Bunker

There are standard guidelines when making a documentary for public consumption and this boring attempt misses every single one of them. Less an actual documentary and more just a series of lazily edited together clips that barely create a narrative this waste of 90 minutes can't even be called a film "experience" but rather an ingratiating, sleep inducing, time wasting series of clips that aren't half as interesting as watching paint dry. Long (and I mean LONG) periods of time go by with absolutely no narration, no information, explanation nor reason for being. They just expect you the viewer to know what's happening even though it becomes painfully obvious that the MAGA survivalists featured have no clue whatsoever themselves. When people do talk it's an incoherent mashup of drawls with very little intellect pushing survivalist, paranoid delusional views that couldn't stay afloat in a teaspoon. A great example of "Just because you have a camera that doesn't mean you can make an actual movie." Watch this if you're bored, can't fall asleep or are so lost that every time it snows you run in circles screaming the sky is falling. Whew.....

What more is there to say... This, by far, one of the most boring and poorly directed/filmed documentaries I've ever watched.

I actually do feel very sorry for the people who live their lives believing that these pitiful bunkers will provide them with a way to survive the imaginary apocalypse they are predicting.

If it were as simple as protection from an explosion and potential radiation... that would be one thing. These paranoid survivalists believe that their bunker will protect them from people. If someone wants what you have, you'd be a sitting duck... hiding in a hole. Good luck with that.

The most boring documentary I've ever seen, loaded with bland, empty shots that last three times longer than necessary and lack context or information, while no investigating was done, no information is provided at any time, there's no narrative, and there isn't even evidence these men are lonely per the synopsis...

This is more like random clips from trips to meet interesting people that completely wasted the opportunity to learn about them and how they live.

Presumably the "director" wanted the content to speak for itself except the end result is a movie that seems like it wasn't directed at all.

The byline is "Bunker investigates the lonely lives of American men who have decided to live in decommissioned military bunkers and nuclear missile silos, and follows the process of building and selling these structures to the wealthy and not-so-wealthy alike." In fact, there's no investigation, and no following of any process(es). This is one of those documentaries in which the filmmaker has chosen not to narrate or provide any background whatsoever on her subjects, presuming to let them speak for themselves. Now, this isn't in itself a flaw; one can do quite well with this technique in the form of an "oral history" - but only when the interview subjects provide all of the material necessary to form a *complete* picture. But we don't learn anything of their opportunities, investment, or effort, and it's highly presumptuous for these men's lives to be described as "lonely", when there's no such evidence presented e.g. Their back stories. And where it might be easy to dismiss these men as paranoid survivalists or luxury condo-hawking opportunist developers, living underground (or "earth-sheltered") is in fact a very reasonable and particularly energy-efficient thing to do - especially if you can get it prebuilt for a small fraction of the tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars the government originally put into it. Take the case of "Ed of Subterra" - he comes across as a hippy-dippy, peace-love-and-understanding kind of guy who's made his former-missile-silo "castle" as homey as any cabin out in the woods of Oregon, so why not actually tell us about him and the people in the photos? Instead, we're left with "presented without comment" and more questions than answers. I'll be waiting for the director's cut with an extra half hour of *meaningful* interviews with the subjects so we can learn what they're really about, because, based on the descriptions (as I haven't seen them) of Perlin's previous two efforts, I think she's capable of dealing with complex historical material like a grownup.