Well, it's time to draw Octo-Boll to a close, and we'll be continuing on in the same cheerful vein of last week's Seed with our concluding entry. It takes a brave director to tackle a subject like Auschwitz, but there's no doubting that Uwe Boll is a director who doesn't lack for bravery. It certainly taps into the common political thread in many of Boll's movies – the Rampage trilogy is loaded with social commentary brought to us through the mouth of Bill Williamson, and Attack on Darfur and Assault on Wall Street carry an equal weight on that front. But what sort of power does Auschwitz hold as a movie in its own right?


We begin – and indeed close – with a small statement from Boll, in both German and English, talking about why he wanted to make this particular movie. Again the interest and passion for politics and the state of the world is very much apparent here, and the intent there is doubtless to ensure that people don't forget the impact of the awful events that took place in Auschwitz or indeed ignore some of the atrocities being committed around the world right now.

The film itself is comprised of two separate segments – there are a handful of interviews with schoolchildren about the events of Auschwitz, which are interesting in their own right. As someone in their mid-thirties it's sometimes easy to lose touch of what the newer generation thinks of things and what understanding they have of events that we often take for granted. However it feels to me like there are a few too many of these, and I think I could have lived with more of the main thread of the movie set within Auschwitz.
 
It's immediately apparent from Boll's intro that there's not going to be any heroics or Hollywood makeovers to events here – the presentation of in Auschwitz is very frank and very unadorned, and doesn't really follow much of a narrative structure. In fact it's almost documentary style and is basically a sort of 'day in the life' of the concentration camp. It's likely not as visually grotesque as it could have been, but it certainly packs a punch in the emotional stakes, with slews of Jewish prisoners arriving only to be stripped naked and pushed into the gas chambers – all shown pretty unflinchingly – including elderly people and children among the victims. There's also some unpleasant scenes later on as we start to see the bodies being burned in ovens. On top of that, there's also a smattering of footage from the time, which certainly hasn't lost any of its emotional impact all these years on.
 
Auschwitz certainly is a movie that gets its point across in a host of different ways, and it's likely a benefit that it has a slightly shorter runtime because it's simply not about narrative drive. If it were too long, that lack of arcs and character journeys would be a serious problem, but the actual filmed 'mockumentary' element runs less than an hour and doesn't suffer much from offering almost a vignette approach. It's bald and unfurnished, and doesn't aim to do anything more than drive home the absolute horrors of what happened at Auschwitz. In that sense it's perfectly effective, and draws a strong comparison with Attack on Darfur, although that one has rather more of a recognisable three-act structure than this one. It's almost better not to approach this one as a film and more like a dramatised documentary, and taken in that context it does a good job.

RATING: 6.5/10. Another very solid Boll offering, with a heartfelt introduction and conclusion from the director himself, some interesting insight in terms of the knowledge and beliefs of the younger generation and a decently delivered documentary-style segment that doesn't shy from some of the terrible incidents of the time. With all that said, I do feel as though it is slightly limited by not really taking on a proper story set within that place and time period, and as such it doesn't maybe have the impact it could have if we knew the characters really well. So it's a very respectable 6.5/10 for this one to close off Octo-Boll.

Well, Film Gutter seems to have fallen upon technical difficulties, and that promised House of the Dead review might just have to wait, as it's completely vanished from my desktop somehow. So, in a slight change to your scheduled programming, today's offering will be Seed.

Looking at it now, in many senses, this is the perfect review to follow on from Attack on Darfur, which was deeply upsetting and extremely hard to watch. That motif is continued here with an unrelentingly bleak serial killer piece that enjoyed a sequel in 2014 and is probably most known for its opening five minutes. More of that in a moment.

One of the things I have always loved about Boll as a director is his unapologetic nature – he’s always made the films he wanted to make how he wanted them. Postal is a prime example of that attitude, and Seed is probably an even stronger one. This is grungy, grimy, gory and generally has nothing nice about it at all, including a heartily depressing ending and some genuinely shocking moments throughout.

Even with the above said, it’s not a bad film at all. In fact I think Seed is pretty good, but there does remain a slight sense that there could have been something even better in there just waiting to get out.

The story centres around serial killer Max Seed, who cuts a pretty terrifying figure throughout. He's been sentenced to death by electric chair, but having survived three blasts of electricity by state law he has to be released. However our lead, Detective Matt Bishop, is pressured into burying Seed rather than releasing him to commit more crimes. But Seed is anything but ready to leave it there, and it's not long before he's clawed his way from the grave and is ready to continue his killing spree and wreak his revenge.

In many ways, Seed is nothing original as one of a host of demented serial killer flicks. What sets it apart is the absolute brutality – dare I say nihilism – that is on show here. The opening scene is infamous for using footage of real animal suffering from PETA's archives (with PETA receiving a cut of the film's profits) that is indisputably hard to watch. There's also some deeply unpleasant scenes throughout, including one shot of a woman being beaten with an axe handle for five minutes solid which is really vicious. As such, I think there's enough to make this one stand out from the crowd as a strong example of its subgenre.

There are a handful of things that hold this one back for me – I think the performance from Michael Pare in the lead is a bit overblown in places, and the revenge plot is pretty obvious and contrived, treading little new ground. Some of the deaths are a little predictable to boot, and it would have been nice to see some more development of Seed beyond the masked killer stereotype.

