Thursday, June 24, 2010

I want you to find him, I want you to KILL him, and I want you to put him in the ground so he can never come back again.

Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.

If you are Mike from You Talking to Me or Nick from R2D2 then you are probably wondering why this post is being redone. For everyone else and these two here is the story:

I actually like Uwe Boll. If you read my site often you'll know I interviewed him. Interviewing him was a lot of fun. He's got abnormally good taste in films, he's funny, got great stories and an overall cool guy. And on top of that he's actually made five really good movies. A really good horror film, a really good school shooter film, a really good prison-esque film, a good war film and a good sociopath film. But any and all of his good movies are overshadowed by his crap or mildly entertaining ones.

Take Postal for example. I like Postal despite it's flaws and most of his other films are so bad they are good. But then there are films like Bloodrayne 1 and this one that are so bad they're abysmal. But unlike Seed I can understand WHY Bloodrayne sucked. The studio wanted a vampire horror film (Underworld was big at the time), the license was open so they took it and gave it to Boll because of his experience with video game films. That and they had to follow, or try to follow, the plot of the game so they were bogged down. Bloodrayne 2 is better because it isn't.

But this film I just don't get. It's nihilistic, uncaring, boring, unrelenting, evil, and it seems like it's made by a snuff film enthusiast without a soul. It's a brutal film, an unrelenting film and made by someone with anger issues. I don't know if Boll was trying to do a message or what but if he was he totally failed. I just don't get this film. Here is the plot:


The first 3 minutes is Max Seed, a deadly serial killer and leatherface lookalike, watching animals being brutally being tortured and murdered in a slow and methodical fashion.

Then it sweeps over to the prison where we see a man get the chair in a very bloody fashion.

Then the next 25-30 minutes is a dual story: the current state of affairs and how they caught Max Seed.

In the current affairs, they are having troubles getting a new electric chair and the detectives and everybody involved in the case just wants to get everything over and done with. Seed sits calmly and attacks anyone who gets near him in a brutal fashion.

In the catching stage we watch an evolution of starvation torture. First a cockroach, then a small rat, then a dog, then a baby (which lasts the longest so you can see the baby truly die slowly), and then finally person after person after person, each taped and sent to the police. The main detective starts going mad and becomes bloodthirsty in his search for Seed. Eventually they find where he lives and a few Jigsaw-esque/slasher-esque deaths later, the detective arrests him.

The next 15 minutes is Seed attacking guards, Seed getting the electric chair twice, the cops deciding not to fry him again because that would mean sending him to the hospital if he was still alive thus making the cops and the prison look bad, and finally them burying Seed alive.

Well the next 10-20 minutes is Seed rising, biting a persons face off, electrocuting another, impaling another and then a montage of more killings via newspaper clips all leading up to a 8 minute scene of an elderly woman getting hammered to death slowly.

The last 9 or so minutes of film is the main detective getting a tape that shows his house, him rushing to his house, finding the police protection dead, rushing to Seed's house, getting himself locked in a room, forced to watch his wife get killed before agreeing to kill himself in order to save his daughter, and then his daughter shoved in the room with his body to starve to death like his other victims.


Does that really seem like an enjoyable film? Would you pay to see this film? What kind of person would? The gore is so fake and CGI'd that even slasher fans like me would scoff. The violence for the most part is either starving or really quick or off screen. And when it isn't it's uninspired, boring or fake looking. The plot is terrible, the writing is worse, the lines are predictable (I even joke spoke a line...which a character than repeated after I said it) and there is no characterization. It's 85 minutes of filler. Useless filler.

I thought defending a film that has been bashed endlessly would be a good thing. Find a good in this film. But upon further looking...there is none. And that's all there is to that.



  1. Nope. You're wrong. And you've lost all rights as a movie commentator.

    OK, so I'll expand. Uwe did NOT succeed. Why? Because there's a difference between making a movie to piss off the audience (which was his goal) and making a movie that is unwatchable on every level, almost not even making it a movie (which is what he actually did). There are probably snuff films that are better than this.

    Not to mention making an unwatchable movie for the sole purpose of pissing everybody off to the nth degree is NOT respectable, not entertaining, not even funny in a behind-the-scenes kind of way. It's just stupid and an epic fail.

    Had Uwe Boll taken his ideas for this movie but actually put it together competently... that's a whole different story. The only thing that made me squirm was the PETA footage at the very beginning, and that wasn't even his own stuff. Everything else was so inept it was BORING, which is the film's worst offense, really. That hammer scene was so stupidly ridiculous I couldn't even laugh at it. It was just bad and, well, stupid.

    I'll probably get into this more during the podcast, so I'll leave it at that.

  2. I agree with Nick, if this film were what you suggest it is than it would be truely talked about and earth shattering, but instead it's been forgotten about. Actually it hardly got noticed in the first place and I don't remember a thing about it so it's obviously not as bad for the sake of being bad or as offensive as you seem to be suggesting. This seems to be just a contrarian opinion, either that or what you are getting at is far more complex than what you have conveyed here.