Bunker

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.

In my best Joe Biden voice: 'C'mon man!' It's WW1. Trench warfare. Acres of black mud. Rotting bodies. Flies.

The uniforms, the trenches, the faces, the props -- all cleaner than a mall display at Abercrombie and Fitch. Seriously, if you had A&F do a little mannequin scene in their store in a WW1 theme, it would look like this movie.

It took me right out of the movie. Little things like accurate ranks, dirty uniforms, squalid environment, would go a long, long way. Takes minutes of research.

Guess the crew just didn't care.

I think the actors and the director have potential. Maybe put a little more research into future projects.

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.

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.

When I stumbled upon the 2022 movie "Bunker" from writer Michael Huntsman and director Adrian Langley, I hadn't even heard about it. But seeing it was a war-based horror movie, of course I opted to watch it.

Writer Michael Huntsman failed to deliver a particularly thrilling storyline here for director Adrian Langley to bring to the screen. Sure, the concept behind "Bunker" was interesting enough, but the execution of it was just downright too monotonous, slow paced and uneventful. And that made 108 minutes seem like quite the prolonged suffering.

And it was exactly that. Because it was only the last 5 minutes of the movie that proved overly interesting. Needless to say that by then, the ship had long sailed and the movie was beyond salvation.

I wasn't familiar with the cast in the movie, but the actors virtually had nothing wholesome or solid to work with from writer Michael Huntsman.

Visually then "Bunker" was okay. It was a pretty low-key special effects movie, which in itself was okay, as the movie hardly felt like it needed an impressive array of special effects.

"Bunker" was a swing and a miss of a movie, and it is not something I would recommend you waste your time, money or effort on.

My rating of "Bunker" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.