User reviews

This is the worst film ever made about WW2 and the Holocaust. It's probably been shot at a farmhouse somewhere, no resemblance to Auschwitz whatsoever. The scenes are ridiculous, acting is dreadful. They didn't even bother with hiring enough extras to fill up a train cart and the gas chamber. It all looks like a field trip that ended up a bit badly.

Uwe Boll apparently wanted to raise awareness about the Holocaust with the younger generations in Germany, but has blundered monstrously. This is a joke, and instead of raising awareness it raises your lunch. In my case, it was just some yogurt, but bad enough nevertheless.

As noble as Uwe Boll's intentions might be, please use some quality cinema on the topic and numerous "genuine" documentaries. There's a lot of those about, high-quality and accurate ones, so just chuck this one out immediately. In case you were stupid enough to cough up some cash for this joke. I was, for one.

AUSCHWITZ is something atypical for a Uwe Boll movie. The German director notorious for making B-movies like BLOODRAYNE and IN THE NAME OF THE KING decided to try his hand at making a 'worthy' film a la SCHINDLER'S LIST. The end result is AUSCHWITZ, a look at what went on inside the infamous concentration camp.

Sadly, this film turns out to be just as poor - if not more so - than the rest of Boll's output. It's a short film with a documentary feel that aims to put across to the viewer what it feels like to be gassed in a chamber. It's suitably explicit and depressing, but Boll's direction is so poor and the acting so bad that it lacks the real power needed to convey the message properly. It doesn't help that with the running time coming up so short, Boll pads things out by having random German teenagers chatting about the Holocaust, which is indeed very random.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This movie has nothing to do with reality. It portrays Germans as polite and cultured soldiers, but they were actually degenerates, mercilessly torturing innocent people. Also, the death in gas chambers is depicted in a gentle, theatrical way. In reality, people died in convulsions, writhing in their own excrement and vomit, amid horrifying screams of despair, pounding on the doors. Death in the gas chamber was absolutely terrifying and nothing like what the movie showed. Its historical and educational value is zero, and it actually distorts history. I doubt if the author's intentions were actually as they were portrayed at the beginning of the movie. It seems more like an attempt to conceal the true scale of Nazi terror and cruelty. Such a film might be suitable for children at best. For those interested in the true picture of this inhuman Nazi invention, I recommend the movie "The Champion of Auschwitz.

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

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

No, I am not a history teacher, just someone who is interested in the holocaust. And I was shocked when i saw this movie. Of course, it is shocking to watch who the people were gassed, but please, it wasn't like this. Everything was wrong. I've been to Auschwitz and the gas chambers looked different. They are referring to Auschwitz-Birkenau but got the size of the camp, chambers en area completely wrong. Besides, by the time they were gassing like this there were over a 100.000 prisoners in Auschwitz- Birkenau, they were not in this movie.

This documentary has been made for people to remember what the holocaust was like. I don't think this movie will do anything like that. It was to clean, new, simple en with the wrong facts. Like Uwe Bolle said: Auschwitz was hell on earth. I think he was right, but it was much worse than this movie.

I've had the chance to watch a screener today. This is not Schindler's List. It's not a movie for entertainment but to remember genocide that still happens today.

This play starts with a documentary and ends with a documentary that is 45 minutes long. In the actual movie, which is about 30 minutes long, you see a train arriving at a concentration camp, and then you see every detail until the Nazis kill the inmates. You see, hear and can almost feel the people choke in the Gas in every detail. The movie shows shocking images of how it could have been back then in Auschwitz.

In the movie part, Uwe Boll is playing a Nazi Guard and he plays his role just as if he would work in a School, Kindergarten or Prison, with total normality as if what he's doing as a Nazi Guard is normal work. There is dialogues between the Nazi guards that I found mostly realistic. They have normal problems and small talk just like anybody else and are not the typical Hollywood-type of bad guys.

Before and after the movie, there is the 45 minute documentary which consists of a short introduction by Uwe Boll and interviews with German Teenagers (Germans, and German Immigrants), where one of them looks like a young Claudia Schiffer but does give surprisingly intelligent answers about the Holocaust, Jews and Auschwitz. In this part of this work, there is also real images and video from Concentration Camps, Hitler and the time back then.

I think it's important to remember this time, I do think the movie by Uwe Boll helps. I like how the documentary part of the movie does mention other parts of the world where today still genocide happens, just in smaller numbers. We should never forget and respect each other and care for each other, no matter race, nationality, skin color, or beliefs.

To quote John Lennon, I hope you join us. 10/10 for Inspiration and the documentary value.

