Aux

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.

Nothing to redeem this catastrophe. The reason why extremely-low-budget British films are generally avoided and laughed at.

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

I would love to be able to give this film a ten because the premise is actually really smart, but it gets let down by not having the resources to deliver the scale and quality of effects needed to do the idea justice. It starts as a slasher film but quickly hints at supernatural undertones and neatly meshes the slasher/creature genres until the twist. No spoilers but John Rhys-Davies (who is as always superb here - "Nobody tosses a dwarf!") provides a chilling monologue that grounds the story in the true history of WWII, delivered in a way that is emotive, thought provoking and entirely unusual in this type of movie! I was utterly hooked from the first ten minutes, which are basically non-stop action, but the WWII hook really grabbed me and had me on the edge of my seat for the last act (basically an advance to battle which would've benefitted from a lot more troops!) I was still thinking about the story the next day and looked a few of the facts up on Google to check if stuff mentioned in the film really happened. Really recommend checking this out as long as you can look past its budget restrictions. Would love to see this concept remade with more money.

The concept for 'Aux' was a sort of interesting one, if in the danger of being silly. The cover and advertising was quite advertising. And although John Rhys Davies has been in his fair share of bad projects, he also has been in his fair share of good stuff too and he is a reliable actor and my main reason for seeing it.

'Aux' for me was not a bad film, much better than has been said already (and certainly don't have bias against low-budget British films, there are bad ones definitely but not all) and does have its pros. It is far from great and has a lot of big problems that outweigh the pros, but there are far worse films out there that are much more cheaply made, worse acted, less atmosphere, more intelligence insulting and made with much less effort.

Best thing about 'Aux' is Davies, cast against type and giving a haunted performance that is different from the usual authority figure or characters with a blustery nature. Actually generally found the adult cast better than average.

Production values could have been worse, it at least looks coherent and there is slickness and atmosphere. Parts do compel and unsettle, though they don't come consistently, the car crash and bunker scene particularly as well as the gruesomeness of the killings.

However, 'Aux' does get off to a weak start. It is rather dull, inexperience does show in the acting and the dialogue is particularly off in a script that feels awkward and underwritten. While the production values as said above could have been worse, it can feel on the confined and too compact side even if the bleak look does fit the concept. Effects are somewhat ropy.

Story does pick up a little after the shaky start, but does lack generally creepiness, tension and suspense, let down by a pace that needed a tighten and too much talk. A few parts, like the out of place picnic scene, come over as unintentionally funny and while 'Aux' does try to provide a reason for the killings it was for me not an original or compelling one, and some of it veers towards being too silly. The direction is uneven and other than Davies' character the characters are flimsily developed.

Overall, not particularly good but could have been much worse. 4/10 Bethany Cox