First Shift (2 Stars)

A new film by Uwe Boll. Didn't he retire from film making? Yes. He gave up making movies eight years ago and went into the restaurant business. At the time he said it was because he'd done it all as a director and didn't need to prove himself any more. His critics put it differently. He was frequently called the world's worst director, and they said he was running away.

But now he's back.

I walked into the cinema today with the intention of liking the film. I like Uwe Boll. I've watched most of the videos in his YouTube channel, and he's a really nice guy. Forget your prejudices, he really is a nice guy. In Germany there's an expression, "Mit ihm kann man Pferde stehlen", engl. "You can steal horses with him". It's a strange expression, but it means someone with whom you can do anything. Whatever you do will be fun, and you can rely on him whatever happens. That's how I feel about Uwe.

For this reason I'm disappointed that I have to rate the film badly. It's about the first day on the job for Angela Dutton, a rookie police officer in New York. She also has a TikTok channel, and she films herself in the police station. She's assigned as the partner of Deo Russo, a serious no-nonsense cop. The film explores their relationship to one another.

This part of the film works well. Buddy movies with unequal partners have been common over the years, and Uwe Boll does it well. What he doesn't do is make an exciting movie. As a day in the life it can be expected that the film is disjointed, but he takes it too far. The parts don't fit. Just one example: two gang members kill a man who's betrayed their boss. A short while later Deo sees them in a convenience store, and he looks at them suspiciously. That's it. They leave the store, and they never see one another again. What's the point? I agree that it's realistic. Not every crime is solved. But why include it in the film at all?

I'm hoping his next film will be better.

In the Name of the King (4 Stars)

When I watched this film in 2016 I complained that it was too short. This week I bought the director's cut. The original theatrical version is 118 minutes long, and the director's cut is 156 minutes long. The extra 38 minutes greatly improve the film. That's my opinion, at least. The critics aren't convinced. The film still has a whopping 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's about time I stopped referring to that site as if it had some relevance.

As far as I can tell, most of the extra footage is invested in longer battle scenes, but I did recognise a scene with Leelee Sobieski that's not in the theatrical version. This scene tells us a bit more about her character Muriella, the magus' daughter. Jason Statham's character, Farmer, is also better rounded than I remember it from the other version.

Ron Perlman impresses me more every time I see him. The first time I saw him was in "Name of the Rose", one of the few films that I watched in the cinema in the 1980's. Then I forgot about him until "Enemy at the Gates" in 2001. (Those are two films I need to watch again). However, it wasn't until I saw the TV series "Hand of God" that I said, "Wow! This guy is brilliant". I can appreciate his older performances better now. He never does anything wrong.

As far as the acting is concerned, he's similar to Leelee Sobieski, who also appears in the film. They both have a calm, composed way of speaking, but they're both able to switch to displays of deep emotions within seconds. As is to be expected, they're the two actors who carry the film, not Jason Statham in the lead role.

Overall the acting is of high quality. Ray Liotta performs solidly as the evil wizard Gallian, while Matthew Lillard puts on a typical over-the-top performance as Duke Fallow. I wish I could see more of him, but in recent years he's specialised in voice acting for animated films. Burt Reynolds is disappointing as King Konreid. He used to be one of Hollywood's best actors, but he seems to have lost his talent with the passing of years.

The film's greatest weakness is the computer graphics. Castles look artificial, and in distant army scenes it's obvious that the scenes are computer-painted. The film's budget was $60 million. Couldn't a few million have been spent on better computer artists?

"In the Name of the King" is based on the computer game "Dungeon Siege" which was released in 2002, but the similarity to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is so strong that it borders on plagiarism. The primitive Krug look like Orcs, there are two rival mages who used to be friends, and even the shots of the four warriors walking across the mountains look like scenes from the Lord of the Rings films.

I know my readers are already desperate for more screenshots of Leelee Sobieski. Let me give you just one picture. You can click on it to enlarge it it if you need a new Windows wallpaper.

