eyeforfilm.co.uk
Documentary following explorers into places rarely glimpsed by human eyes: caves, flooded drains and underground laboratories.
- Review score
- 4.3
Underland Movie Review
Bottom Line
Choose it for breathtaking underground imagery, immersive sound, and an accessible philosophical journey. Skip it if you want sustained focus on each explorer or firm answers to its questions.
Best for
Best for viewers who enjoy visually driven documentaries, philosophical nature writing, unusual science, and atmospheric journeys into rarely filmed places.
Not for
Skip it if you prefer exhaustive explanations, a single sustained storyline, or a comprehensive adaptation of Macfarlane’s book.
Verdict
Underland turns caves, storm drains, and a deep science laboratory into a hypnotic meditation on what humanity buries, seeks, and leaves behind. Its greatest strengths are Ruben Woodin Dechamps’ spectacular low-light photography, Hannah Peel’s ethereal score, intricate sound design, and Sandra Hüller’s often mesmerizing narration. Robert Petit also finds meaningful connections among Mayan archaeology, urban inequality, and the search for dark matter. The tradeoff is compression: at 79 minutes, the film repeatedly leaves compelling people and places before they feel fully explored. Some critics also found the poetic voiceover overworked and the ending too conventional. Even so, the sensory craft and philosophical ambition make it a distinctive, memorable documentary.
Feature Scorecards
Summary
33 reviewed features- Very positive 4.5-5.0 45% 15 features
- Positive 3.5-4.4 27% 9 features
- Neutral 2.5-3.4 21% 7 features
- Negative 1.5-2.4 6% 2 features
- Very negative below 1.5 0% 0 features
Pros
-
The underground photography is the film’s clearest triumph, turning caves, storm drains, laboratories, roots, and debris into haunting, otherworldly images. Limited light and close detail make the hidden Earth feel both intimate and immense.
-
The film sustains a striking, hypnotic aesthetic that blends documentary observation with poetic and science-fiction-like imagery. Even less enthusiastic critics found the subterranean worlds visually arresting.
-
Echoes, drips, machinery, silence, and low subterranean textures create a rich sensory experience. The sound work often makes the environments feel as physical as the images.
-
The film stands out as an experimental, style-forward documentary adaptation with a distinctive voice. Its blend of myth, science, observation, and sensory immersion feels unlike conventional nature or history documentaries.
-
The scientific concepts are presented in accessible, beginner-friendly terms without reducing the film’s philosophical ambition. Most viewers can follow the ideas even without specialist knowledge.
-
The idea that everything is interconnected gives the film a clear, memorable center. Its strongest sequences connect past actions, present choices, and what future generations will inherit.
-
The science and central ideas are presented clearly enough for older children to follow, while the philosophical material still offers depth for adults. Tight spaces and danger may unsettle sensitive viewers.
-
The Yucatán passages treat Mayan history, sacred caves, ancestry, and ancient markings with curiosity and respect. This thread is one of the film’s strongest links between personal identity and deep time.
-
The film offers a visually absorbing, thought-provoking experience rather than a conventional fact-heavy documentary. It is especially rewarding for viewers drawn to unknown places, science, and atmospheric filmmaking.
-
The documentary is broadly suitable for family viewing and can spark discussion about science, history, culture, and the environment. Families should consider whether intense cave and storm-drain imagery will bother younger viewers.
-
As an experimental documentary about hidden worlds, it delivers striking images, intriguing questions, and a distinctive mood. Viewers seeking definitive answers or a traditional explanatory structure may be less satisfied.
-
The most dangerous cave and storm-drain passages create genuine tension, with the Las Vegas section frequently singled out as especially gripping.
-
The film moves among awe, melancholy, danger, hope, and myth-making while maintaining a coherent meditative atmosphere. Its ability to feel intimate and grand at once is a notable strength.
-
The strongest passages inspire awe, unease, melancholy, and a humbling sense of humanity’s small place in time. Ancient handprints, hidden lives, and uncertain scientific quests give the film lasting emotional weight.
-
Hannah Peel’s ethereal score complements the imagery and shifts effectively among natural, industrial, and scientific spaces. It is consistently praised as a major part of the film’s immersive atmosphere.
