Aux

Suspense, thrills, excitement, not in this film. I am sorry to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. The script was unbelievable, in the sense it was not remotely plausible and just shockingly bad. Despite having some good actors involved it appears they couldn't manage to breathe any life into this dreary film. The failure to develop any characters to any meaningful level meant there was no attachment to any of them. This lead to a lack of any feeing of suspense or any interest at all in their fate. It was a struggle to watch this film. I wasn't squirming with fear of a supernatural psychopath but of a fear it would never end. A good premise but very poorly executed.

"Soldier Of War" is a great microbudget fright flick that embraces all the familiar tropes and thrills British horror has always provided. The story is too original, but it is creative, and intriguing. Instead of the unknown furry beast in the woods, the film brings in an undead killer still locked into the war that created him. It is both zombie and slasher.

The cast offer above par, sometimes compelling performances. Some scenes trip up a bit and the dialog gets clunky, but most of the time the delivery and chemistry is spot on. The story becomes exciting due to the presence of some talented actors and one lethal killing machine. Even with the overall product seeming formulaic and familiar, Adams offers a great semi-indie fright flick.

Overall I recommend "Soldier Of War". It isn't your typical zombie movie. It rests comfortably between classic and contemporary horror. The special effects, for the most part, is practical bloody awesomeness. Now there are elements that are recognizable in other films, but none of that encombers this flick, which starts of with bloodletting and maintains that level of carnage till the bloody end.

When I sat down to watch "Aux" (aka "Soldier of War"), I had expected more of a zombiesque movie. However, that was not the case, and I was in for a less than mediocre foray into the horror genre.

The storyline in "Aux" was just so stupid that it was hard to buy into it, especially since 70 years of decomposition would have left the British undead soldier in a far, far worse state than he was. And it was just a ludicrous plot actually.

Not even John Rhys-Davies could manage to lift this movie up from the mediocre gutter. And he wasn't really all that big a part of the movie actually, which was a shame, because he could have brought so much more enjoyment to the movie.

This entire movie just felt like an ambitious low budget project. I am sure that the heart and spirit was in the right place of writers John Adams and Peter Adams, but translated to the screen, the storyline and plot just didn't really take off.

I managed to sit through this entire movie, hoping that it would pick up and become more interesting. It just never happened. So with it watched, I am sure that it will be obliterated from memory within a short time, because it left absolutely no memorable impression.

This is not the type of movie that you'' watch more than once, provided that you even watch it the first time.

My Ratings: Story 1.00 : Direction 1.25 : Pace 1.25 : Acting 1.25 : Entertaining 1.50 Total 6.25 out of 10.00

As I've stated in many reviews, I do like a good surprise. The surprise here was how much I enjoyed this film. Especially as the story has some glaringly weak points, and the film is shot in digital and not analogue, and some of the acting is as wooden as it can get.

The story is about a forgotten soldier from World War II. Dead and abandoned in a secret underground bunker. That is, until two teenage boys, hunting squirrels, rabbits, and the like, literally stumble across the hidden opening. Well, I guess you know what happens next(?) That's right; they go home and live happily ever after... Well, not quite. Only one lad makes it home... er... I'm lying again, he only makes it to the hospital... before he too karks it.

From here on out, chaos, murder, and mayhem are the rule of the day.

The element I liked, in particular, was the killings. More rightly, their motivation and implementation. This lifts the film a smidgen out of The Slasher sub-genre. This killer is trained in guerrilla warfare and psychology. This is highlighted best in the scene where the missing woman has been stripped, scalped, and hung between two trees for the soldiers and the police to discover. However, I didn't think the concept was utilised fully throughout the story.

Another good component was the characters and their traits and peculiarities. Predominantly, these characters are believable and relatable. I loved the female PC who, after the boy's hospitalisation, wanted to search for his friend; though "The Friend" could have been a figment of his imagination. The scene between the two coppers as she asks permission is true and empathetic. I could see myself in this woman's actions.

There's also the officious, sanctimonious, and sarcastic jerk of a boss, in the form of DI Reed. This guy is so well written by John and Peter Adams, and portrayed by Paul Reynolds, you want the soldier to do his dirty work with him.

However, there are some serious structure and plotting issues too. When the lad in the hospital dies, it's the doctor who passes on the last words to the detectives. Except it's more like a soliloquy rather than his dying breath. This would have worked better had we seen the boy acting out his death scene. As it stands, all I could think was, Yeah! Right!

There's also a heavy-handed and awkward scene between the missing boy's parents and the cops. I had the impression the Adams brothers were making a sarcastic statement about the state of the youth and parenting habits of today. Especially when the unconcerned Ma and Pa state, "They're teenagers! They do what they want nowadays." It didn't help that the parents were actors from the wooden school of acting either.

The most heinous thing about the story is the reason soldier Bob Pierce is still active and enlivened. He REALLY hates Nazi's. Oh, God! Couldn't they have at least used the oldie-but-goodie, the super-secret reanimating gas the defence department developed? This is a major flaw in the storytelling. As is the soldier's demise - just to warn you.

Now, I have stated I don't like digital media and I still don't. It gives the film a cheapness and an amateurish look. This film would have looked so much better, either shot on film stock or higher grade digital cameras. Using digital effects, often, make the scene look inadequate. The pow and shock, you should get, become lame and powerless. The reason the strung up woman scene works well is because it's real, authentic and substantial. John Adams, who directed, should have stuck to this style of effect.

Apart from that, his direction is above average. The scene with Unwin walking through the barn is both shot and structured well. There's the right amount of infused tension and threat. However, it's the ending of the scene that works best as Unwin flings open the barn doors to safety... and is nearly run over by a police car with blues and twos going.

Another great surprise is the skill of the cast. For a budget move, there are a lot of cast members with lines. Granted, some, like the above-mentioned parents of the missing boy, are wooden and hammy. However, these are few and spatter through the film. My favourite characters have to be; DI Reed, as mentioned above, who is superbly brought to annoying life by Paul Reynolds. The strong and confident Jane Dale is portrayed, just as powerfully, by Tanya Franks. And I have always liked John Rhys-Davies, he is one of the main reasons I watched the film. He comes across as he always does, and he never lets his accent slip.

This is one of those love it or hate it movies. I can understand why many people would be put off. However, I believe you should give it a try. It's strangely enjoyable for all its faults. Because there are more positives. Just leave your brain at the door, and enjoy.

Cast your gaze across to my Absolute Horror list to see where this weirdly pleasing film ranked. Who knows, you may find your next fave, or at the very least, your next feature to watch.

Take Care and Stay Well.

Aux otherwise known as Soldier of War is an independent British horror movie, but one which badly suffers from mediocrity and incompetence.

You see Aux is really poorly made, awfully structured, dreadful sfx, naff creature effects and a mediocre cast. They swung above their weight on the budget they had, a point I'm often making that badly needs to stop.

To make up for the lack of budget they use a time tested method, namely not showing us what we want to see and hiding the antagonist away with selective camera angles. This makes the whole thing look cheap and nasty, because it simply is.

John Rhys-Davies looks out of place here, he's simply too good for this movie. He does however have a long history of acting in such roles which raises questions, is he "Paying back to the industry that made him"? alike people like Robert Englund? I mean this is the man who got fired from Sliders (1995) for criticizing the scripts, I highly doubt he's impressed with the writing in all these dreadful b-movies he pops up in.

What saves it to a degree is the concept. It tells the story of an undead soldier who has risen believing that the country is under attack by the Germans, thus a bloodbath ensues. Truth be told I liked this and the more that comes out about the soldier and the entire situation it gets better.

Great ideas, poor execution.

The Good:

John Rhys-Davies

Neat concept

The Bad:

Stock scream

Poor cgi

Some ropey acting