.jpg)
I was RIGHT in-so-far as no one had bothered asking whether this was a real movie or not.
"You are the only journalist asking me anything," Boll wrote. "Everybody else is just writing and guessing."I was, however, WRONG in my speculation that the preview was some misbegotten attempt at promoting "Bloodrayne: The Third Reich."
In the time-honored method of budget-minded B-movie producers everywhere, Boll shot a second movie back-to-back to back with the WW2-themed third entry in the "Bloodrayne" series and that movie is "Auschwitz."
"It will appear on IMDB soon," he wrote.
Boll went onto explain that he was hoping to show the Holocaust as ugly as it was.
"I made the movie because there is not one movie made that shows the holocaust as it really was," he wrote. "All the movies made show us the SPECIAL people, the heroes, but nobody focused on the subject matter. This is what I do in my movie,
and I think in times where 50% of the planet basically say THERE WAS NO HOLOCAUST - I think it's not so bad to show that AUSCHWITZ happened."
He further added that part of the movie will be a documentary.
So, love him, hate him, or be completely indifferent towards him, it seems that Uwe Boll is putting forward something approximating a serious film. I think that deserves some consideration.
I may be setting myself up for a fall here, but I think this may actually turn out to be an interesting film. I enjoyed Heart of America and Rampage. I can't say I 'enjoyed' Stoic but certainly found it compelling. I think when Boll turns to serious subjects he's actually pretty good.
ReplyDeleteI maintain that those who like to slap the "worst filmmaker ever" label on Uwe Boll need to watch more movies. He is FAR from the most incompetent director around, even if I consider "Alone in the Dark" one of the worst films I've ever sat through. I found "House of the Dead" and "Postal" to be rather entertaining, even if they both have some serious flaws.
ReplyDelete