-
The cross-cutting often creates elegant visual and thematic links among Mexico, Las Vegas, and Canada. Some critics found the transitions seamless, while others felt the constant switching weakened immersion in each individual story.
-
The film can draw in viewers who know little about caves, dark matter, or underground exploration through striking imagery and accessible human stories. Its meditative style will appeal most to audiences comfortable with unanswered questions.
-
The film draws rich connections among archaeology, poverty, science, ecology, mortality, and deep time. Its philosophical reach is compelling, though some critics found the narration shallower than the subject deserved.
-
Petit’s direction is visually confident, sensorial, and unusually ambitious for a documentary adaptation. He succeeds at creating wonder, though the three-part structure sometimes limits depth and cohesion.
-
Brief archival material is used sparingly within connective montages, adding historical texture without interrupting the film’s flow.
-
The film’s unusual visual and philosophical qualities prompted near-masterpiece comparisons, though explanatory gaps kept some critics from embracing it completely.
-
The three subjects explain their goals, risks, and motivations with clarity and sincerity. Their own words often carry more weight than the film’s poetic interludes.
-
The three underground journeys create an ambitious, often absorbing meditation on human curiosity and deep time. The structure can feel scattered or light on development, especially when it leaves a compelling thread just as it gains momentum.
-
The adaptation preserves the book’s poetic sensibility, hidden landscapes, and philosophical curiosity while taking a more streamlined visual approach. Several critics felt the compression sacrifices political urgency and thematic heft.
Cons
-
At 79 minutes, the film often feels brisk and well judged, but several critics wanted more time with its three central journeys. Its compactness prevents drag while also leaving some discoveries underdeveloped.
-
The 79-minute journey is generally brisk and absorbing, but the rhythm becomes uneven when the film jumps away from its most compelling sections. Some critics praised the restraint, while others wanted longer, more sustained immersion.
-
The conclusion reinforces the idea that all life is connected, which works powerfully for some viewers. Others found it conventional or visually weaker and felt the film never fully resolved its many ideas.
-
The sparse spoken material can be calm and evocative, but the poetic voiceover divides opinion. Some find it transporting; others think the images would be stronger without it.
-
The film is not conventional horror, but tight cave passages, darkness, flooding risks, and vast underground spaces may be intense for claustrophobic or agoraphobic viewers.
-
The basic journeys are easy to follow, but the film sometimes raises more questions than it answers and does not always explain why the scientific work matters. Its thematic connections can feel suggestive rather than fully argued.
-
The writing ranges from carefully composed and evocative to overly rhetorical. Its best lines clarify the film’s interconnected themes, while weaker passages feel strained or too eager to explain.
-
The digital graphics at the conclusion are less impressive than the live-action photography, making the ending feel visually weaker.
-
The three central explorers are compelling, but the short runtime keeps their histories, motivations, and work from receiving the depth many critics wanted.
Cast & Creators
-
CinematographerDechamps’ cinematography is repeatedly singled out as gorgeous, sharp, and otherworldly. His limited-light images reveal texture and scale in spaces that could easily have become visually monotonous.
-
EditorHill’s editing is praised for linking interviews, ambient sound, voiceover, and imagery into a fluid sensory experience.
-
ArchaeologistTec Pool’s cave journey is often the film’s most compelling thread, combining adventure with a personal connection to Mayan ancestry. Her presence gives the documentary cultural and emotional grounding.
-
EditorQuantrill’s editing helps the film move elegantly among contrasting underground environments, though the broader cross-cutting approach divided critics.
-
EditorWorboys’ editing helps the three stories transition smoothly and maintain a shared philosophical rhythm.
-
EditorPrice’s editing contributes to the elegant flow among the film’s radically different underground environments.
-
EditorWorboys’ editing is credited with stealthily connecting locations and shaping archival material into fluid montages.
-
ComposerPeel’s score is consistently praised for its ethereal beauty and its ability to adapt to the film’s changing environments. Her music helps bind the documentary’s scientific and poetic moods.
-
DirectorPetit is widely praised for crafting an unusually immersive, visually assured documentary that links science, myth, and human curiosity. Criticism centers on a structure that occasionally feels abbreviated or fragmented.
-
NarratorHüller’s calm, dreamlike narration often deepens the film’s poetic atmosphere and gives it added prestige. A minority found the prose overworked, portentous, or too insistent.
