User Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, Uwe Boll does a serial killer flick, albeit one with a supernatural slant. A hulking masked killer is sent to the electric chair only to come back from the dead, seeking revenge. This is by far the worst Boll film I've seen, worse even than BLOODRAYNE and ALONE IN THE DARK, because it manages to be completely offensive as well as execrable.

The film begins with needless scenes of real-life animal torture provided by PETA. They're there to shock, and that's it. Then we watch various things die, including a baby in the most distressing scene. More junk designed to shock and desensitise the viewer. Finally the film becomes a predictable, shot-in-the-dark slasher flick, with a random killer murdering endless cops and innocent victims.

Later on, there's a stand-out scene of Seed beating in a woman's head in a kitchen which lasts for around five minutes. That's it - just mindless sadism, unnecessary and completely stupid. SEED is as bad as it can be, with rubbish performances, really bad production values, zero story, and awful direction. Michael Pare might be the king of B-movies but he needs to see sense and stop appearing in movies like this one.

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. >_>

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...

badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.

They were going for a shock factor obviously (be careful before you turn this one on the beginning is REAL torture of dogs so yeah) when i was watching it , i was left with questions at the end really and felt like i wasted my time , if you skip this one you wont be missing much

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.

I've never really hated Uwe Boll for his video game adaptations, mainly because he was brutally honest about them. He clearly knew he was making garbage and was not ashamed to say he just wanted to cash in. I don't applaud that motive, but Boll was a bearable director back then. "Seed" on the other hand is from the phase where his movies actually started 'meaning' something. On the surface it's a poorly made (and extremely poorly lit!) slasher movie about yet another mute serial killer with yet another ridiculous disguise, but don't be fooled. According to Boll it's actually about all the evils man can do! Boll recorded a hilariously pretentious commentary for this movie, which is good because the movie is dreadfully boring without it. The scene he's apparently most proud of is the one where an elderly woman gets bludgeoned to death for five straight minutes, a scene which might have the worst CGI effects I've ever seen outside of the SyFy Channel. I could buy Boll as a clever businessman. I can't buy Boll as a filmmaker that actually has something to say, because it all seems so fake to me.

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.

If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked.

While Uwe Boll is a terrible technician this movie, like many of his others, has an amazing take home message and awesome aesthetic. I always feel that I could shoot this on my black magic. Yet you cannot underestimate how in touch he is with contemporary feelings.