Bunker

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where should I start? I managed 20 mins of this facile movie on Prime, a record seeing as I am a WW1 buff who's grandfather was a British officer in the trenches at the Battle of the Somme. Stilted acting, looked like a bunch of enactors who got together for the movie. But enactors would not have got fundamentals wrong. The 'Lt' wears no rank badges that should have been on his lower sleeves. Out of nowhere, a very elderly man in U. S corporal rank with upside down stripes appears as a "Captain". I mean, how can you get this wrong? I couldn't work out who was supposed to be U. S or British. Squeky clean Lee Enfield rifles, with a smattering of P1917 U. S rifles. Mixed up kit both U. S and British. British with U. S style button up collars amoungst correct flat lapel type correct for British in WW1. Modern Jerry cans lying on the battlefield. The rankless British 'Lt' carrying a Lee Enfield instead of side arm, possibly acceptable if going on a raid. Shiney reproduction helmets when they were not green they were khaki and covered with a springling of sand to stop reflection. It went on and on until I just had to switch off my Boxing Day feet up relax. Awful and ridiculous.