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.

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.

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.

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.