Download Our App XoStream

Underworld

1927

Action / Crime / Drama / Film-Noir / Romance

Plot summary


Uploaded by: FREEMAN

Top cast

720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
748.18 MB
968*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 21 min
P/S ...
1.36 GB
1440*1072
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 21 min
P/S 0 / 3

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by secondtake8 / 10

Vividly made, early pre-gangster gangster film.

Underworld (1927)

A lot of people avoid silent films at all costs, and I understand that totally. Many of these films are stiff, and the plots are either sentimental or obvious.

But there are many reasons to watch a good, or great, silent film. Sometimes the acting, whatever its expressive style, is really wonderful. Often the photography and editing is really terrific and sophisticated. And the stories can be fast, fresh, and even pertinent.

And finally, the silent films easiest for the uninitiated to approach are at the very end of the silent era. That would be 1927. See Joan Crawford in The Unknown for the bizarre, or Murnau's Sunrise for eloquence, or consider this film, the first major film by the soon to be legendary Josef von Sternberg. The only thing that might put off some people is the exaggerated expressions in one of the three main characters, Bull Weed. But go with that flow and you'll see not only some more subtle acting, but a sweet, violent, complex plot interweave in just an hour or so (81 minutes, though there is an 87 minute version out there if you can find it, Netflix doesn't have it). The Criterion disc version is really clean (another reason to consider this as an intro silent films, since it isn't broken up or scratched to death).

"Underworld" is filmed with visual complexity even though it lacks some of the virtuosic moving camera of Murnau. The sets are simple but convincing, and the shift in attention to the gangster side of the story, complete with guns and molls and the precursors (or pre-precursors) of film noir, is gripping. It's not as intense as the heyday of gangster films just four or five years later, but it has if anything more emotional sophistication. The story was written by the legendary Ben Hecht, which might explain some of its success.

Von Sternberg you say? Well, he was a master at creating aura, and between him and Dietrich a whole new level of starmaking savvy was born. This, as a first film, and as a last minute replacement, was expected to flop, and was released in a single New York theater. Word spread, however, and it became a hit. You can see why. Great stuff.

Reviewed by MartinHafer8 / 10

Very innovative and entertaining, but the ending is very weak.

'Bull' Weed is a tough gangster whose girlfriend is 'Feathers'. One nit when Bull is pulling off a robbery, he meets up with a bum who sees him committing the crime. Inexplicably, instead of killing the witness, Bull christens the guy 'Rolls Royce' and decides to raise out of the gutter--eventually making him his #2 man in the gang.

Everyone fears Bull--after all, he's a very tough customer. Well, ALMOST everyone one. A really, really stupid crook named 'Buck' is interested in Feathers and wants her for himself. And, when Buck makes his move and kidnaps Feathers, Bull kills him in a fit of rage. Bull is then sentenced to death (though because of the way the crime occurred, this seemed a bit excessive). While Bull is on death row, he gets word that Feathers and Rolls Royce are carrying on together. While it IS true that the pair have fallen in love, they do not act on it out of loyalty to Bull--but Bull is determined to kill them for supposedly betraying him. How all this is resolved is a bit of a disappointment. It's sad, actually, as up to this point it was a dandy little gangster film--and one that actually helped to launch the gangster film rage in the late 20s and early 30s.

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird8 / 10

"Nobody helps me, I help them"

'Underworld' is the second film of Josef von Sternberg recently seen. The other being 'The Docks of New York'. Although 'Underworld' is the more historically significant of the two films, being the first gangster film and one of the earliest film noir-like films, there is a preference for 'The Docks of New York'. Both are very, very good films though. Sternberg was a fine director, evident in his collaborations with Marlene Dietrich, and George Bancroft deserves a lot more credit as an actor.

As said, 'Underworld' is a very good film. It is not one of Sternberg's best, do prefer the likes of 'Shanghai Empress', 'The Blue Angel', 'The Scarlet Empress' and 'The Devil is a Woman'. It is incredible though that this is only his third solo film, well technically the fifth but two are lost, and his distinctive style seemed not only obvious throughout but fully established, one does not usually that with directors at this early a stage, so 'Underworld' was something of an achievement.

Is 'Underworld' perfect? No as two scenes didn't quite work for me. One was the prison break sequence, which lacked the necessary tension and felt choppily staged.

The other was the ending, after the exciting shoot out it then ends on a tacked on note that is too at odds with what came before and came over as a little heavy-handed as well.

Sternberg's direction though is truly impressive, one does not expect to see direction this polished, visually beautiful or taut at such an early career stage suggestive of a director who had actually been in the profession for years beforehand (that's a compliment by the way). What immediately stands out is the production values, the settings are evocatively seedy yet made oddly attractive at the same time and the cinematography has great audacious style and gritty atmosphere. Sternberg's films always had great use of light and shadow and 'Underworld' is no exception. The music is suitably haunting.

Other than two scenes, the story was riveting with a suitably pull no punches atmosphere, some exciting moments (especially the climactic shoot-out, which is why it's a shame that how it's resolved disappoints) and some nice turns that stopped it from becoming predictable without it becoming confusing. The central relationship to me was handled fine. The performances likewise, with Bancroft showing again with his intensity that he is deserving of more credit. Clive Brook shows here how his acting grew significantly from when he first started and Evelyn Brent is charming.

Concluding, very good. 8/10

Read more IMDb reviews