What's that? You want more? Are you sure? Here's the proof that I'd do anything for my readers:

That's Kristanna Loken with Leelee in the last picture. I like tall girls. Leelee is 5'10" and Kristanna is 5'11". They're big, they're tough and they carry swords. How could anyone fail to fall in love with them? If I were in the army facing them I'd have to surrender. My right hand would be quivering too much to hold my sword.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

P.S. The Amazon UK link is to the normal edition. The Director's Cut has only been released in America and Germany.

In the Name of the King (3½ Stars)

This is the 24th film starring Leelee Sobieski, made in 2007. It was actually filmed in 2005, but there was a lengthy post-production process. This was the director Uwe Boll's 12th film, but it was his first big budget production. Up until then his films had cost a maximum of $3 million, but this time he had a budget of $60 million at his disposal, and he didn't want to make any mistakes. The film still made a loss anyway. It only earned $13 million at the box office, plus $30 million in DVD sales, which made it officially a flop.

I know Uwe Boll is the director people love to hate. I already discussed my feelings about this in my reviews of "Bloodrayne 3" and "Postal". Let's just judge "In the name of the king" on its own merits.

My main problem with the film is that it's too short. We're thrown right into the action from the start, and it's difficult to see what's going on. Apart from that, the characters aren't well developed at the outset, although we do get to know them slowly as the film progresses. The film would have profited from another 30 to 60 minutes build up. There's a big mythology in the background, and I would have liked to know more about it before the action started. On the other hand, I've found out that there's a director's cut that's 40 minutes longer than the version I watched today. Maybe that would solve my problems.

The film is based on the video game "Dungeon Siege" which was released in 2002. I expect that people who have played the game will judge it on its similarity to the game. Uwe Boll admits that he's not a game player, but he let someone play the game in front of him so that he could see what it's like.

The film is about a man called Farmer, played by Jason Statham, an orphan adopted by a family in a small village. The land is caught up in a civil war when the king's nephew tries to overthrow his uncle. He's first in line for the throne, but he's too impatient to wait for his uncle to die. It's a tale of swords and sorcery, with rival magicians fighting on each side. There's also an army of dog-like creatures called the Krug, not too different from the Orcs in "Lord of the Rings". The king is assisted by wood nymphs, under the leadership of Kristanna Loken. Leelee Sobieski is the daughter of a mage loyal to the king, but she's also willing to carry a sword into battle.

Leelee has a brief scene at the beginning in which she passionately kisses the rival mage Gallian. That brings the total to one film that contains a simulated sex scene and five films with passionate kisses. That makes the percentage of films in her career so far with sexual stuff to either 4% or 26%, depending on whether or not the kisses are included. This is far below the 90% that she claims are necessary in films today.

I've never considered Jason Statham to be a good actor, but he's suitable as an action hero. When he plays the main role in a film you can expect exciting fight scenes, not emotional depth. The film contains a lot of battle scenes, both one on one and armies clashing. The final showdown between Jason Statham and the enemy mage is remarkable. It makes up for many of the weaker scenes earlier in the film.

Last week Uwe Boll announced that he's decided to retire from film making. He's only 51. I've listened to a few interviews in which he explains his decision. He gives more details in the German interviews. He sees himself as a champion of independent film making. With few exceptions he considers the big budget Hollywood films to be trash, although he praises a lot of the low budget independent films. Uwe Boll has financed most of his films himself out of his personal savings. Despite mediocre box office results he's managed to make money from most of his films, though only with the help of German state subsidies. He's said that he personally can make one million dollars profit from a typical film, but if he makes two million dollars loss from a film it wipes out the profit from his last two films. He now feels that the independent film industry in general is too risky for him. He's a gambling man who's decided to quit while he's ahead. That's sensible. At the moment he has enough money to live on for the rest of his life, but one unsuccessful film could change everything.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Raging Boll (4 Stars)

Yet another documentary! I only wrote about one documentary from 2010 to 2012, and now it's been three documentaries in two months. I do actually watch more documentaries, usually those broadcast on television, but they don't meet my criteria for being written about:

1. The documentary is in one part.

2. This one part lasts at least 70 minutes.

This documentary is about a subject that's been fascinating me lately. The subject is Uwe Boll, or rather the way people hate Uwe Boll. I still don't completely understand it. "Raging Boll" is a neutral handling of the subject, based mainly on interviews with Boll himself, but also giving the opinions of his family, his friends and his enemies. The title of the film is based on his boxing matches against his critics in September 2006. When I saw the cover photo I expected the fights to be shown in detail, but unfortunately that wasn't the case.

