Seed (2006) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
85 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A big improvement...
bombstalker27 August 2007
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...
83 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Truly disturbing......
deacon_blues-315 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The star of "Seed" is human cruelty. Whether to animals or other humans, this film explores the inside of the sociopathic mind, devoid of all normal empathy or sympathy, completely objectifying all things outside of self. Max's motto "Anything that arises is worth destroying." Is very apt. It is a chilling vision indeed. As disturbing as the entire film is, some murder scenes are rather mundane and poorly done (the warden, the doctor). But two scenes stand out. The films that Max Seed is watching during the intro really made me squirm; they also enraged me against anyone so cruel. This sets the mental tone of the audience for the rest of the film. You are enraged that anyone could perpetrate such monstrous acts merely for his personal enjoyment and satisfaction. This is how a normal person should feel about such crimes. The scene with the woman tied to the chair is the culmination of Boll's sick and disturbing brilliance. The music is what makes this scene bearable. It rises in outrage at the increasing intensity of Seed's attacks, until it roars in rage at a fever pitch, but helplessly, against the barbarity of a world in which a Max Seed or a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer could exist. Beware of this scene. You may want to skip it unless you are really into exploring the extremes of aberrant behavior. The ending postulates Seed's effort to reproduce his pathology into the daughter of the police detective who arrested him. The film leaves us to speculate on the success or failure of his attempt.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wow, this is the essence of ridiculous
dschmeding8 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First off... I never considered myself an Uwe Boll Hater since I think I never even saw one of his movies but after seeing this cheap excuse for a movie named "Seed" (which is the name of the serial killer this movie is about) I am close to joining the hate club. This movie makes absolutely no sense at all... the plot is a joke and although Boll clearly tries to get attention by shocking people 90% of this movie is just plain boredom. You can sum up this movie like this:

1. Hooded killer watches clips of animals getting tortured on TV. This is real life footage from pelt farms and the movie opens with the ridiculous reason of "making a statement about humanity" and giving a Peta address. Since this movie has no message at all and is the worst piece of torture porn-exploitation you already have a reason to hate the movie from the beginning onward.

2. Death by electrocution with a pretext that gives away what happens later in this movie printed on screen so every retard gets it.

3. Cops watch videos of animals, babies and women starved to death and decomposing in Seeds basement, having stupid nightmares and crying into their whiskey because Seed is such an evil bad mofo. Although the acting is OK the movie takes a dive every time it tries to incorporate any emotions...

4. Cops bust Seed in his house, act stupid and get slashed in the dark. This sequence reminds me of a video game, you barely see anything except flashlights. Seed is a super killer that is everywhere at once and all cops act stupid enough to be killed... except for one who busts him.

5. Seed gets the chair and we see his electrocution as lengthy as everything else in this "movie"... he won't die and we are reminded of the opening statement that he must be set free if he survives 3 electric jolts. Guess what... they just bury him alive to solve the problem.

6. Seed comes out of his grave, kills everyone off in another slashing part and then seeks the main cop to take revenge on.

7. A woman gets her head bashed in with a hammer in an endless sequence from one point of view just for the fun and shock value of it.

8. Seed captures the cops family, lures him to his house, threatens to kill his wife and daughter. After killing his wife with a nail gun the cop shoots himself in the head considering thats whats Seed wants (its hard to get into that guys head since he not just wears his mask even in prison but also never utters a word ... the movie has barely any dialog anyway so don't mind).

9. Boll goes for a nihilistic shocker end where Seed locks the daughter in with her dead dad to rot like the persons we saw on video on sequence 3.

This is it... no message, no plot, no reason, no face behind the mask, no background except a stupid story that Seed was burnt as a child.

This movie relies purely on few key scenes and their shock value. I hardly remember a movie this empty of any emotion or message or entertainment. Its like watching August Underground ... thats fine with me, some people will enjoy this brainless snuff. But what is really hard to stand about it is the pseudo-message in the beginning and the fact that the movie is well made considering camera-work, effects and even the acting is too good for this waste of celluloid.

