80s. Still, considering how few quality films are being produced in the hardcore industry, seeing anything with some resemblance of style or quality gives me hope of better things to come...