For those who don't know about the boxing matches, prior to 2006 Uwe had been constantly attacked online. Not just his films were criticised, the attacks were personal. Web sites such as IMDB were full of death threats against him; as fast as the moderators deleted the threats new ones appeared. Uwe sent invitations to his harshest critics to face him in the boxing ring. The plan was to fight five matches one after another in Vancouver, but since one of the matches had to be held in Spain it took place on an earlier date. The matches were scheduled to last ten rounds each, but he managed to knock out all his opponents in the first round.

My respect to the critics who were man enough to face Uwe in the ring, but on the night they were cry babies. One critic objected, "The fight is unfair, you've been training". Uwe answered, quite correctly, "You've had two months time to prepare. Why weren't you training?" Indeed, after the four fights Uwe held a speech in which he said that his opponents had lost because they hadn't prepared themselves for their fight, just as they hadn't prepared themselves to make good film criticism.

Uwe calls online film critics amateurs. The ones who criticise him, anyway. For me that isn't an insult. My film blog is amateurish as well, and I don't care. I'm no Roger Ebert, not now and I never shall be (even though I do feel a certain kinsmanship with him). If I were a journalist I'd make more of an effort to write professionally. But one thing I would never do is make death threats to directors or actors that I don't like. If you asked me for a list I could probably name half a dozen actors that I dislike, by which I mean that I don't think that their acting ability merits the amount of money and fame that they receive. If you asked me for a list of musicians I could probably name even more, because there are many rappers whose music and misogynistic image I detest. But why make death threats? I wouldn't say, "Tom Cruise makes bad films so he deserves to die". That's silly. All I'd say is, "Tom Cruise is a highly overrated actor. Instead of hiring him directors should give talented young actors a chance".

Ausschwitz (unrated)

Whatever the DVD cover above suggests, this isn't a film drama. It's a documentary by Uwe Boll about the Ausschwitz concentration camp and the Holocaust in general. I really don't know how to rate it, so I didn't. It's not very informative, as far as facts are concerned, but that wasn't Uwe's intention. Rather than make a documentary that tells us about Ausschwitz, he's made a documentary telling us how little people know about Ausschwitz. If anything it should be seen as a taster that inspires the viewers to do their own research.

The film begins with an introduction by Uwe. Then there is a series of questions posed to German schoolchildren, probably aged 15 to 16. Then there is a 30 minute dramatisation of a typical day in Ausschwitz. Finally more questions are posed to children.

Uwe's introduction is curious. He speaks in German, then repeats what he just said in English. Then he goes back to German, then English, speaking the two languages alternately. Curious is the fact that he doesn't repeat himself exactly. When he speaks English he starts the same way, but goes off in a different direction. Only people who understand both languages will get the most from his introduction. The main thing that he says is that today's children know nothing about Ausschwitz, and recent films don't help because they concentrate on heroes. His intention is to show Ausschwitz as it really was, without any heroic adornment: Jews went there, they were killed, their bodies were burnt, the end.

The second part, the interviewing of the schoolhildren, is hampered by poor English subtitles. The answers given by the children may seem stupid, but if you can understand German they're even worse. Typical questions and answers are:

"How many Jews did Hitler kill?" -- "A lot, more than a thousand"

"When did the Holocaust take place?" -- "The 1800's"

The third part, the dramatisation of a day in Ausschwitz, is chilling. So many people talk about Hitler being evil, but Uwe Boll shows us that the normal German was just as evil. While Jews are being gassed the officers sit and talk about their holiday plans. Babies that cry too loud are shot in the head. It was truly awful.

Finally, in the fourth part children are interviewed again. The second batch of children seem to be better educated. Their answers aren't perfect, but they aren't quite as stupid. These children evidently paid attention in their History lessons.

Postal (4 Stars)

Let me quote something from a YouTube video I was watching earlier today:

Uwe Boll is the single worst human being to ever walk on the planet since Adolf Hitler, and I'm serious when I say this. I fucking hate Uwe Boll with a blazing passion. As a movie fan I've come to form many elaborate opinions on certain things. I've formed a lot of complex opinions about certain film makers, and Uwe Boll is among the worst and the most immature, the most trashy, the most unsympathetic, the most uncharismatic and the most untalented film maker to ever live on the face of the fucking Earth. I hate this guy, not just as a film maker but as a human being. Now let me go into why I hate Uwe Boll so much. For one thing, I don't think I need to tell you that his films are shit. I don't. Everybody knows this. It's been said so many times and I don't think I could contribute anything new to saying how bad his movies are. Now, the reason why I think this guy is such a crappy person is because he cannot take criticism. The thing is, he is actually aware of how bad his movies are, but he keeps making them, but for some reason he doesn't like it when anybody else points out that they're bad. Whenever somebody talks bad about his movies he either bitches about them and he calls them out, or he challenges them to boxing matches and beats the crap out of them for all the stuff that people say against his movies. And not only is he a shitty film maker, but he's also a bully. Yeah, that's the little adding on top of the shit sundae that is Uwe Boll.

That was just the beginning of a 12-minute rant. Another video blogger says:

Why the hell do you think I made this video? To get people to watch his stuff, find stuff out about him, and then hopefully follow human instinct and try to kill him.

As far as I know no other film maker has ever inspired such hatred. People called Ed Wood's films bad, but they didn't try to kill him. The hatred that Uwe inspires fascinates me, even though I don't share it. I actually find his films quite good, and judging by interviews I've seen with him he's a pleasant, friendly person. In my post on "Bloodrayne 3" I proposed theories why he's hated so much, but after watching "Postal" I have another reason. All the Uwe Boll haters that I have found online are Americans. "Postal" is a film that makes fun of America.

I lived in America for a few years, and I discovered something interesting. When Americans sit together they criticise their president, they criticise American wars, they criticise taxation, and many other issues. But as soon as a foreigner like myself says something critical of America – and believe me, my criticism is always voiced politely – the same Americans huddle together and defend their country bitterly. They don't try to bring arguments in favour of their country, they just say things like "You're not an American, you have no right to say anything against our country". Unfortunately, those who have been born and lived all their lives in America are blind to their country's problems. Only those from abroad can see what's wrong. The Americans criticised George Bush, now they criticise Barak Obama, and they'll criticise their next president as soon as he lets them down. What they don't see is that their two-party system is doomed to failure and will always produce inadequate leaders. As an example of a successful democracy they should look at Germany, which has six parties represented in its government, not including other parties which have not yet received enough votes to join the government. That is real freedom of choice.

"Postal" is advertised as being "live action South Park". The comparison isn't quite accurate, but I'll let it stand. The advantage of "South Park" is that even though its humour is controversial its creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are Americans. They are allowed to make fun of America; Germans aren't. But let's be fair. Uwe also makes fun of Germany and himself in the film. He appears in the film playing himself, but he presents himself as a caricature of a German dressed in a Bavarian costume including Lederhosen. Uwe actually comes from north Germany where such outfits aren't worn. He sits joking about people asking how he's able to make so many bad films, and he says that he finances them with Nazi gold. The guy has a big sense of humour, how is it possible not to like him as a person?

The film can be seen as a satire, but to me the scenes were so close to what I saw while living in America that it was difficult for me to laugh. Rather than a satire it was merely an exaggeration of American life. The film's hero, who is only introduced as Postal Dude, is a normal, everyday guy. He's an innocent. He believes in peace, but the world he lives in drives him to violence. He's not a vigilante or a hero like the man in "Hobo with a Shotgun", he's just someone trying to survive in a hard world. He lives in a trailer and still loves his wife, even though she's grown fat since he married her. She's ungrateful for this and has sex with many men while he's away at work. He lives in a world of police brutality and corporate greed. We see racism, road rage, government bureaucracy and shallow news reporting as features of American life. And then there are guns and religion.