So how does Boll get money to make such "movies" when thousands of talented directors work on shoestring budgets?? "Seed" is not just the essence of ridiculous, its living proof that the free market is flawed ... lucky Uwe that the German taxpayer is paying for a lot of this waste to get deductments.
36 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just because it is Uwe Boll doesn't mean everyone has to vote it down...
bloods4you2 October 2008
Aside from the movie having some longer cuts/scenes, overall it was a pretty solid horror flick.

Acting was not spectacular and neither was the script (kind of reminded me of Shocker), but it was a decent movie. The lead police offer in the film did a fairly good job of showing range of emotion depending on the scene/situation. Personally I am a fan of the silent, demented killer. Not a single line spoken that the viewer can hear by Seed himself. Probably not a bad idea because I'm going to go out on a limb and say the guy in the mask is probably a brutal actor...

Additionally, there is enough splatter to appease any horror fan and a nice little ending that doesn't leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside.

I know Uwe Boll is known for making ridiculous films, but he came through with one here. A pleasant surprise.
40 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The human waste
David_Frames28 August 2007
Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman – an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.

Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.

This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.

In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.

Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade – kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are – our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.

Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness – the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.

The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man – one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it.
136 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Shockingly Pointless
Jonny_Numb11 January 2009
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guy–his films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.

Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.

Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.

Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.

The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.

Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boll has balls.
BA_Harrison21 October 2012
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In league with video nasties
lastliberal2 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having gone through a couple dozen of the video nasties that were banned in Britain, this one certainly fits right in.

I really do not understand the Peta clips at the beginning. Was this something that he was supposed to have watched? Did these things even exist in the 70s? It just seemed like gratuitous animal torture to set the mood.

I also could not understand why the cops raided his place at night. It was perfect for Seed as he was able to dispatch five of them before he was caught. Hey, guys, next time try the daylight.

The execution scenes were horrendous. I really didn't need to see someones head on fire. Pro capital punishment junkies will get a real fix on this part.

Things really got interesting after they buried him alive. By interesting, I mean this is the gory part. The hammer scene was probably the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in a horror film.

I know the Uwe Boll haters will find something to tear up in this film, but it really was worthwhile in the video nastie sense.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You know what, for a boll movie it's actually not half bad....
avidd252515 September 2008
For any other movie it would be alright but I think what he was going for here is to disturb people... House of the Dead was a mess, Alone in the Dark never made any sense.. And I skipped out on Bloodrayne because of all the horrible reviews... Well I came across this one at wal-mart and I watched it with low expectations... Don't get me wrong the first half tends to really drag out giving incoherent backstory telling... Making it seem like a prequel to another movie or something... But once it got into gore mode it delivered... There are many visceral scenes in this movie that made me cringe and it had an ending that was well executed... It did drag a lot though but for a boll movie it's an 8 for a regular movie its a 5 A lot more disturbing than hostel was supposed to be...
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a pleasant movie
the_headless_cross27 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As a horror movie fan, you'd think I have no boundaries to what I can view. The Joker's magic trick in the Dark Knight (I know, not a horror movie) gives me a grin as wide as his, the kid being squished by the pane of glass in Final Destination 2 had me jumping out of my seat to hoot and holler, and the shotgun suicide in Hills Have Eyes? I had to rewind it to view it twice.

5 minutes into this movie, I'm having to look away, cover my ears and hit the fast forward button.

I will not go into details of what happened as it's too depressing for me to remember. But what does happen in the opening sets the mood for the rest of the movie. It's definitely not your average slasher movie, because of the mood set for it, it just shuts you up and does not have you hot and holler (closest was the killing of the security guards in his jail cell, but that's it). I have to give Uwe Boll some props. He's still far from the best filmmaker in the world, but this is showing some maturity from a guy who makes some unfaithful adaptations of video games. But the rewatchable factor of this movie is absolutely zero.

