Reader Mail: Uwe Boll’s “Postal”

6/9/2008 Update:

Apparently radio station 101.5 FM is currently “trashing” this Postal movie. Way to go again, Hoboken!


Seeing that the Hoboken International Film Festival starts tonight, here’s what one Hoboken411 reader has to say about tonight’s screening of Uwe Boll’s movie “Postal.” He’s not too happy, and warns parents NOT to bring their children to this event…

Some Serious Questions about “Postal”

hoboken-uwe-boll-postal-international-film-festival.jpgNazi gold for Uwe Boll? Oy Vey! Holy Cow!

Perhaps, in some way, the showing of Boll’s scandalous, ultraviolent “action-comedy” film “Postal,” in Hoboken, at this very time, with Boll and Mayor Roberts both scheduled to appear on the stage on Friday night (!), is a fitting epilogue to the burgeoning financial scandal that is now threatening to topple the city administration!

In his film, to be screened as a free event Friday night at Pier A, Uwe Boll (a German emigre), plays himself as the owner of a “concentration-camp-themed amusement park,” who openly brags that it is funded by the gold the Nazis extracted from the teeth of Jewish death-camp victims! According to Boll, he does this as a spoof of the web-based rumors of how his movies are financed. But how many people will enjoy this kind of “humor?” The same question can be asked about scenes trying to poke fun at deaths during 9/11, children killed during a mass school shooting, a very obese woman having sex with multiple partners, and a Black cop shooting an Asian woman because he mistakenly thinks she used the N-word.

Boll is known mainly for converting several violent video games into very gross movies – but there is no hint of this in the Festival’s promotional material (their website bills it as “international star director Uwe Boll’s uproarious competition feature Postal”). I don’t know if the Mayor’s office realizes what they may be getting themselves into by blindsiding people with this screening! I think that many people who walk over to the “Hoboken International Film Festival” without knowing about the infamous “star” director Boll, or having seen reviews of this “uproarious feature,” are going to be extremely surprised, probably grossed out, upset, and angry – and will likely boo, and even feel like throwing something at the screen [please don’t blame Gerri Fallo, Coordinator of Hoboken’s Cultural Affairs, who had nothing to do with selecting the Festival films, and please don’t hurt the screen!].

See trailer, and continue reading more after the jump!

(Uwe Boll’s “Postal” continued…)


From all the reviews I’ve read, both pro and con, and even the plot itself, this film appears to be filled with some of the most obscenely violent, racist & sexist scenes and stereotypes shown in recent memory. It’s all done in the name of “gross humor,” but I think it will make me, and many others, turn away in disgust if we try to watch it. The big contradiction for me is that Boll is claiming that he intended “Postal” to be a satirical commentary on the ills of U.S. society – particularly the lie of the Iraq war, but to me that is just a thinly veiled excuse for exploiting and glorifying the very violence and hatreds it supposedly wants to expose. Even though “Postal” also skewers George W. Bush, which would ordinarily make me want to like this movie, I don’t think this will be nearly a sufficient mitigating factor in this case.

– – – – – – – – – –

Parental warning: I don’t know if parents have been sufficiently warned not to bring their kids to the screening, but I hope no young children are inadvertently there to be subjected to all of the bloody gore (including dead schoolchildren), as well as the stereotypes.

Here is a relatively objective review, which also gives a good feel for the plot.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
38 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
hobodaveFMTVENGMidnightRacerEasy-Edevilgirl Recent comment authors
newest oldest

Yeah FMTVENG, thanks. I wasn’t particularly worried about being seen on film arguing with Uwe Boll. My face has been seen enough times in public controversy over the years, so “privacy” was not a big concern to me. I was just curious about the so-called legal basis being used by the person making the documentary, to fast-talk me into signing a waiver that would give them the full right to chop up and manipulate my words and image in any way they want for all time. A few days later, I asked a friend with some connection with documentary films, why people often sign such “standard” absolute waivers of all rights. He said it was for the “fame” of being in a movie. When I made my last post [#28], I was trying to indicate, not too clearly it seems, that I was not so enticed by the “glamor” of being seen on the “big screen” that I would sign a document allowing them to turn what I said into its opposite – or something completely unintelligible. The meaning of what I say is what’s important to me. – – – – – – – – – – [quote comment=”85774″]You should’ve signed it with yellow ink instead[/quote] Hey, I can’t figure out if this post was an attempt to disparage the documentary maker or me. Are you implying that I was being cowardly, with your “yellow” reference? Makes me think of coining a “tree falling in the forest” type of… Read more »


[quote comment=”85658″] The “documentary” person speaking to me said they had a right to use some footage of me even if I didn’t sign the waiver, under the “fair usage” doctrine. What is that? HELP KATIE!, or some other legal expert![/quote]

technically, if the argument happened at the park (public property), and the other person whom which the conversation was occurring with had knowledge of the taping, i think it’s legal. Just like how you see all these paparazzi making money of selling video and pics of celebs out at various places. If you are on public property, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy under the letter of the law.

in NJ and NY you also have no reason to expect that your phone conversations are NOT being recorded either, as only the consent of one party is needed.


your web link is wrong, the NJ radio stations web site is


You should’ve signed it with yellow ink instead


Thanks KS and Easy.