If There's a Hell Below (2016) User Reviews

Untroubled by plot line

[S_Soma · 3/10 · 7 December 2016]

IF THERE'S A HELL BELOW

Having just finished watching IF THERE'S A HELL BELOW I can only see 2 possibilities. Either the plot line of this movie is a complete mess or dementia has set in on me in a big way.

The fundamental outline of the movie isn't anything new, which is not a problem in and of itself; some Technology Person working for A Giant Evil Corporation gets a Sore Conscience, fills a MacGuffin with Damning Evidence and tries to turn it over to the 4th Estate. The Giant Evil Corporation Goes After Her in Earnest. A Tense Chase ensues. Blah blah blah.

But, in this movie, and for no particular reason I can detect, events unfold with a bizarre sense of dreamlike unreality. As examples:

1. The majority of the movie takes place out in the middle of nowhere with vast fields of farmland stretching out into the distance. The would-be whistleblower insists on meeting her reporter-contact in such wide open circumstances as a security measure for their discussions and her turning over her information. So our heroes are out in the middle of nowhere, very peaceful and quiet, talking over their business together. Suddenly the whistleblower realizes there is a Chevy Tahoe or Suburban (or some such vehicle) parked not very far away. It's just sitting there. Gee, where did that come from?

The reporter is curious and the heroes hop in their vehicle and approach the mystery Chevy, and against the continuous stream of objections of the whistleblower, the reporter gets out of his vehicle, walks over to the Chevy and checks it out, looking in the windows, walking around it, and scanning the immediate area; why, there's Nobody There. No people. And no tall underbrush in the immediate area for any potential Chevy occupants to hide in. Reporter comments on the fact that there's nobody there.

So the whistleblower and the reporter turn around, drive away, and the Chevy IMMEDIATELY begins to follow them before they've traveled half a block. How did the Chevy manage to sneak up on them so quietly in the first place? It certainly makes plenty of noise in other scenes, all engine-growly and gravel-crunchy. Where did the Chevy people come from? How did they get out of the Chevy to hide in the first place without being seen/heard and how did they get back to the Chevy without being seen/heard? How is it that the reporter doesn't even notice the sudden presence of the vehicle fairly close behind them?

2. During the course of the movie, the representatives of the Giant Evil Corporation appear to have absolutely PERFECT knowledge of every action by our heroes and every word that ever passes between the whistleblower and the reporter. Literally every… single… word. There is, for instance, an arbitrary place the whistleblower hides her car keys before she even meets up with the reporter (although why this would have been a strategic advantage I have no idea…), and the bad guys know all about it. Apparently the bad guys could have collected the whistleblower and the reporter at any time given their perfect knowledge of everything that happens and the entire content of detailed conversations no matter where they occur.

How this perfect knowledge is accomplished is never explained, and the 2 bad guys appear to be nothing more than hired goons. And yet the reporter and whistleblower are quite successful the few times they actually make an effort to put some distance between themselves and their pursuers. In fact, as far as we can tell, the only reason the bad guys manage to catch up with the reporter and the whistleblower is as a result of the reporter going out of his way to behave like a complete moron.

3. Between the perfect knowledge the bad guys have (mentioned above) and how the reporter and whistleblower are effortlessly handled once captured, it's abundantly clear that the good guys were simply and thoroughly outclassed from before the beginning of the movie, although we have absolutely no understanding of how. The whistleblower is thrown into an open grave on top of the already- dead reporter and we watch 1 of the 2 bad guys thoughtfully pump 4 rounds into her at point-blank range. Yet somehow, in magical ways never revealed to us, when 1 of the bad guys goes back to the grave to sanitize that crime scene, the whistleblower APPARENTLY ("apparently" because we only see the aftermath and don't actually see it happen…) overpowers and kills the armed hit-man that returned to bury her, and gaily trots off into the open fields with all 4 rounds in her (with at least one that would seem to be in her head no less) while leaving no other trace.

How is this reasonable? How did the whistleblower, largely depicted as inept, suddenly gets so capable with 4 rounds in her? Why did she trot off into the fields with a perfectly good set of car keys and a car close at hand? And having found out about it, what is the reaction of the OTHER bad guy? He just gives up and runs away, gets into a private airplane and flies off into the night. The contract is utterly incomplete, there's a giant grave pit left open with a dead body in it just left there for the next farm vehicle to fall into, and the whistleblower is in the wind. Why has the perfect knowledge of the hit men suddenly failed them?

All-righty then. What a complete pig's breakfast of a plot line.

But the most fascinating thing to me about this bizarrely structured movie is that NOT ONE of the professionally written reviews that I read even MENTIONS the LSD-marinated, magic mushroom plot line, even in passing.

A journalist meets with a whistle blower about a secret that may get them into deep trouble.

[tkaine3 · 3/10 · 7 December 2016]

"This film will leave you pretty ticked off so don't watch it if you do not like your time to be wasted"

OK first off let me say from the beginning of the first scene in this movie which is a side ways shot of a wheat field and a windmill I was excited about watching this movie. The cinematography was beautiful at the least and the acting and dialogue was very intriguing. The Director and Writer of this film Nathan Williams along with Matthew Williams who I assume is his brother had a big opportunity for this film to strike a nerve but in a good way. But with such a slow moving story the suspense builds creating a urgency to find out what is the big secret, But when you risk being so mysterious and then don't deliver on the expectation of enlightenment then you can really anger someone who does not like there time to be wasted and sorry to say this movie is the poster child of that type of film. It's almost like they came up with a great scenario but didn't actually know how to make it practical in reality for us to see why this could be happening so they decided to not even try to give it a cause or a reason. Like shouting out it's a conspiracy theory with no actual conspiracy to point at.When some films end and you may be a little upset as to what really happened in the last scene is one thing, But when you don't know why or even how something happened is totally another. And I can't help but feel sorry for the donators who helped raise crowd funding money for this indie film to feel like ripping there hair out because they were only paying for a good idea great cinematography and acting.I think the Williams are very talented and can do better in the future.I also support indie films as much as the next movie junky but take caution and do not watch this film in theaters it will not be a fun ride home. So a 3 is what I give this film which had potential to be an eight if Matthew and Nathan had only put more work into finishing out this mystery and creating an actual developing story. Also If anyone can even figure out why the movie is even titled "If There Is A Hell Below" Please leave a review or comment on the holes in the film at the end or even how that could of happened.

Anybody out there who can explain it to me?

[peterp-450-298716 · 4/10 · 19 April 2017]

"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

Lambs pursued by Lions

[refordgarry · 5/10 · 8 December 2016]

I wanted to be first to review this one, but having got completely stuck over the end felt a bit annoyed over the lack of rational explanation. On reflection I'm beginning to believe that was the point. If true it was the only good point, accidental or casual.

Those confronted by the sight of a dowdy, middle-aged woman trussed like a turkey and rendered helpless might feel a little perturbed, but the underlying tone of this movie - its odd camera angles, the splendid isolation of the great American prairie land and the relentless pursuance of the witness-protection wannabees by that fearful SUV vehicle is pretty creepy anyway.

I did watch it to the end, which is something. I'd like to offer a basic "moral" to this movie: that Hell hath no fury like a racked-off government agency, and if so it's not the Hell down below that need concern a whistle-blower.

Driving...Driving...Driving me insane...

[adonis29 · 1/10 · 8 December 2016]

I registered on IMDb just to write this review. This was the most boring, pointless movie ever created on this planet. I honestly want back the 1:34 hours of my life. This movie has basically no plot. Nothing happens, and when you think that something is going to happen, then nothing again happens. Maybe if you own a driving school you might find this movie a bit interesting, maybe to help you treat your insomnia. The movie is consisted of 4 actors in total. In the half of the movie the 2 actors are talking about non sense stuff. If you manage to stay conscious until the half of the movie, make a strong coffee if you have something important to do after watching the movie. The rest of the movie..huh..is basically a (boring) silence. The rest of the actors are just driving..and driving in the most painful and ugly highway. I can't think of any interesting part in this movie. I realized that staring the wall in a dark room is way more interesting than this .. I don't know how to call it. A boring sedative maybe ? Well...Some might be sleeping during the movie and some might get upset because of the annoyingly boring and non-existent plot.

what a load of rubbish

[phgphg-03679 · 1/10 · 6 June 2017]

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 !

Whose conspiracy?

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 6 June 2017]

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.

FFW thru !

[kennethokpe · 2/10 · 21 July 2019]

WHY ? !?! Oh why ?!? Serious waste of time man :/ Terrible . Terrible.....

A anything BUT a simple spy film

[wteeb · 8/10 · 17 December 2016]

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.

Highly Underrated Movie!

[thehoptenon · 9/10 · 7 April 2017]

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 ...