You wont find me saying this a lot, but if you do hoot and holler during the movie (besides the jail cell scene), I do not consider you human. If you do not want to feel absolutely depressed after watching a movie, avoid this.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seed of Vengeance
Mort-DM2 October 2007
Yes, I did laugh about Uwe Boll's movies. I still think his adaptations of games are truly awful. But after seeing 'Seed' my laugh froze at my face.

Like most of the people who have reviewed the movie so far, I saw 'Seed' at London's FrightFest and I was really surprised by the work of Uwe. I have seen most of his films (including 'Amoklauf', which was not bad) and I must admit that he really improved as a director. He manages to keep the viewer interested from the very beginning and not because of PETA stuff, but because of the story - you get involved once you see the electric chair execution. This is really not what Uwe has used us to see in his movies.

'Seed' is a gloomy horror movie, a nasty piece of work by the director who unleashes his anger which has been boiling within him for some time now. Uwe said that he wanted to put all his negative emotions into the celluloid. And you can clearly see it on the screen. It is of course quite metaphoric, because Seed – the main character of the movie – seems to me as an alter ego of the director. Everybody wants him dead and buried, but he manages to escape from death's embrace and takes his revenge. This is what Uwe would like to do to all these guys who do not even bother to watch his movies and just put 1 star at IMDb. That is why this dark, brutal and nihilistic tale with some really gruesome scenes is so credible and sincere. And you may not believe it, but some of the viewers went out of the cinema and not because it was a ridiculous crap, but because of the shocking value of the movie. The scene when Seed is hitting a woman on the head with a hammer was really harsh and hard to watch (although you can see some CGI effects were added), not to mention that it reminded me of that infamous fire extinguisher scene from notorious "Irreversible" by Gaspar Noe. But this was Uwe Boll movie, remember? I do not recall anyone laughing at that time though.

Apart from its nasty content 'Seed' provides some dark atmosphere and tension, especially in a scene where cops are searching the house looking for the murderer in pitch blackness. And you will surely not forget the ending, which was quite a surprise for me. Of course the movie has it flaws: a couple of pointless scenes, lousy dialogue, mediocre acting, but most of the time it is really interesting.

Uwe is learning from his mistakes, trying to improve his skills and make movies he wants, while all the people around the world do not want him to continue with that, filling Internet with all that mockery, insults, hatred. A very high price for him to be paid for his passion. With 'Seed' he proves that he can make a good horror movie. That is why he deserves more respect than all these pathetic brainless punks who can only click the keyboard and judge his movies not even making an attempt to see them.

Normally I would give Uwe 7/10 stars for the movie. An extra star would go for answering one of the guys at FrightFest who did not like the movie because it was too shocking for him, he did not enjoy it and apparently wanted to vent his anger on the director. It went like that: 'It is a horror movie, what did you expect? If you don't like it, good luck with >>Night at the Museum<< with Ben Stiller'. Now, that was one hell of a good answer! But I will give 10 stars as a sign of a protest against all these 1 star ratings – 99% of them were put before the festival release.

While not a masterpiece by any means, this is a decent horror movie, which is quite grim and disturbing and show a new face of the director. Just forget that fake IMDb rating, go and see for yourself.
54 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I don't have anything against Boll, but...weak movie. Brutal, but tedious and "fake."
amazing_sincodek16 February 2009
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.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hardly Oscar worthy but.........
sanjr112 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OK, OK Everybody hates Uwe Boll & his movies. That much has been established. Before I continue with this quick review I must confess I met Uwe at a screening for "Postal" last year & found him to be quite intelligent & engaging even though "Postal" wasn't. But that has nothing to do with the rating I gave "Seed".

The plot is pretty standard. Serial killer gets captured, Electrocuted (3 times)& doesn't die. At this point he is buried alive to insure his death & rid the world of his menace. He (Of course) digs himself up & proceeds to go after the people responsible for his "Execution".

Nothing special script-wise right?? But Boll wasn't interested in writing a good script (Is he ever)? What he was interested in was making a disturbing film that will stick with the few of you who will watch it for a long time.

