Bunker

Usually low budget horror movies tend to be the better ones because of their creativity and creepy tone. Take your pick: Evil Dead (1981), night of the living dead (1968), Elm St (1984), and even last year's Barbarian. These movies rely of a setting, decent cast, creepy music, and some kind of scary reveal. Bunker has potential but bombs.

I thought maybe the slow pace was equal to a slow burn that pays off in the end. This is like watching a bad M. Night Shamalan movie. No pay off and just a plain dumb ending, especially when the monster is revealed. The audience I saw this with laughed at the ending and you just might too when you see what I'm talking about.

Disappointing because the setting could have worked. WW1 soldiers hide in bunker behind enemy lines during war. Their lives at stake causes them to duck into the bunker unaware there's something very spooky in their. That's all I'm gonna say in case you're still curious. I'll admit the first act did draw my attention but then after that I got so bored at one point I thought about walking out. As for the big reveal, well when you see it you may feel cheated.

You could wait for Redbox or Netflix on this one. Save the $11 ticket fee and get a pizza instead.

Bunker is horror/thriller film that clearly has a small budget. My girlfriend, one of my best friends and I all saw Bunker in a theater as part of the limited release.

We all generally liked it (we all gave it a 6/10), but agreed it could have been a lot better. We are all horror fans, and my friend and I both have degrees in World War I history.

There is a lot of good in this movie, including the acting of the lieutenant, the creature effects, the setting, and the costumes. I was really curious how that would work out, especially since there is a giant Hollywood trend to have WW1 set films (1917 and All Quiet on the Western Front come to mind, both movies I enjoyed). Needless to say, it is pretty immersive in the time period (except for a few obvious uses of green screen).

However, one aspect that really drags this film down is how inconsistent it is. For example, the acting of the main character varies from good and committed to distracting and over the top, the special effects are good (sometimes) and other times involve terrible CGI or obvious use of miniatures. The tension building is sometimes fantastic, and sometimes leads to absolutely nothing or repeats what we as an audience already know.

But the biggest problem with this film is the inconsistency of the pacing. If you've seen the trailer, there is clearly a lot of build up to the plot of this movie (they go in the Bunker and find something). I'm not against slowly paced films (I quite enjoyed some of these types of horror films, namely the Witch), but there is a giant middle portion of this movie that drags. This film is just under 2 hours, but feels easily like a 2 hour and 15 minute film.

I don't think it was worth watching in theaters, but if this film came on Shudder or Netflix, I'd give it a watch.

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.

Whew this isn't a great movie. I wouldn't waste your time.

However, what really caught my attention was one reviewers comments. They claimed that during WW1 the Americans fought with the Germans and then followed it up with this comment...."It doesn't take a genius to know a little about history." Apparently it does.

The Germans never fought with the Americans during either WW1 or WW2. They entered both wars late (1916 and 1942 respectively) but were on the side of the Allies.

I know this review has nothing to do with the actual movie but considering we now have all historical information at our fingertips via the internet, such comments just shocking.