Bunker

Another low budget war-set film that failed to do its due diligence. I'm literally 4.5 mins in and already frustrated for everything else to come. When filmmakers, or more precisely storytellers, do not have direct experience in the field in which they are narrating, they have an obligation to research - and research the ass out of the subject. When they fail to do that, they fail in creating a world in which audiences can suspend their disbelief. There is simply no excuse for laziness in scene setting or character presentation especially when audiences are far more historically clued up. So, for anyone who's interested, just watch the first 4.5 mins and observe...... 1) uniforms have staybrite buttons. They should be brass. Such a small detail isn't hard to get right. Buttons of the era up to WW2 (any will do as you're unlikely to see insignia detail) are freely and widely available online. Staybrite are horrible and shout modernity.

2) Our officer, the Lieutenant interacts with a Corporal (stripes on his left arm) referring to him as 'Captain'.....twice just in case you think you misheard it.....

3) The 'Captain' offers up a salute to the Lt first - not the way its done. You salute the rank, not the man. If indeed he was a Captain the Lt would have come to a smart attention and offered up the salute to the new arrival.

It's pretty basic stuff to get right to be fair. The script is just plain awful if the actors are regurgitating what's on the page. And it's not the first film I've seen in the low budget war genre that has made this simple error..........and there's a lot more wrong here that I could labour on with. But to keep it short when you don't have much in the way of budget you have to make the most of what you do have. Be less pompous, cut the narrative back and tell a simple story well. War-set stories are ones where scrimping on accuracy simply isn't the way to best present your story and keep your audience engaged.

This was one of those that had potential. It was let down by some truly appalling dialogue and a couple of bad actors, most noticeably the commanding officer, whose delivery reminded me of something from Monty Python. Although to be fair, the lines he was given to deliver were very poor. It was a stereotypical British officer, full of "Blighters" and "As God is my witness." It sounds like an English officer, as written by an American who has never travelled out side the deep south. There is very little "Horror" on view here, apart from the script, and perhaps the last 10 minutes, which are fairly predictable. The rest of the movie is very dialogue heavy, and really doesn't progress much, and there is no real clear story or explanation of events. There is also a certain repetitiveness to events. I have to admire the effort here, but ultimately let down by a low budget and a very average script.

Adding to what another user wrote a few weeks back, RE WW1 (The Great War) versus WWII. Not that I've watched through all this (yet) but within a short amount of time watching it was obvious that they attire was WW1 just due to the Brodie helmet Mark 1. But also the barbed wire and just the title itself of "Bunker" was a bit of a giveaway.

There were significant differences between the two wars, in particular trench warfare in the Great War as it was the first large-scale war after the Industrial revolution and where battles hadn't quite become accustomed to these technological changes yet. A film based on WWII would not have used this backdrop, more likely something like the Pacific theatre perhaps + of course the attire would have been different looking ie. A Mk III Helmet for the British for example.

And of course that The US were never allies with the Germans, in either war.

When I stumbled upon the 2022 movie "Bunker" from writer Michael Huntsman and director Adrian Langley, I hadn't even heard about it. But seeing it was a war-based horror movie, of course I opted to watch it.

Writer Michael Huntsman failed to deliver a particularly thrilling storyline here for director Adrian Langley to bring to the screen. Sure, the concept behind "Bunker" was interesting enough, but the execution of it was just downright too monotonous, slow paced and uneventful. And that made 108 minutes seem like quite the prolonged suffering.

And it was exactly that. Because it was only the last 5 minutes of the movie that proved overly interesting. Needless to say that by then, the ship had long sailed and the movie was beyond salvation.

I wasn't familiar with the cast in the movie, but the actors virtually had nothing wholesome or solid to work with from writer Michael Huntsman.

Visually then "Bunker" was okay. It was a pretty low-key special effects movie, which in itself was okay, as the movie hardly felt like it needed an impressive array of special effects.

"Bunker" was a swing and a miss of a movie, and it is not something I would recommend you waste your time, money or effort on.

My rating of "Bunker" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.

In my best Joe Biden voice: 'C'mon man!' It's WW1. Trench warfare. Acres of black mud. Rotting bodies. Flies.

The uniforms, the trenches, the faces, the props -- all cleaner than a mall display at Abercrombie and Fitch. Seriously, if you had A&F do a little mannequin scene in their store in a WW1 theme, it would look like this movie.

It took me right out of the movie. Little things like accurate ranks, dirty uniforms, squalid environment, would go a long, long way. Takes minutes of research.

Guess the crew just didn't care.

I think the actors and the director have potential. Maybe put a little more research into future projects.