The opening credits alone made me want to turn off the TV. It features video of animal cruelty (Thats real) & extremely disturbing. Apparently this is what the character gets off on. That & kidnapping people & locking them in a dungeon like cell & watch them via closed circuit camera slowly starve to death. Among them is a baby no older than 9-12 months old.

Is this entertainment? Nope...not at all. As a matter of fact it's appalling. But I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. It is probably the most disturbing film I've ever seen & I've seen more than a few of those. I say there is a skill in having the balls to make a film that no one can possibly enjoy & still have people watch it thru to the end.

There is another murder scene that involves a woman tied to a chair in her kitchen & Seed slowly, Calculatingly, almost curiously bludgeoning her to death with a claw hammer. The scene is excruciating not only for it's violence but it's length. It seems to go on for 5 minutes at least (I didn't time it though). The effects in this scene are also most unsettling & the sound effects only add to the horror of what's transpiring in front of you.

All of the performers turn in a workman's job. No one really stands out in that sense. But I don't think they're supposed to. "Seed" is all foreboding & dread. The cinematography is muted & dull. There aren't many daylight scenes & the ones that exist are also kind of...Not bright. The movie is designed to put you in a state of tension & nervousness from the beginning & (For me) it succeeded. It's just an ugly film all the way around. But one that's meant to be ugly, It didn't just end up this way. There is a skill at work here like it or not.

So I'm going on record as giving the film a 6 overall. This due to a pretty average script & adequate acting. But If I was rating it for it's effect on my psyche...I'd give it a 10 (Honestly). I was that disturbed by it. It even has one of the grimmest endings I've seen in a long while. Mr. Boll does have something in him...somewhere that will give us a great film one day I think. This just isn't it. This is a exercise in discomfort. A very good one, But It's just too much of a downer......

By the way, I didn't check but I think the film runs less than 80 min or so. To disturb me so much in so little time (& I am a VETERAN horror film fan) is impressive.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
unbelievably ........... OK to watch!
igjmann6 September 2008
OK cant believe what im going to say here but .......... this movie ain't so bad, most of this has been covered b4, mediocre acting some dodgy scenes all the usual stuff found in these types of movies however, I honestly think this is a fairly good horror movie and I've seen a looooooooooot of crap ones to compare. Most of the scenes are relatively well put together and some even have a good bash at moving u emotionally. Don't get me wrong I have found only 1 other relatively entertaining movie from boll that of course was dungeon siege. hotd, aitd i thought had the potential for so much and failed so so badly. I think he is learning as an artist whether he amounts to a mainstream winner remains to be seen. However in the case of this movie I urge u not to see uwe bolls name and instantly move on, this horror movie isn't bad isn't good, but it is a good in the middle horror flick. But lets face for the fans of the horror genre how often is it that we get a truly great movie. I've rated this 10 not that it deserves it just to try and balance out the score, this doesn't deserve all the 1 star idiots who don't actually watch the movies. I would have said 5.5-6/10 :)
25 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ambitious, and genuinely surprising
Polaris_DiB12 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Y'know... this movie wasn't half bad. Uwe Boll is infamous as being the Director Who Can Do No Good, and by all means, this movie has some major flaws, but here Boll actually manages to elicit a response other than unintentional laughter, and in some ways this movie is deeply disturbing. Above all, it shows that Boll has finally, FINALLY learned something.

This is a serial killer movie. From the text that opens the movie, Boll means it to be a comment on the atrocities of humanity, but honestly it works at a much more superficial level than that: the violence is harrowing and the special effects are quite amazing. It's like a lower-budget, less over-produced version of CSI--the characters are practically nonbeings and the story is actually quite absurd, but for the most part it provides sensationalistic thrills that are their own form of abject entertainment. As horror movies go, Boll has done the unthinkable and actually set himself above the genre in some regards. I honestly recommend people see this just as an alternative way of approaching the genre.

Now, where this movie is really flawed is in the fact that it doesn't really have a protagonist. Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Pare) is the character who becomes most intimate with the killer and leads the investigation, but he's only given a couple of short scenes in a 90 minute movie to develop, and ultimately he makes no real choices that affect the outcome of the story until the very end, and even then the focus is more on the actions of Maxwell Seed than truly on resolving any character development. This movie is quite frankly only invested in observing the actions of the serial killer proper. The rest of it is merely an attempt to give the serial killer's actions any function in regards to his effect on people. If Boll could have succeeded in having this movie with no main characters but the villain at all, he would have. Instead, we get Bishop mostly as a figurehead, an anchor to give some basis to chaos.

However, it's kind of chaos that Boll is aiming for here, and for that reason I can't honestly write this movie off as pure campish disregard, like everything else Boll has done. The background details of this movie don't work at ALL, especially the legalistic points, but Boll subverts this by setting everything in tiny confined set-pieces and empty exteriors, and then by subverting the genre in general through the ending. Any viewer should be able to note that the cited law says that, "STATE law says that...". It doesn't specify which state, because it's not a real state. As said law doesn't exist, neither really does this narrative: it's just an opportunity for Boll to purge some of the negativity he feels towards humanity in general, only in a more serious way than Postal. And that's why it works, because it's disturbing to see.

I'm not normally one for adhering strictly to narrative rules, but honestly this movie really needed more out of Bishop--for once, Boll could have made his movie longer instead of shorter. We need more from Bishop because we need to care more about the victims, and we really need him for that generally ambitious but somewhat short-sighted ending. But I stress, again, that he's learning. He's finally figured out how to keep things from the viewer, how to hide the monster in the shadow, how to build tension, and how to block scenes. He's finally started figuring out how to get something from his actors besides disregard and boredom (and he occasional gleeful overacting). More importantly, thank God he's figured out that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Here, at last, he might have found a niche--tiny, cramped stories where the characters aren't really allowed all that movement. That sounds like an ironic statement, but if he develops his movies a bit more in that direction and takes some seminars on how to make us care about his characters, he might actually make something REALLY good soon. And soon is sooner than most people expect.

10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gloomy and brutal horror film.
HumanoidOfFlesh17 September 2008
"Seed" doesn't deserve all the bile and hatred on IMDb.It's arguably the best Uwe Boll's horror film so far-an unflinching exercise in barbaric human cruelty that shows that the man is the cruelest animal.The movie begins with archival footage of humans being exceptionally cruel to a variety of suffering animals which truly made me squirm.Max Seed is a brutal serial killer.He filmed many of his murders.The decomposing baby scene is quite unsettling.After killing several policemen in his dark house Seed is captured.He is quickly executed on electric chair and buried in a shallow grave.However the killer rises from its tomb ready for sickening vengeance...Very gloomy,raw and disturbing horror film with truly revolting hammer murder scene.It's an exceptionally well-acted and unrelenting assault on viewer's mind.I applaud Uwe Boll for making such savage piece of horror.Ignore the negative reviews and see it for yourself.9 out of 10.
19 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
reviewers PLEASE calm down.
johnto1-18 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
44 reviews (today) ranking 2.4 (and falling) Friends, Horror Movie means: The Movie is Horrifying and is intended to Horrify You! Today (2000-2009) for a movie to "make-it" in Any genre, it must be increasingly, completely and utterly Over the Top. Therefore, if you watch a Horror movie filmed this decade, you must Expect to see Horror! Every Living thing Dies. Animals die, We die. The film makers have searched achieve footage to find black and white imagery of cruelty and torture. Probably originally News Broadcasts. They included this footage to generate Horror in the viewers mind. When you later see a baby suffer and die and decompose (fast speed) with maggots doing what maggots do. Was that Real? No of course not. Was the young woman who died likewise actually killed and filmed? No of course not. Effects, computer enhanced graphic animation. We saw more realistic full colour, close-up Body Mutilation effects in the 1981 movie: The Thing. Nobody complained about the effect, because we knew what we see cannot be Real. So, my advice to viewers is: If you choose to watch a Horror movie made this decade and a few 80's & 90's too, be prepared to be Horrified, Expect to see Extreme Blood, Gore, Suffering, Brutalisation and Sickening sights and sounds. If the Horror Action becomes too much to bare? Simply fast forward (if your alone), or look away (if in a group). As we did when we were Kids at the Late Night Cinima. We knew then, that nothing can harm us, it's not real. The same now, nothing you see in a movie is actually real. No Animals suffered during the making of Seed. No people were Injured. Seed is what we call Fiction, Make Believe. Please Employ some Logic and Calm Down. I give Seed 5 because it has a good storyline and reasonable acting. The first 5 minutes was a cheap move to reduce costs. To reproduce the same 5 minute action artificially and to the same level of realism, costs thousands of dollars. And what would the result be? People would be convinced it's real and complain about the cruelty! Again! May I share a few thoughts? It is possible that those who enjoyed the classic 80's, 90's, horror movies may not enjoy todays horror movies. Likewise, I enjoyed the 80's 90's comedy films, but I sure don't enjoy the vulgar, shocking, "toilet-humour" they call comedy today. I refuse to watch it, I don't find it funny. So, maybe some of you should reconsider your views on Horror? Perhaps you should not watch today's Horror movies? Increasing in realism and horror as time passes, that's guaranteed.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
mikeyboypaines31 August 2007
I've never seen any of Uwe Boll's films before, most certainly because I'd been warned off them by the deluge of vitriolic reviews. So I approached both Postal and Seed with very low expectations. I have to say that over the 20+ films I saw at London's Frightfest, Seed was certainly the most provocative. Some left the screening in shock or anger, and some in disappointment (you can't please everyone!).

