Auschwitz

"Everybody wants to make a movie and my stupid brother too", goes the famous quote by Orson Wells. True enough but the real problem arises, when the proverbial stupid brother imagines himself to be Orson Wells – which brings us to the issue of Uwe Boll.

It's easy to make light of Boll's films, dilettantism and talent (pardon the sarcasm) when talking about his video-game "adaptations" or hackneyed attempts to rip-off blockbusters like "Lord of the Rings". However, when tackling a serious issue like the Third Reich and the atrocities committed in the concentration camps, it becomes difficult to keep a review light and funny.

So, to what film could we compare "Auschwitz" to? "Schindler's List"? Sure, in Bolls wildest dreams and delusions. The TV-series "Holocaust"? That would be to compare melted Belgium chocolate to something of similar colour and consistency (but not taste). No, for a comparison we have to reach back to a rather obscure, almost forgotten sub-genre, namely the "Nazi-exploitation films" of the 1970's. We're not talking the sleazy highlight, "Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS", we're talking the low points like "Beast in Heat" and "The Last Orgy of the SS". The major differences are that the exploitation films actually intended to be exploitive. Boll handles the material with utter seriousness – albeit, free of talent or passion. Plus, if you expect nudity and acts of depravity like in afore mentioned exploitation films, you'll be disappointed – there are none.

There is no law in Germany – for once, I say unfortunately – that could prevent a hack like Uwe Boll from taking on a serious issue like the holocaust or WW2. To sum it all up: it's simply a bad film with a serious topic – too serious as to speak of unwanted humour in a bad film.

And that's already too many words wasted on a bad film.

The best I can say is that this gets people talking/thinking about Auschwitz and the Holocaust. That is why 2 stars, not one.

I have no idea if the intentions of Uwe Boll were noble. It doesn't feel to me like he was trying to be exploitative. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure attempting to show the true horror of Auschwitz in this way is useful or necessary. Either way, if this is the best you can manage as "realistic" and suggest as coming anywhere close to the true horror of Auschwitz you should not have bothered.

Nothing looks or feels right. The trains are not dark enough or packed enough. All the buildings are totally wrong. I could go on and on and on....... Admittedly budget probably prevented giving any idea of the true scale of the industrial conveyor belt of death that occurred at Auschwitz, but given that why not zoom in and follow one or two people as individuals with much narrower focus? Or better still just stick with the interviews of german teens along with some of the facts and archive images.

The interviews and, for the most part, stunning lack of knowledge about the holocaust are the only compelling parts. The problem is I'm not convinced by this film that Uwe Boll's knowledge of this part of history is much better than the majority of interviewees.

Something like Son Of Saul is far more effective at achieving what Uwe Boll claims to have wanted to achieve.

This movie could've been so much more but fell way short.

I am not that surprised that the director Uwe Boll gave us such a film; all long his career, he was brave, bold enough to propose plots that no other director wished to do. This movie is not good at all, badly directed, bt the story of course outsanding in the treatment, hiding nothing at all, revealing the most unbearable details of the executions. This is so far the one of the only "fictional" movie ever made about Auschwitz and extermination - not concentration though - camps, and from the inside, from the hangmen's point of view. Not from the victims point of view; because in this case, you had hundred of films speaking of extermination camps, of course. But maybe in the sixties and seventies, there were several Polish or Czech movies, shot in black and white, very rough, bitter, austere, evoking this scheme; I guess I have reviewed some of them. Yes, I am positive, there are some, better done than this film, but I don't remember the titles, sorry folks. I don't speak of ZONE OF INTEREST or DEATH IS MY TRADE. The two most known films analysing the Auschwitz commander daily life.

You get actually two movies here. The one is a movie about the Ausschwitz camp (which as many have stated does not look exactly like the original camp -> he didn't have the money to built it) and the other one is interviews with kids about the holocaust and the Hitler in general. The latter is pretty intriguing and would have made for an interesting view if it had stayed alone.

But I had to vote and review both parts and the other one just isn't good enough. Boll tries to be as real as possible (he has stated that this is not Schindlers List, but a real depiction of what went on back then, though Budget restrictions did not really allow him to be faithful to what he wanted to accomplish), but never achieves his goal fully. Due to the budget restrictions the tone is gritty, which helps the documentary style, but does not add acting value, which on the other hand brings the movie down again. Points for trying ... or maybe not ... up to you to decide ...