Bunker

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.