I may have seen gorier, but this movie might just be one of the most depressing serial killer pictures you're ever likely to see. If you're a fan of the milieu, then Seed is certainly well worth a look.

RATING: 7/10. Since watching Seed, I've been trying to think of a movie as consistently upsetting as this one and pretty much drawn a blank. There's no comic relief and absolutely no let-up in the darkness on display, which might well be off-putting to a lot of viewers. But this pure howl of cinematic rage has plenty of tension to keep you watching, and barring a few smaller flaws is a strong example of its subgenre.


 
 

We're on to the second week of Octo-Boll, and having started with the wonderful ridiculousness that was Postal, it's time to move on to something very different. Boll's filmography certainly does take some unexpected turns, covering a whole host of genres, and what we have in Attack on Darfur is a surprising combination of political drama and exploitation flick.


Before we get into it further, I feel like we should just address the elephant in the room – yes, Darfur is a hideous human atrocity, and this movie is apparently inspired by that. For today I'm simply looking at the film on its own merits – I can't speak for its accuracy in depicting the real situation in Darfur, nor have I extensively researched the facts behind it before writing this review. There's plenty of people much better informed and qualified to look into that than me, and you'll no doubt find a plethora of information out there if you're interested in it or if this review makes you want to find out more. Film Gutter is a review column and that's what I'm going to stick to.

Right, sorry, let's move on...


The overriding impression of Attack on Darfur is that it's a little confused as to what it is. We begin following a crew of journalists in the region looking to find out more about the terrible attacks that have been taking place in the area – they discover a mass grave before they come to a small village and interview some of the residents about what they have been through. Likely that sounds fine to you, and a reasonable enough way to set some context. However this runs for about 45 minutes, and while there are undoubtedly interesting moments – and I believe this features some real people recounting their experiences rather than actors – it does feel a little long to establish the scene and the background.

That is until our attackers arrive at the village, and a tense situation develops, with the journalists' lives coming under threat before a diplomat encourages them to leave, simply giving the 'Janjaweed' aggressors free rein with a group of unarmed Sudanese villagers.


The next ten minutes I would genuinely have to rank among the most upsetting I've seen, as the village is all but wiped up with guns and machetes, huts are set on fire with people inside them, women are raped and racial slurs are uttered, the whole thing shot in a very chaotic manner on a handicam.


Our concluding section of the movie sees some of our journalists return to the village with guns in an effort to save the village – distinctly too late, you would have to say – and we have an action-based finale which retains one or two emotional moments. It also keeps much of its absolutely brutal flavour until the very end. Make no mistakes, this movie takes a little while to get over. There's next to nothing by way of redemption, hope or optimism in the finale.


Uwe Boll is a filmmaker that has always fascinated me, because he's always done things on his own terms, and the aim for this movie was obviously to shock you into reacting to this awful incident in recent history. In that respect, it is successful to a large extent. But I feel as though the surface brutality doesn't quite have the heart or meaning that it could have, and as such it doesn't have the emotional impact that it could. All day after watch this film I felt rattled, and my nerves were jangling, but I don't think I was as upset or angry as I could have been had this been grounded a bit more with its protagonists. It's hard to really know who the main characters are, or what the drive of the story is – it's not a tale of resistance or survival, being presented as a fly on the wall 'mockumentary' watching something horrible happen. In fact it's practically shot that way, with shaky cam neatly accompanied by shaky subtitles when they appear.

There is a sense for me this could have really been something fantastic, but I feel as though the message – and let's not knock it for trying to raise some awareness of this sort of tragedy – rather overtakes the intent to make a film and the narrative suffers as a result. It's good, but is a bit too disjointed to be great.


RATING: 6/10. There are a host of good things here – the cast is decent and the whole thing feels very real and very chaotic, and it's hard not to have some emotional response to some of the most in-your-face elements here. However the plot feels a little unfocused, and I don't think any of the characters are well-developed enough for it to really have the 'backend' to deliver the truly shocking effect it could have. This is a movie put together to make a point, and it unequivocally does that, but without being Boll's best movie. If you are going to check this one out, make sure to brace yourself though – it's one of the most unremittingly bleak movies I've watched so far, and it sure has some competition among these reviews...​

This October Film Gutter will be going simply Boll-istic with a month of movies from one of the world’s most infamous and divisive directors, Uwe Boll.

While Boll may have retired from film-making having completed the Rampage trilogy, his body of work retains a unique fascination for many film viewers, myself included. With a remarkable four movies in IMDB’s bottom 100, many of them video game tie-ins, Boll has released a range of comedies, horror movies, dramas, actions films and more, alongside work producing, writing and as a restaurateur.

While many of his movies have been critical flops, personally I’ve never understood the hate – I really enjoyed having the chance to interview Boll for the series, and all of his movies I’ve watched to date have ranged from passable to pretty damn good. The Rampage trilogy were all interesting movies, and Stoic was a distinctly brutal offering with some very good actors on board. But maybe it’s time we dug a bit deeper…

With a new documentary on the way, suitably called ‘F**k You All – The Uwe Boll Story’ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8476314/) we thought this’d be a good chance to look at some more of the output of this singular director. So, over the next four weeks, we’ll be reviewing Postal, Attack on Darfur, House of The Dead and Seed to see just how earned the man himself’s reputation is. We’re going to have a Boll (ball? Get it?) and we hope you have fun reading them too!


Why don't you read our interview with Uwe Boll why wait for the start of OCTO-BOLL 
​