The main problem with this film was calling it 'Auschwitz'. When Uwe Boll decided a specific place name he was inviting an inevitable slew of comparisons between what did and didn't happen at that particular location. He should have called it 'Death Camp' in keeping with the loose collection of events illustrated in his film. The movie 'Auschwitz' is not exploitative, or Euro Trash, nor is it a drama. It's more of a docudrama or re-enactment, the sort of historic story-telling that TV has been flooded with for many years. The idea behind re-enactment is to give a visual aid, or impression to the viewer, not an explicit replication of the often bloody detail of the actual historical event. In this way the film does exactly what the director said it would by making a bold attempt to explain what should have been beyond possible. Uwe Boll has created a documentary designed to give today's teenagers the hint of an idea of what happened to the Jews, Gypsies and others under Nazi rule. It is the briefest of glimpses into what happened in the Death Camps. If you are looking for something more than that which Uwe Boll said he was offering, then the list of what is missing is a long one. However, you need to consider the challenges Uwe Boll faced in making this movie. To start with it is impossible for actors, no matter how many or few take part, to even begin to genuinely portray what took place inside a Death Camp Gas Chamber. Only CGI could scratch the surface of that reality and it would be beyond awful to try to create or watch such terror. No more than an impression should ever be committed to film, the authentic truth can be openly researched from the evidence of Death Camp survivors. Another complaint about this film is the depiction of what happens to the babies. It may not have happened in Auschwitz (although I understand that if there was an overflow at Auschwitz they were taken to an area behind the crematorium where they were shot and thrown into a fire pit), but it was common for guards to separate the disembarked survivors of the train journeys at the point of entry to the camps; the babies, the very old, the infirm, the very sick and the disabled. This was done in order to kill them away from the others, because those who couldn't move quickly would hold up the speed of the general slaughter and any inefficiency could cause a (log/human) jam. If you think it couldn't be worse than I have described, I suggest you watch the filmed testimony of Ruth Elias, a Death Camp survivor who gave birth to her baby girl in Auschwitz (The Four Sisters - Claude Lanzmann 2018). Everything by Claude Lanzmann is an amazing and devastating insight into the hell suffered by ordinary Jewish Citizens as they describe to him their personal experiences of the Holocaust or Shoah. I have been unusually grave in my review of this film, but the subject matter is too serious for it to be treated in any other way. When all is said and done 'Auschwitz' is not a great film, but it is a good one and it ought to be seen, in the form it was designed to be, as a documentary for teenagers. They should watch this film to start them on the road to understanding the barbaric horror of systematic and industrialised genocide.

There is a lot of bad press surrounding Ewe Boll, but just to buck the trend I find most of his work, a rewarding experience. Okay he did not have the budget to recreate Auschwitz 1 or 2 but the mechanics of the holocaust are exactly right. Other reviews rightly pointed out there should have been many more in the gas chambers but having less, gave them a grave individuality. The most disturbing aspect though, is interviews with German teenagers (of today), Their lack of knowledge and understanding (of what happened) is so stupid, it actually borders on the supernatural. Balanced out, right at the end, by one bright boy who knew more than all the rest put together. One downside, is I wish it had been a lot longer and with less interviews.

The premise... Great idea but poorly executed. And, of course, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. A tiny bit of mis(or, dis)information is never a good thing and this has its share.

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

The film shows the horrors of Auschwitz and the current ignorance of those horrors. It has been criticised, for example, for not having enough extras on the Jewish transporting cattle trucks. That misses the point. The holocaust should be remembered as industrial scale genocide which must never be repeated. How it gets a 3.2 rating on IMDB defeats me. Hang your heads in shame IMDB reviewers.

Most of the negative reviews disparage Uwe Boll by either comparing him to the Spielberg of Schindler's list or to a documentary maker, this movie neither pretends nor aims at being any of those two things.

This is a short offering, with little to no budget, probably shot after rereading Hanna Harendt, and that, as Boll himself tells us, to just warn about the duty of memory.

The mix of archival images, as brutal today as they were when first seen, the varied level of understanding of the shoah among today's youth, mixing ignorance, misconceptions and, even when not too badly informed, a lack of vision of how this can, and does, happen even today, and finally the film part which does not aim at reconstructing a reality but at essentially showing the horror of administrative evil, the german soldiers are not sociopaths and that's what made their conscious effort to not apprehend the hideousness and utter denial of humanity of what they are doing even more terrifying.

Uwe Boll does exploitation movies, and here he clearly was moved to use his shocker footage and editing method to warn us, holocausts and loss of basic humanity can happen anytime and yes they are ugly and horrible. He did not make it to earn hundreds of millions of dollars in Hollywood, he did not do it to document the words of so many at risk of being lost like Lanzman made his life's work, he did it because he felt he needed to. At least that is my take on it.

It states that the film is like schindlers list, its not. It shows what really happened to one million of the Jews in auschwitz , it is not easy viewing, but it's not meant to be. and if you don't cry then you have no heart or soul. The documentary at the beginning and end make for very interesting viewing.

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