If There's a Hell Below

THE most boring , stupid film i have ever had the misfortune to watch !What moron made this utter tripe? the conversations were stupid , most of the film was spent in silence and when there was dialogue it was pointless , there was no story , when the producers watched the movie after making it , did they not realise it was a load of rubbish , i should be paid damages for wasting a hour and half of my life , there is no saving grace to this movie , i'm warning you , don't watch !

Yes, this movie is highly underrated. You expect a block buster? Don't do that. The perfection lies in it's simplicity, that's why it feels very life-like. I watched it without any previous information, or idea about the plot. The story runs on a smaller scale in terms of action or location, but as again, the facial expressions, the smaller gestures, simple but tense twists on the story add up to a great, dark play. The movie brilliantly drives your expectations towards the outcome. I am please with the experience and I genuinely hope that we live in a better world than this and no one has to go though on things like this in real life ...

While watching Nathan Williams's "If There's a Hell Below", I got the feeling that it was a criticism of the so called War on Terrorism. At least that's what I assumed. A lot of the movie comes across as nearly aimless wondering across the barren landscape of eastern Washington state, with a journalist from Chicago meeting a woman who claims to have inside information about a nefarious plot. Minimalist but intense, the movie does address issues of cover-ups, but seems to do so without connecting the topic to anything major (except for a quick line about Snowden, Manning and Assange).

It's an OK movie, but could've been a more coherent one.

This is not a film for everyone. For those who like spy movies where you need to think then this is a film for you.

You are confronted observing a meeting of a whistle-blower and minor league journalist. As I was watching the movie I was actually angry watching the things that Abe (the journalist) would be doing being in such a dangerous situation. Gosh, he gives the impression of just being on a country ride with a stranger and needs to hurry for the evening night out on the town. Elementary understanding of the world of spies would have any intelligent journalist taking Valium just to get through the whole thing. Nehh, not Abe, he knows no fear.

The elementary spy craft that is needed in such a situation is suggested in the movie but is never fulling displayed to the viewer resulting in opinions of incredulity, "Now how could that happen ?". Pickup some Ludlum books or watch some good spy movies with Matt Damon and you will understand. Gene Hackman was in a good one. This stuff is in this movie but you just don't see it. Hence you have to think to understand how it was done.

Someone complained about the ending having no sense, film not being resolved for the viewer. Well I think that that is the strength of the movie and its specific ending. You are confronted with the unexpected. This should lead one to analyze THE WHOLE movie and scrutinize all the players and what they said, what they did etc. OK, this would be a process best done with others, similar to what we so often saw in Sherlock Holmes movies.

The players give us clues who they are but we need to do the work to try and fit this information into a coherent picture. This will lead to different interpretations as not everyone will see the same details and interpret them in the same way. And there are hidden details in this movie which in my mind could easily carry over to another movie being produced.

Someone complains about the gravely road making a lot of noise and finding it hard to believe that the Watcher's vehicle would not be heard as it "suddenly" parked itself not far away from the silos. Well the noise grave road is the short segment near the silos. The main road is not asphalt quiet, but it is significantly quieter. Add to this the fact that HER back is mostly always facing where the Watcher's vehicle will be parked and it is not surprising she did not notice it. Additionally, when you are occupied talking your conscious mind is not in two places at the same time. Hence slowly moving vehicle could potentially sneak-up on them.

OK, I am not going to spoil the fun but will advise that this movie requires that you watch it twice. If one does not have an eye for details and remembers then a second viewing is required. Without the details the movie seems meaningless and that is just fine for people in the World of Spies and Guns.

"You know why people like Snowden f*cked up? Because they became the story."

I really like to watch non-traditional, artistic and mysterious films where there's room for a little bit of interpretation. Such a movie with different layers you ponder about afterwards. The problem with "If there's a hell below" (and no, it's not horror) is the fact that little is offered to ponder about. As uninformed as you start the movie, as uninformed you'll be at the end of the film. Truly an explanation of what's exactly going on, you shouldn't be expecting. To be honest, you end up with more unanswerable questions. And my biggest frustration is that I really wanted to know what Debra (Carol Roscoe) wanted to bring out into the open.

Debra is a whistle blower working for the US government (I'm assuming) who planned a secret interview with the young journalist Abe (Connor Marx) for months already . As a "senior information processing engineer" it would have been better if she had searched a bit better through Abe's background, because In my opinion this guy wasn't fit for the job. She knew his name, social security number and who he called that day. You can say she has her reliable sources. But finding out that he's a pedantic smart ass who can't or doesn't want to estimate the seriousness of this case, probably was too much to ask. Debra wants to reveal something that concerns the national security. What implications this information will bring after revealing it and why Debra wants to do this initially, isn't explained thoroughly. Something about a list of names and a hysterical plea about leaders who manipulate poor people to make sure people like Abe can have their necessary gadgets. Yes, it's rather vague.

Debra sees herself as a better version of Snowden, Manning and Assange because according to her their own personality came first instead of focusing on the essence of what was being revealed. The information she's about to reveal obviously is very sensitive information. Before they know it, they are being chased by an unknown SUV. The biggest annoyance for me (beside the complete lack of information) was mainly Abe's behavior. When you're preparing for a secret meeting with someone from the intelligence service for several months already and you know she's going to reveal some highly sensitive information with far-reaching consequences, you should also assume this isn't without risk. Well, apparently Abe doesn't see it that way and looks at it as a typical fait d'hiver. Why else would he briefly take a look at the suspicious SUV? And he refuses to continue driving during a pursuit, because Debra can't or won't give him a detailed explanation. Plain stupid and quite annoying.

"If there's a hell below" certainly won't be appreciated by everyone. It is fairly minimalistic and mainly displays stylistic images of a bone dry, flat desert landscape with Debra and Abe having some superficial conversations while driving through this landscape with an occasional stop. That's another thing I was wondering about. Why the hell did they meet in this region? It's impossible to hide for anyone. The only deviating elements were the two stories told by Abe and one of the pursuers. Although the film is painfully slow, there are some moments of intense tension.

But I can tell you one thing. After the credits you will look in amazement at the screen, totally confused and full of questions that'll never be answered. I have no idea why it had to end like this. Were there hidden clues in the two stories about the caterpillars and turtles? Was it intentional of Abe to put false facts in his story? Couldn't he foresee that Debra knew the composition of his family? And how could Schafer know certain elements of that story? Was the story of the turtles a kind of parable? A hint about Debra? About her destiny? And what was the device Debra used in the beginning? Too many questions and no answers. Just guesses. For some, this will be the strength of the film. Room for interpretation. Well, it was a stylistic work of art. In terms of story however, it was a bit too enigmatic to me.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT