Seed

Ever since House of the Dead, I've actively sought out Uwe Boll films to see just how bad they are going to be. With follow-ups Alone in the Dark and Bloodrayne, there was an endless stream of badness to enjoy. I'm intrigued as to how the films fail to work despite there being a decent budget (low in Hollywood terms, but plenty to produce something effective), some occasional attempts at interesting camera work and genuine Hollywood talent involved. In all the films, the scripts are undeniably terrible, and as an audience you're never drawn in because at no stage do you care about anyone involved or anything they do. On top of the poor script, there is usually CGI and sound design that is quite simply not up to scratch and which therefore jars with an audience used to Hollywood standards.

It was with this view that i went along for the unmissable fun of a cinematic double bill of new Uwe Boll films at London's Frightfest. Having had Grindhouse pulled from UK release thanks to the bemused US reaction, 'Double Boll' presented the next best thing - 2 actual B- movies in a row. Postal came first and marks Boll's first professional foray into deliberate comedy, not very successfully, but that's another review... Up second, was Seed - as Uwe himself said, a film aiming for no sense of fun at all. It's essentially Uwe's entry into the current gorno/torture porn fad, and was partly motivated by the likes of Hostel not being as harsh as they were claiming.

The biggest shock i had during the film was when the credits rolled and i realised i'd just had an emotional reaction to an Uwe Boll movie that wasn't amusement or boredom. I had actually cared about the characters and had the distinct feeling i'd just watched a proper horror film.

Don't get me wrong, this film is by no means great, but it IS, unlike all the other Boll movies, a film that you can watch on a par with other Hollywood b-grade horrors. With films like Hostel you've got Eli Roth trying to make films as harsh as the old grindhouse/video nasty films of the 70s and early 80s, but Seed would actually be more at home in that era. It's no Texas Chainsaw, but it fits in with the original Toolbox Murders, Maniac or Nightmares in a Damaged Brain - films that presented real nastiness in a way that leaves you feeling, well, seedy. Like those films, the big moments are morally questionable - many will find the opening scenes showing real-life animal cruelty (footage obtained from PETA) too heavy with too little purpose, but personally I found they gave the film real edge - you lose your safety net of Hollywood R-rated violence and feel genuine revulsion. A later scene is a standout for on-screen nastiness and could have become one of the all time roughest gore moments if it wasn't partly let down by a bit of ropey CGI work. The ending too was a nice surprise and something that mainstream horrors rarely go for these days.

Boll-haters (and there's a planet full of those) are still going to find faults with Seed, and there are many, but it is in a class above all his previous output, and gives me hope that he will one day turn around his (undeniably impressive) poor reputation and produce material that is not only acceptable, but actually genuinely enjoyable. If he could just get his hands on a really great script who knows what could happen...

SEED is yet another Uwe Boll film. If it had been made by any other Director, it would be pure cinematic slurry. However, as Boll movies go, it's almost, sort of worthwhile.

From its nonsensical, graphically-real animal cruelty opening, to the eternal, CGI-laden, head pulverizing sequence, it's a brain-dissolving experience. Still, compared with other offerings from the maestro, it's an absurd masterpiece!...

Director Uwe Boll is commonly regarded as a terrible film-maker, and his sick psycho killer flick Seed is unlikely to radically alter this general perception, being an absolute mess in the script department; however, if nothing else, it does prove that Boll has balls.

Packed full of sadistic, no-holds-barred violence, the film is truly nasty stuff from start to finish, the director clearly not intending to make any new friends; as a result, I can't help but feel a sneaking admiration for this movie maverick, a man for whom the words 'quit', 'diplomacy' and 'restraint' obviously do not exist.

During the opening credits, Boll even has the nerve to show PETA footage depicting real-life atrocities perpetrated on defenceless animals; I can only guess that this was an attempt to show the viewer just how inhumane people can be, but it comes across as a cheap tactic to shock the audience.

Thankfully, everything from here on in is achieved through special effects, although with numerous graphic murders, a baby among the many victims, it's still definitely not for the easily offended. A prolonged hatchet attack on an elderly woman is perhaps the film's most nauseating moment (although as this particular spot of carnage escalates, the somewhat iffy CGI makes it slightly less effective).

Yes, Boll sure knows how to upset and disturb; all he needs to do now is perfect telling a decent story (one that isn't so obviously flawed), hire a decent lighting technician (some scenes were way too dark), and he might be able to silence his critics without having to punch their lights out.

4.5/10, rounded up to 5 for IMDb.

The average horror viewer should stay away from Seed. This is one of those low budget movies that has a stupid plot, bad acting and looks and feels cheap all the way through. The only thing that it does well is taking your money and placing it firmly into the pocket of a greedy little man named Uwe Boll. The movie would have scored a 1 out of 10 by the looks of out alone...

With that said, the movie does have a little shock value, and an important part of it is borrowed from real life. Boll definitely crosses the line with putting PETA material in here without warning the viewer properly. I would have liked to know that I had to cringe over lengthy REAL LIFE SNUFF FOOTAGE of animals being tortured and killed before a minute had passed. The movie lingers on it and savors every moment. If you dislike watching animal abuse, then I would seriously advise you to stay away from this movie. These clips would be okay – in my book – only if the dear Mr. Boll actually tried to make some form of social comment about it. And even then I wouldn't have been able to watch it. Those clips was from real life, guys... Horror movies are watched for entertainment, and no movie should attempt to feature real life animal abuse as a source of it. I want fiction, not real life snuff! And this comes from a guy that actually liked A Serbian Film. Well, enough about that.

The poor taste of Mr. Boll actually had little to do with the grade I give this amateur piece of excrement! If I wanted animal snuff I would go to the butcher! If I wanted a good or scary movie I would stay away from Uwe Boll.

Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.

Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined "psychological horror" genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.

But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing..."August Underground's Penance," for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.

Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, "Seed" is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had "soul".

Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of "Burial Ground," on an interview on the new-ish DVD: "...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands".

Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive "truth." And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about "making a statement about humanity," an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, "cold." The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.

Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.

Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie.