Is Uwe Boll really that bad?
- Thread starter the27thvoice
- Start date
I rather dislike the movies based on games. THey appear to either make no sense or are very, very, very loosely connected to the gameplot.
Now this isn't a very convincing arguement is it?
I also dislike the camera style, the acting in general and well.. Yeah he kinda influenced my memories on games that were fun at the time.
Now this isn't a very convincing arguement is it?
I also dislike the camera style, the acting in general and well.. Yeah he kinda influenced my memories on games that were fun at the time.
My biggest problem with him is that...well...he's kind of an asshole. Even if he DID make good movies, he should try being a bit more humble about it.
He's openly admitted that all his watchers (even the ones who say nice things) are essentially horrible fucking nerds living in their moms basement while he's out doing real work, he's also admitted that he doesn't give a damn about trying to make video game movies about the video games themselves. In which case, why make game movies? Look at BloodRayne 3. He finally got the story semi-accurate but now she looks NOTHING like Rayne. He could have just called the movie Vampires vs. Nazis and probably would've gotten more credit for it
He acts like his films are gods gifts to the world and that nobody (whether random net fan or legitimate critic) has any right to badmouth his films.
If he wasn't such a dick, his horrible films might seem less horrible. It's hard to enjoy something when you know the guy behind you thinks you're slime.
He's openly admitted that all his watchers (even the ones who say nice things) are essentially horrible fucking nerds living in their moms basement while he's out doing real work, he's also admitted that he doesn't give a damn about trying to make video game movies about the video games themselves. In which case, why make game movies? Look at BloodRayne 3. He finally got the story semi-accurate but now she looks NOTHING like Rayne. He could have just called the movie Vampires vs. Nazis and probably would've gotten more credit for it
He acts like his films are gods gifts to the world and that nobody (whether random net fan or legitimate critic) has any right to badmouth his films.
If he wasn't such a dick, his horrible films might seem less horrible. It's hard to enjoy something when you know the guy behind you thinks you're slime.
I don't like him because he has made bad movies, is too proud to admit it, has challenged his critics to a boxing match (Because that is the correct solution to a problem apparently) and THEN takes advantage of the tax system to make money.
He treats his staff like a bunch of slaves and makes silly decisions. For example, when filming Alone in the Dark, he turned down the original script for a few cited reasons including a 'lack of car chases.' Oh, and he blames his lack of financial success on his marketing company and even tried to sue them.
In short, I don't like him because he doesn't act like a grown man.
He treats his staff like a bunch of slaves and makes silly decisions. For example, when filming Alone in the Dark, he turned down the original script for a few cited reasons including a 'lack of car chases.' Oh, and he blames his lack of financial success on his marketing company and even tried to sue them.
In short, I don't like him because he doesn't act like a grown man.
Maybe he isn't as bad as people say he is. Maybe.
But he definitely lacks talent as a director. Simply put, he's just not that good.
But he definitely lacks talent as a director. Simply put, he's just not that good.
I love the guy.
Not only did he make some of the most entertainingly bad movies of the last ten years,
he finances most of his Movies through a really convoluted funding scam and he pummeld several of his critics into submission in a highly promoted Las Vegas Boxing match.
And that's awesome.
Not only did he make some of the most entertainingly bad movies of the last ten years,
he finances most of his Movies through a really convoluted funding scam and he pummeld several of his critics into submission in a highly promoted Las Vegas Boxing match.
And that's awesome.
Part of the point is that a lot of his movies are deliberately made to be horrible flops, so he can benefit from the tax breaks (he is living the plotline of "The Producers")the27thvoice said:
And the thing that really riles up gamers is that the movies he chooses to do this on are the videogame adaptions, which he seems to have a love for ruining. The problem is that he has no respect for his source material, and prefers spectacle and cliche over substance, which is exacerbated by his insistence in doing videogame adaptions.
Also his next movie is about the holocaust. It's called Auschwich, and the trailer was HIM (in a cameo) as a Nazi guard, standing outside the door to a gas chamber while the people inside are getting gassed and banging on the door and screaming. Yeah.
A good movie causes me to feel happy or cheerful, like Inglorious Bastards, Donnie Darko, Butterfly Effect, Mr.Brooks, Get Shorty, Bucket List, and I can go on for some hours. A bad movie causes me to feel annoyed. Any movie (I have seen a few) of this guy gives me a headache and insomnia for 1 day. But, to be fair to this guy, I've seen 1 or 2 other movies that deliver quality on that level. I do not like the general hatred issued against this guy and his movies, because it causes people to watch them and see for themselves if it's really that bad. If they want to watch weird shit, I give them Ichi The Killer.
It's all about opinion, I suppose. I've seen 3 Boll films, including In the Name of the King, and I thought all 3 were atrocious. You didn't think In the Name of the King was that bad. See? It's all opinion. I personally think Uwe Boll is an awful director. He hasn't made one decent film in the entirety of his career. He basks in the hatred he receives, so at this point I think the awful (at least what I consider to be awful) movies are somewhat intentional.
Several people bring this part up, I see. I'm inclined to agree that if you make a movie based on a video game (or a book for that matter), then entire creative process should be trying to condense a 10-20 hour experience down to a 1.5-2 hour experience.Saelune said:
But EVERYONE blows at this. Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros, Tomb Raider, Hitman...all semi-decent movies that might be enjoyable in a certain mindset, but terrible adaptations of games to films.
This is not unique to Uwe Boll. Why is he the one recieving all the flak? Is it that he makes money, that he is obnoxious about it or just that he doesn't stop?
Well, there you go. A simple visit to rotten tomatoes or a fan-driven movie site will tell you why everyone hates Uwe Boll's movies.the27thvoice said:
I have seen Alone in the Dark (wretched) and House of the Dead (indescribably bad). Can't recall if I've seen any of his other movies. My friend who's a filmmaker watched a movie he made about the Darfur atrocities and said that it was both realistic and incredibly horrific. It was one of those rare war films that was more like a horror film, and all the more horrifying because it was about reality. He also said that the movie didn't make much in the way of a point and wasn't very good other than that. This is of course hearsay, even if I trust the source. I haven't seen In the Name of The King but if it's anything like the tale that the reviews tell or anything like his movies that I HAVE seen, then I wonder what your standards are. That's not meant as an insult - I honestly want to know. Did you find Inception to be "too much" or "too hard to follow?" Were The Matrix movies too much for you? Are you at home watching Michael Bay films?
For cinemaphiles and video game fans alike, there are numerous reasons to despise this guy as a filmmaker. He deals almost exclusively in video game adaptations, chooses games that don't lend themselves readily to film adaptation (when there are plenty that do), and then makes them into horrible films. If he and W.S. Anderson are the only ones this interested in adapting video games, then Hollywood isn't going to help our medium be taken seriously as an art form.
His movies are so bad that many celebrate them as "so bad they're good." For all of those out there who aren't huge movie geeks, camp is divided into the intentional and the naive. John Waters, director of Serial Mom, Pecker and Cecil B. Demented, makes intentional camp films. Uwe Boll directs naive camp. If he didn't believe his films were great, he wouldn't have held a boxing tournament against anyone who wanted to get in the ring with him who felt that his movies suck (watch the Jaime Kennedy doc Heckler. Do it. Right now. It's brilliant, which is kind of odd because he generally sucks. Anywho...). House of the Dead seemed like it wasn't even made by a person who plays or understands video games. Whenever a protagonist died, the film would stop so we could be treated to a slow-motion redux of their death with added effects. The same bloody tearing from the actual "game" (House of the Dead is a series of arcade rail shooters that came from the period when developers realized that arcade games should be shitty fodder for drunk people at Dave and Buster's, and that their real artistic focus should be on home consoles and PC games) appeared between scenes in the movie for no reason whatsoever except to remind us that this has source material - that source material being a light gun game for idiots. And it was also one of those movies that was so bad that Boll felt he had to put a dozen tits in the beginning to keep our attention. And they weren't even very impressive tits
In other words, the film itself was an insult to the audience. At some point the audience is driven to walk out of the film, not so that they can rush home and sound cool on the internet later, but because they've already paid ten bucks and spent an hour or so of their lives that they'll never get back and they don't want to waste another second being insulted by celluloid. I really don't get the sure it's bad, but it's not that bad argument. Why do we embrace mediocrity? A 69 on a test will fail you, because it's not good enough. Scoring in the 51st percentile means that you've tested better than half the population, but it still won't get you into an Ivy League school or even a major state university. You wouldn't date the 4th cutest, 6th smartest, 21st-closest-to-compatible-with-you, 12th funniest, 9th most compassionate girl you know, would you? Why should movies be any different?
I remember MovieBob saying that Roland Emmerich has a bunch of high art pieces and philosophical relics in his house. Godzilla was still a ripoff of Jurassic Park on 8 or 9 different levels in addition to meeting no literary standards whatsoever, and 2012 and Independence Day still insulted my intelligence at every turn. Also, and I'm not sure if Jung or Aristotle ever touched on this, but astronauts do not date strippers and the Earth will not some day be saved because some guy heard his dad say "cold" and immediately thought "virus," then "computer virus" and magically was able to speak both an alien language and an alien computer language. I'm glad that Boll and Emmerich are really smart guys. There films are still so vapid that they tell me that the filmmakers think that you and I are stupid. Telling me someone has a degree doesn't disqualify them from cinematic scrutiny. Some brilliant neurosurgeons can barely drive their cars. I recently heard a doctor talk about people "stuck in their grunge phase." Tell me, do you know anyone who wears head to toe denim and flannel? The point is that simply because someone has achieved something in a specific field doesn't mean that they should be viewed as a guru on everything in life.Smokej said:
By now, I have actually seen two interviews where he dropped the semi-insane persona and, though it causes me almost physical pain to admit it, I believe you are basically correct.BonsaiK said:
He is obviously reasonably smart, pretty insightful when it comes to movies in general and the movie industry in particular, knows what he is doing and, maybe the most terrible thing of all, seems pretty nice.
He´s still a **** for making all these shit movies on purpose though.
In case anyone is interested, Loading Ready Run did a really good interview with him, should be easy to find on their site.