Pluskylang Great Film overall

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Mark Hale "The Bunker" features a cast of fine British character actors and Charley Boorman. That's not to say that Boorman isn't good in his role, just that this film is more his level. Guys like Jason Flemyng, Jack Davenport, Christopher Fairbank and even TV regulars Eddie Marsan and Andrew Tiernan could do this sort of film in their sleep, although they all pitch in to "The Bunker" with enthusiasm.Well, I say "enthusiasm" but I mean war-weary cynicism. The film is set at the nadir of the Third Reich and all the actors in "The Bunker" portray German soldiers in varying degrees of despair or denial. This was what kept me watching the film, as the men stuck in the bunker were forced to face some unknown evil and ended up tearing themselves (and each other) apart. It's a variation on the standard "Old Dark House" horror theme and it works quite well, but "The Bunker" brings very little that's new or exciting to the screen. There aren't many shocks - more a sense of creeping dread as events unfold, and what could be referred to as "The Twist" at the end has been regularly signposted all the way through the story with grainy flashback scenes.You may enjoy it but this old couch potato won't bother with "The Bunker" again. It's a quality production let down by a 6-bob screenplay.

snared04 I read the cover of this movie and thought that it would be a zombie movie, WWII style, a la Day of the Dead. However... this movie swirled around the deep recesses of the darkness in which it was filmed, only to arrive at virtually nothing.Throughout the movie, the writers attempt some kind of commentary on the evils of Nazi Germany, but seems to focus on very strange, peripheral evils, rather than on some of the big ones.Aside from all this, there apparently isn't any kind of creature(s) roaming the depths of the bunker, and all the men that die are at each other's hands, thanks to some kind of hallucinogenic gas in the tunnels.The ending has the feeling of some kind of "trial by fire", the only problem being that we were never really clearly given the emotional struggle of the character(s).The best part of the movie was the fact that this small platoon of Germans was played by British actors, who didn't even attempt to hide their accents.Perhaps not a complete was of my life, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Rob H Believe me, this is a generous four.The acting was surprisingly sound for a movie of this caliber. It's probably what kept me from giving this movie an even lower rating. There's no real character development, but I didn't expect much in the first place.Don't let any of these other reviews fool you. This is NOT a good movie. Is it a horror flick? Nah. Is it a historical war film? No, not really. I'm still having a tough time deciding how to classify it. It certainly isn't scary enough to be considered a horror, and there's not nearly enough fighting to consider it a war movie. So what is it really? In a nutshell, it's a bunch a bunch of German soldiers (who oddly enough, sound very British), trapped in a bunker as the enemy advances upon them. With nowhere to go, it seems as if they will eventually succumb to the advancing allied forces. But alas, the tunnels! Only one problem, there's some kind of "thing" roaming them. Not that it matters, we see it but once the entire movie. In their paranoia, the Germans end up killing themselves, and the movie abruptly ends with two escaping through a hole in the ground. Nothing ever really happens. Ever. I'm sitting here now, still waiting for something to spark my interest. It just never happened.If you like sitting around for an hour and a half only to feel very disappointed at the end, go ahead and see it. Otherwise, it would be wise to stay away, no matter how tempting it may seem to see this "movie".

Andrew Jakiel The first thing that got my attention when I saw this movie on the shelf was the cover. Being located in the horror section I thought that this movie might provide a different outlet in a genre that is dominated by sequels and knockoffs of what is common right now (I can only imagine the amount of saw knockoffs that will be flooding the market in the next few years).But I was rather disappointed with the movie and am surprised how it got a decent rating on IMDb (are these people watching the same movie that I am or do they simply have relatives that star in this film?) The action wasn't too bad and the characters and their acting was better than what you would expect from a direct to video movie. But to classify this movie as horror is probably the biggest mistake that the director made. Now I'm not saying that it should be placed in the historical section of your local video store, but I can't honestly say that there was a moment when I was truly scared.There are some points of suspense but the director I believe fails to capitalize on this moments and get a jump out of the audience. I knew renting this movie that I wasn't going to be seeing a cult-classic or anything that was Oscar worthy but I was let down at the ending. I guess on the plus side I was never bored enough to want to turn the movie off, but that isn't saying that much.In the end I would say not to rent this movie unless you are truly a WWII buff and want to see a story based on that time period. This movie wasn't even like the typical B horror movies where you are laughing throughout the movie and not in a state of panic or fear as the director had intended with his project. This movie got a 4 from me because it wasn't the worse thing I've seen but I am still being somewhat generous with my rating.