Postal Dude's uncle is the leader of a religious cult. The Taliban have a cell in the back rooms. Osama Bin Laden himself is living with them. The Taliban are planning a biological terror attack that will destroy America, but the cult wants to stop them so they can destroy the whole world. Poor Postal Dude is caught in the middle, trying to talk reason to those around him, then killing those who won't listen to him.

Blubberella (4 Stars)

I first watched "Blubberella" six months ago and reviewed it here. At the time I decided not to rate it. The film confused me, but I found out from the DVD special features that it was a parody of "Bloodrayne 3", so I withheld my judgement. Now, watching the two films back to back, everything is clear to me. In fact, the only way to fully appreciate "Blubberella" is to watch it immediately after "Bloodrayne 3", so they really ought to be sold together. In fact, if you haven't read my review of "Bloodrayne 3", which I wrote earlier today, read it now before continuing.

The film is set in 1943. Blubberella is a dhampir, half human and half vampire. She travels to Poland to meet a Jew that she's talked to online, but when she arrives he has already been taken away to a concentration camp. She follows the train to its destination, where she meets a group of Polish resistance fighters. She teams up with them to battle the Germans, but she accidentally turns a German commander into a vampire. The doctor from the local concentration camp devises a plan to turn the German army into vampires, in addition to making Hitler immortal.

The film's plot, including much of the dialog, follows "Bloodrayne 3". The comedy is in the blatant anachronisms, such as the use of the Internet and mobile phones.  The second-in-command of the resistance group is a very obnoxious gay person, refusing to save the Jews because of their bad fashion sense. And in case you hadn't guessed by now, Blubberella is fat, so there are a lot of fat women jokes. The film breaks through the third wall by including lines such as, "There isn't a black man in this film so the whore will have to die first". The humour is racist, homophobic and misogynistic; a perfect mix!

Bloodrayne 3: The Third Reich (4 Stars)

Uwe Boll is the worst film director of all time.

So they say. I've heard that again and again. People used to say that about Ed Wood, but just look at "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Glen or Glenda". Both are works of genius. People put Ed Wood down because they didn't understand him. Could it be the same with Uwe?

Uwe Boll and Ed Wood can't really be compared, neither in their filming styles nor their attitudes. Ed was very careless in his films, not taking account of things such as consistent lighting. Uwe is precise, the cinematography cannot be faulted. Ed was an idealist who wanted to create works of art, regardless of whether they would make money. Uwe is a pragmatist who wants to make films that make a profit.

I've watched several of Uwe's films in the past and given them varying ratings from medium to good, but I've only recently become aware of how much people hate him. He has been the object of an online petition to stop him making films, and the poor man has even received death threats! I've watched a series of videos and read blogs to try to understand this. It seems to me that the majority of his haters are from the gaming community, a community well known for a lack of maturity. Maybe it's a stereotype that gamers are teenage boys (or rather under-25s) who have never had a girlfriend, but stereotypes exist for a reason. Uwe Boll has made a series of films based on video games, and the gamers accuse him of not being close enough to the games. There's also criticism of sordid and over-realistic effects in his films, but various other modern directors could be accused of this. In fact, any films created by Lloyd Kaufman's Troma company have a similar style, and he doesn't receive death threats.

Uwe seems to take it all in his stride. He offered to face his five harshest critics in the ring for a boxing match in 2006. Needless to say, he won all the matches. He's evidently a tough guy. Okay, I admit that winning a fight doesn't prove a person makes good films, and I doubt being knocked out changed his critics' minds, but as a publicity stunt it was a good idea. Put up or shut up.

"Bloodrayne 3" is the third and best part in the trilogy based on the video game "Bloodrayne". I've never played the game, but I've been told that this film stays closer to the game than the previous two parts. In 1943 Rayne meets a group of resistance fighters battling the Germans in Poland. She joins forces with them, since she hates Nazis almost as much as she hates vampires. (If you remember my previous reviews, Rayne is a dhampir, half human and half vampire. She has the strengths of a vampire, but not the weaknesses such as aversion to sunlight, and she has a soul).

During a battle a German commander accidentally swallows some of Rayne's blood, turning him into a vampire. The doctor from the local concentration camp, Doktor Mangler, devises a plan to turn the German army into vampires, in addition to making Hitler immortal.