Even if the CGI for the hammer murder 2/3rds into the film was a bit ropey (other attendees' opinions, not mine), the intention was admirably (possibly not the best choice of words) - presenting in one long take, without any cut-aways, steadicam or dolly shots, a very brutal murder. Where John Landis failed to have his werewolf transformation in one take for An American Werewolf in London, Uwe Boll has succeeded.

Personally, I thought it was a great film. It could have done with some trimming - the sequence in which the cops checking out Max Seed's house and getting whacked one-by-one was too slow and lacked any real tension. And nothing in particular is outstanding: the dialogue's okay, the productions values are adequate, the acting is good and the seventies setting is fine, but the general tone of the film is incredibly grim. Which is saying something, considering the main protagonist is not a based-on-true-life serial killer but a masked murderer in the same cartoonish mould as Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers.

Uwe Boll has made a truly scary movie. Not "Friday the 13th" scary. More, "A Short Film About Killing" scary. Expect this film to be severely censored by the ratings authorities before it gets any widespread release.
32 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's a Uwe Boll movie... what else need I say?
thedarkjackal10126 October 2008
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.

Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.

The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.

Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.

Plain and simple.

Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>
19 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
the most disturbing movie i have ever seen
brando00813 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.

The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Watch this!
tikawicz12 October 2008
This movie is brutal and by far the best slasher movie to come along since "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon." I hate Uwe Boll movies and was not going to see this because of his name and past movies. It was recommended and I loved it. While movies like "Malevolence" and "Hatchet" steal people's money and time, this slipped in under the radar and fifteen years from now, some horror fan somewhere will watch this and say, "holy crap, how come I never heard of this?" And the reason will have been because people make judgments before seeing it. This is a great horror movie. And that is all I have to say. I am only writing more because I need 10 lines of text to submit this.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
For those who know Uwe's work and have taste....
weemonk12 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!

Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!

Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.

With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.

As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.

If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.

From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.

What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person.

Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap.
13 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brutal and raw
BroadswordCallinDannyBoy28 December 2009
Violence in the raw would be a good way to describe this movie. The opening disclaimer tells us that some of the initial documentary style footage is supposedly real... it may be, but that's not the point. The point is that it's a very upfront presentation of violence and whoever seems to be doing it, also seems to be enjoying it to a degree. The remainder of the film is to a degree just like that. The shaky camera hovering all about over people's shoulders in longer than usual shot lengths is actually us watching in. Nosing in and out and all about trying to get a peek at how a criminal to be executed is tied to the final chair that he will ever sit in. Or the long, painfully long, shot of a woman getting beaten with her head eventually winding up as a gory stub.

Uwe Boll was never too good with carrying plots, but he sure has ideas and he is getting better at presenting them. There is no real plot here really, but more of a series of disturbing gruesome events. Perhaps surprisingly, the film is not exploitative like a typical slasher movie and the gore is hardly enjoyable. In fact, as far as marketing goes, that effectively makes the film bite its own foot, but it's an interesting decision. Infamous Uwe is developing as filmmaker and with a film like this I am actually kind of eager to see what he has next after this Anti-"slasher film" Film. --- 6/10

BsCDb Classification: 16+ --- violence/gore, brutality
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
animal torture, baby cruelty and a sucky stupid ending. spoilers.
dragonkings019 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If at least the cruelty and drawn out deaths had a purpose to the story to justify their inclusion but the script was just unintelligible and just plain stupid.

It went nowhere, the story had no legible continuity. It was just a bunch of drawn out pointless snuff scenes and a really stupid ending tacked on as if to say.. "the end *beep* you my haters and my few defenders for watching my garbage."

I don't get it, a masked murderer who never had his mask removed in prison, a prison rape scene that was suppose to be the guards raping a a ugly deformed serial killer and getting killed by him and nothing else? no explanation, no punishment, a really weak main cop character that was a waste of a actor like Pare, who didn't try to off the guy who killed his cops, tortured a baby, a woman and a dog and sent them to you to watch on video.

Cops who for some unknown reason all wandered off in the dark by themselves (individually) in his farm house at night like a bunch of poorly written teenage characters to be killed one at a time like a bunch of idiots, and no other cop hears them die in the darkness one after the other and just keep wandering around for no reason till each is killed in turn.

A bunch of horrible real life animal snuff scenes in the beginning for no reason or explanation, was he reminiscing, was he watching it to masturbate, was it comedy for him... what was it? nope Boll just thought to throw it in to upset animal lovers.. whatever.

then Pare believing the word of a psycho path to let his family go if he kills himself... a more gullible, stupider cop you never saw in a film.

I dunno why I try not to totally hate his works. I try to find some reason to explain a horror writers art but this stuff... pure crap.

Boll what are you doing anymore? I hope you figure it out because I know a lot of more deserving people who can't dream to get the budget you get over and over again to make their movies.

If you want to see Boll actually at his best check out "Postal" it was actually okay.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Suffers from sameness, but is worth a viewing
fertilecelluloid26 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Uwe Boll's "Seed" mostly suffers from sameness. It opens with grisly PETA footage of animals being mistreated, then spends an inordinate amount of time in the dark following people with flashlights as they discover dead bodies. These are the handiwork of Max Seed, a serial killer of 600+ people who has survived death by electric chair. Although very handsomely photographed by Mathias Neumann, Boll's insistence on shooting almost everything hand-held kills any true suspense and becomes a visual irritant. One very disturbing and effective scene saves this film's bacon. It is a single, locked-off shot of the killer torturing and beating a woman tied to a chair. He starts off by tapping her skull with a hammer, then proceeds to smash it from every side until there is very little head left. This scene is a keeper, and comes way out of left field. It almost looks like it was added to the cut later because it is so stylistically different to everything else. The prison island location has a haunted quality, and special make-up effects are up to par. Michael Pare, looking terribly old and haggard, plays a weary cop (is there any other?) who has spent too much time focusing on Seed. The other actors give self-conscious performances. It is a feeble script that lets this puppy down. Still, it's worth catching for the hammer scene. Its bleak tone shows courage on Boll's part.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed