If There's a Hell Below : It starts off slow, and then eventually continues to be slow.

I don't mind slow movies. Especially if they seem to be a slow-burner that is creating tension and building up to some clever/ironic/surprising gut-punch. Sadly, this movie spent all its time building up to nothing. It had long, anticipation-building stretches of silence, and some very "talky" sections, but they never went anywhere. Two different people told a story from their childhood, and I never understood the point of either.

Perhaps someone else can fill me in on the plot, because I sorted through the coals and couldn't find one. There's a journalist and someone he's meeting up with at a gas station. She leaves her car there and gets in his car. To tell some bombshell, dangerous secret. Which never gets told. So, you're never in on what the intrigue is all about.

Then some unidentified men kidnap them, and they get the flash drive, which had recorded the conversation between the journalist and whistleblower, but she hadn't even really said much on anyway. So, the journalist gets taken out, shot and tossed in an open grave. One kidnapper tells the whistlebower that the journalist's childhood story was fiction, without telling the audience what significance that might be. Then the whistleblower is take out, tossed in the same open grave and shot. Then the two kidnappers meet at the gas station seen at the beginning of the movie. One kidnapper drives off in the whistleblower's car. Seconds later, the other kidnapper drives off as well. They both end up back at the place where they'd killed the victims. The whistelblower's car is there, but the kidnapper is not. Second kidnapper looks in the open grave, and the reporter is still there, but the whistleblower is not. He walks around in the fields and finds the second kidnapper dead, and the whistleblower's jacket. Then, he gets in an airplane and flies off.

I didn't understand the plot at all, if there was one. I suspect there wasn't. What was the secret? Who were the kidnappers? Was the journalist a journalist? Who was the whistleblower? We will never know. Which is too bad, because I was willing to put up with how slow it was if there would have been a payoff at the end.

Might have been simpler if you had just written the synopsis where it should go. Appreciate it though, seriously. I was watching it and it kind of dragged on. Glad to know I wasn't going to miss anything by stopping.

This poster has been deleted by the message

Odd that they don't resolve anythingMaybe that is the point. Whistles get blown and nothing gets resolved.

I think I figured it out after all.




This poster has been deleted by the message

The reason I didn't post it as a synopsis was that I wasn't sure I actually had the synopsis correct. That's why I asked if I was missing something. ;)

I enjoyed that things weren't explained. One of the few movies I've seen this year that I have still thought about 48 hours later.

I didn't mind the the slow burn and open ended ending. The character dialogue and interaction was interesting enough to me for a 90 minute movie that I was left satisfied.

Oh, I agree. It's not like other movies where I gritted my teeth and forced myself to watch it to the end just because I had invested my time already.

I was generally interested throughout the whole movie. I wanted to know more about who these people were, and why they were doing what they were doing. I enjoyed what dialogue there was, and appreciated when there was none. It was filmed beautifully.

And, unlike other movies, where I was left feeling angry about being left in the dark, I didn't feel that way about this one. I was just left puzzled.

But, you are right it did make me think. What I have concluded (and may be wrong about) is that unlike other similar movies that I would have been irritated with, that didn't provide a clear plot because one had never been written, or had been written poorly, I almost think it's like the movie began with a plot, and then it was stripped down bare. And, then those bones were stripped down further. Like, the left the absolute minimum necessary to tell a story. What story that is, I do not know.

It was slow, however. And, puzzling. If people enjoy that, they'll like it. I didn't really like it or dislike it, myself.

Contrast the childhood stories of the journalist and the hitman. The journalist was shown mercy by adults and allowed to keep some of the caterpillars as pets - a formative experience. The hitman was forced to abandon his turtle to die in a storm, or so he thought. When he discovered with his young daughter that the turtle was alive ("you just never know") it triggered a transformation of his consciousness. It was a message from the universe - a kind of redemption. A part of his life story which had a deep metaphorical meaning to him and had led him on a path to his profession had suddenly changed retrospectively. The other hitman put it all together (the vomiting, the story) and suspected rightly that the bearded guy had only pretended to shoot the whistle-blower. He intended to let her escape since she would know she needed to disappear forever and would know how to accomplish it so his ass would be covered professionally. He went back to fill in the grave of the journalist but, rather than escape, she was waiting for him in hiding. Was the real operation a hit on the hitman who had gone soft? The "ghost" that she ate?

Great insight, this made me like the movie even more.

Thanks

Yes, good insights. Not having understood the importance of the juxtaposing stories is why I couldn't figure out why kidnapper #2 went back to the grave site. It makes more sense now. Great catch on the theme of transformation.

I'm starting to think perhaps more of the movie hinges on those stories than I thought. Which would explain why I felt the plot had been double-stripped in order to keep only the minimal needed to tell the story. "Telling the story", literally. The people who didn't tell a story, the whistle-blower and kidnapper #1 are alive, and the people who did are dead. And, the whistle-blower really, really wanted to "tell her story", but wasn't able to.

Perhaps being so simple as revolving around the old journalism saying "kill the story"? That might be a stretch, but it might not be, also.

I got the feeling I had missed something about the journalist's story. Kidnapper #1 had made a point of revealing to the whistle-blower that his story was obviously a lie. I had initially thought that meant he was telling her that they dude wasn't a journalist. Now I'm thinking it had a deeper meaning. His false tale was all about getting the chance to save the caterpillars, thinking they'd transform, but when they didn't act as expected, instead of letting them go, he killed them. Perhaps implying that if her story didn't pan out the way he expected, he would kill it?

Maybe kidnapper #1 spared her because, unlike the journalist, her story was probably true? I had thought that he'd vomited because he just wasn't good with killing, but it didn't show him vomiting after killing the journalist. Maybe he was vomiting because he knew that if anyone found out he hadn't offed the whistle-blower, he was in big trouble? Vomiting because he didn't kill, and there'd be repercussions?

Thank you for bringing those ideas together. I may have to watch it again with that in mind. I still haven't figured out what was in kidnapper #1's hand, though.

Thanks - I was wondering what was in his hand too. It looked like a silencer maybe but not sure.

It looked like there'd been a tussle for the gun and the silencer came off.

I'm driving my wife insane by re-telling stories about Boxo and Boxie like they were my own childhood memories.

Your poor wife!

You never can tell