So is Uwe Boll really the worst ever film director? Based on the evidence of this film the answer is a clear No. He might not be the best, if my opinion is anything to go by, but he's certainly not the worst. I'll continue to watch and enjoy his films, whatever other people say.

Click here to read my review of "Bloodrayne".

Click here to read my review of "Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance".

Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (3 Stars)

America in the 1880's. Deliverance is a small town on the frontier. It's a peaceful town in which nothing much ever happens, but that is due to change. The railway line is almost complete, and a week from now the first train will arrive in Deliverance, opening the town up to the world. But before that happens the peace is broken. Billy the Kid arrives in town, and he's a vampire. Rayne, who we already know from the first film, arrives in the town to take him on.

Although I like the idea of setting a vampire film in a western environment, the film doesn't really succeed. The action is too slow-paced and couldn't make me jump up from my seat. Natassia Malthe replaces Kristanna Loken in the title role, but despite her beauty she doesn't project enough sex appeal to save the film. Another problem is that the film takes place mostly at night and the picture is too dark to clearly see what's happening. Yes, I know it's a vampire film, but they could have filmed it a bit brighter.

Click here to view the trailer.

Blubberella (unrated)

After careful consideration, I've decided not to give this film a rating. I didn't realise until after I'd watched it that it's a spoof of "Bloodrayne 3", which I haven't watched yet. Director Uwe Boll, well known for cutting costs without skimping on quality, wanted to make two films for the price of one. He filmed "Bloodrayne 3" and "Blubberella" at the same time, using the same actors and the same sets. Immediately after filming a scene for "Bloodrayne 3" he would call the actors back to make a comedy version of the same scene. This way he could make two films for the price of one. Or as he says in an interview, "If Blubberella makes a 25% loss I'll still make an 80% profit". Smart man.



The film style repeatedly breaks through the third wall. (Or is it the fourth wall? I've heard the two terms used interchangeably). In one scene the resistance leader asks his men if they want to assault a German convoy. They don't want to, so he replies, "We have to, it's in the script". There are frequent anachronisms that jarred on me at first, but I began to appreciate them as the film continued.

The plot in brief: Blubberella is an 800-year-old dhampir, half human and half vampire, living in Germany in 1940. She uses the website www.hebrew-hookup.org to date Jewish boys, but Hitler's policy of deporting Jews is making it difficult to find a boyfriend. She joins the resistance to put a stop to it, with the final goal of persuading Hitler to return to a simple life as a painter. Things don't go as easily as planned. When she finds a trainload of Jews the deputy leader of the resistance group, a gay man called Vadge, refuses to free them because of their bad fashion sense. Tasteless, but nevertheless funny. The humour even continues into the final credits:

"Extra special thanks to Adolf Hitler for making so many great movies possible."

I'll rewatch this film after I've seen "Bloodrayne 3" and give a final verdict then.

Bloodrayne (3½ Stars)

The story takes place in 18th Century Europe. Rayne is a dhampir, the offspring of a vampire and a human. She's been captured by a travelling carnival and is being put on show as a freak. Until one day she escapes and vows to take revenge on her father (the vampire Kagan) for killing her mother. To do this she allies herself with an organisation of vampire hunters called Brimstone.

Kristanna Loken, best known for her role as a killing machine in "Terminator 3", is a beautiful woman, but in this film she somehow lacks sex appeal. Michael Madsen is an often criticised actor, but he puts in a good performance as the leader of Brimstone. Ben Kingsley gives a very impressive performance as the cool, reserved Kagan.

Maybe it's unfair that I'm giving this film so low a rating. The film's main weakness was made necessary by its very concept: it's a film based on a computer game. I've never played the game, but watching the film I can see all the elements of a game, so I suspect that the story is based closely on the game itself. There are quests, journeys, clues, and battles with monsters at key points. At so many points throughout the film I could see the main characters doing things immediately that as a game player I would have finally done by trial and error. That disturbed me, which is why I couldn't rate the film any higher. Please leave your comments about this film.

Click here to view the trailer.