I personally have absolutely no animosity geared toward Uwe Boll. People tend to forget that Uwe's movies aren't bad because he's directing them... it's because the games he adapts into movies aren't exactly stellar examples of "good" games to begin with. They're all very FUN games, but none of them can even hope to qualify as being good outside of nostalgic value.
Do people remember Bloodrayne for its epic storytelling and genre-defining mechanics? No. They remember it for brutal dismemberment and jigglytits. Oh, and Nazis... and tits.
Do people remember POSTAL for its poignant social commentary and state of the art graphics? No. It is an isometric and profane splatterfest, with no morals whatsoever, and a special hotkey to commit suicide.
House of the Dead was a damned lightgun-on-rails arcade game, and Dungeon Siege was an almost completely storyless grind of a game. Alone in the Dark... well, I'll give you that one. The game was really awesome. All these games were actually pretty awesome, but they simply cannot be made into good movies.
Either way, none of these games are spectacular epics to begin with. Even if you sat the worlds most accepted and competent director down with them, the movies would either still be awful or changed so much to be palatable that they would scarcely resemble the original game. The simple fact is that video games (so far) translate poorly onto the big screen for the exact same reason that most books don't translate well: they need to be adapted for not just the screen, but the audience.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that before you start trashing Uwe Boll simply because it's fashionable, take another look at the games he has chosen. They aren't exactly Academy worthy either.