-
Urban ExplorerGarrett brings an anthropological and artistic perspective to Las Vegas’s storm drains, connecting hidden communities, inequality, danger, and discarded objects. His section is often described as gripping and socially pointed.
Compared With Category Average
Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in family friendliness, language level, age appropriateness, below average in animation quality.
Summary
8 compared features- Above average 0.4+ pts higher 88% 7 features
- Same as average within 0.3 pts 0% 0 features
- Below average 0.4+ pts lower 13% 1 feature
| Attribute | This product | Category average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| family friendliness | 5.0 | 2.4 | +2.6 |
| language level | 5.0 | 2.6 | +2.4 |
| age appropriateness | 5.0 | 2.7 | +2.3 |
| animation quality | 2.0 | 3.8 | -1.8 |
| originality | 5.0 | 3.4 | +1.6 |
| tonal consistency | 5.0 | 3.5 | +1.5 |
| suspense | 5.0 | 3.6 | +1.4 |
| entertainment value | 5.0 | 3.7 | +1.3 |
FAQ
Is Underland visually impressive?
Yes. The cinematography is the most consistent point of praise, transforming caves, drains, laboratories, roots, and debris into haunting, otherworldly images.
Does the film closely follow Robert Macfarlane’s book?
It preserves the book’s poetic curiosity and subterranean settings, but compresses the material heavily. Several critics felt the film loses some political urgency and thematic depth.
Is the 79-minute runtime a strength or a weakness?
Both. The short runtime keeps the experimental style brisk, but it also leaves the three explorers and several discoveries underdeveloped.
Is the documentary easy to understand?
The scientific material is generally beginner-friendly, and the three journeys are easy to follow. The film favors wonder and open questions over detailed explanations.
Is it suitable for family viewing?
It is broadly accessible to older children and adults, with no major content concerns noted. Tight caves, darkness, flooding danger, and underground spaces may unsettle sensitive viewers.
Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed
These are a few of the reviews included in our analysis.
inreviewonline.com
A new film review of Underland, directed by Robert Petit & released by Oscilloscope Laboratories, for film review site In Review Online.
- Review score
- 3.9
thefilmstage.com
Note: This review was originally published as part of our 2025 Tribeca coverage. The film opens in theaters on June 5. As humanity continues...
- Review score
- 3.2
nytimes.com
All over the world, voyagers are descending, legally and not, into the lower depths. This documentary offers a frustratingly abbreviated look...
- Review score
- 2.9
screenanarchy.com
Sandra Hüller narrates this cinematic adaptation of Robert Macfarlane's bestselling book, directed by Robert Petit.
- Review score
- 4.4
Consider This Instead
If you want better animation quality
Choose Earth, Wind & Fire (To Be Celestial vs. That’s the Weight of the World). It scores 4.7 vs 2.0 for animation quality, with a 4.6 overall score.
If you want better plot clarity
Choose Shipwrecked: Nightmare at Sea. It scores 4.8 vs 2.7 for plot clarity, with a 4.2 overall score.
If you want better faithfulness to source material
Choose Girls Like Girls. It scores 4.5 vs 3.5 for faithfulness to source material, with a 4.0 overall score.
If you want better character development
Choose Remake. It scores 5.0 vs 2.0 for character development, with a 4.8 overall score.
Top Movies to Consider
Best for a profound, formally inventive meditation on grief, memory, and the ethics of filming family. Skip it if intensely personal addiction material, a 114-minute runtime, or occasional repetition will...
Pros: plot originality, ending satisfaction
Cons: runtime, pacing
Best for a tender, accessible portrait that lets Oliver’s poetry, friends, and archival voice carry the experience. Skip it if you want a brisk, deeply investigative biography; the calm rhythm...
Pros: romance quality, faithfulness to source material
Cons: none
Best for joyful music, rare footage, candid interviews, and a layered Maurice White portrait. Skip it if you want a tightly focused, unconventional reappraisal that lingers on performances instead of...
Pros: ending satisfaction, drama quality
Cons: runtime, originality
Best for razor-sharp adult comedy, exceptional ensemble work, and a surprisingly moving marriage story. Skip it if talk-heavy chamber pieces, explicit relationship discussions, or an occasionally intrusive string score wear...
Pros: plot originality, lead performance
Cons: runtime, score quality