Slashdot Mirror
Uwe Boll Smash!
Eurogamer has an interview with opportunistic license-killer Uwe Boll. In the interview, which is dominated by Boll's anger with game fans, he states that he's unlikely to see new game licenses for movies after he butchers Far Cry. From the interview: "In fact, it's not just confusing Boll - it's putting him off the whole thing all together. 'I won't say that I won't acquire another videogame licence in the future. But I'm not so eager to do it any more, to be honest. After Far Cry, maybe I'll go away from videogame-based movies. And everybody can be really happy about it.'"
We have been telling him this since he made his first movie.
Perhaps he could start making reality TV shows , The scripts would be better and the acting more convincing .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Uwe Boll really showed his love today.
Oh, and the whole "I'm getting out of video game movies" thing is pretty cool, too.
What a nice after-Valentine's gift.
Boll says the point is that his movies get better as his career progresses - Dungeon Siege is "ten times better" than BloodRayne, which is ten times better than House of the Dead, and so on.
So, does that make each release 1 grade higher in the Richter scale or something?
The amazing thing about Boll is that he doesn't realize that his movies would still suck even if they weren't based on videogames. It's not the subject matter that kills them, it's his directing abilities.
This guy's the limit!
Might this be because he isn't bothering acquiring any new licenses since the German tax loophole is finally closed? (I believe that he had FarCry before the tax laws were changed)
Scene: CmdrTaco is sitting at his desk looking utterly depressed.
... ... it's too easy for them.
Enter: Zonk.
Zonk: Hey there, sport, why do you look so down?
*CmdrTaco remains silent*
Zonk: Still depressed about how your Valentine's date actually turned out to be a 38 year old Slashdot fan who still lives with his mom?
CmdrTaco: [dejectedly] Yeah
Zonk: Well, by golly, I know what'll cheer you up! Another Uwe Boll story on Slashdot!
CmdrTaco: Nah, the readers are tired of making fun of the same damned guy over and over
Zonk: Oh, come on! Then we'll put it in sectional content!
*Zonk finds an Uwe Boll interview that he hasn't posted before and runs the story*
Zonk: There! That should cheer you up! Just sit back and laugh as the replies roll in.
My work here is dung.
Boll confirms that Diff'rent Strokes and Postal star Gary Coleman is already signed up to play himself in the film
C'mon... Gary Coleman? I don't get to see him anywhere but Avenue Q...
FanFictionRecs.net
I know he was scheduled to run Dungeon Siege into the ground, too. Did he get the Far Cry stuff before or after it?
I dunno that it matters a whole lot, I'm not sure either movie would earn my money. It will be nice to start bashing a brand new director of craptastic movies.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
..there's at least one person in the world who thinks he makes awesome movies: Uwe Boll
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
"Before they judge, they should see the film, that's the first thing. Second, they should really try to compare it fairly, and not based on my name.
Ok, I saw Alone In The Dark. It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Happy now?
I already know i'm going to hell, now i'm just trying to get cable down there.
God Bless you Mr Boil!
"Let's be realistic, what is House of the Dead? House of the Dead is a brainless shooter, where you shoot zombies into pieces. So what are you expecting from the movie, Schindler's List?"
He might be saying something insightful about disposal culture here. Maybe Uwe Boll is secretly a postmodern hero, this generation's Andy Warhol.
Of course, I never cared for Warhol much either.
He also says his movies are successful "Not because I make the best movies on earth, but I make movies for a minimal amount of budget compared to what major companies are spending.
This is pretty brilliant, and I'd hope other directors would start catching on.
Primer was made on only $6,000. If it didn't use film stock, if we encouraged digital production, it would've been less. Hopefully some directors with a little more interest in story will learn from Uwe just how easy it is to make films if you do so with a little mind for economy. If we economize film production, we'll democratize it, and in the end, get better films. Eventually. Unfortunately, along the way, we'll also get more Uwe Bolls - bad storytellers that the market can't seem to squash.
My BS detector goes off whenever there are excuses for everything, and the excuses are always someone else's fault. "People don't understand my movies, game studios didn't back me up, game journalists slant everything, the haters are out to get me...." It reminds me of a saying: Just because no one understands you, it doesn't mean you're a genius.
While denying it at the same time. I'm a little tired of only getting questions from journalists like, 'Your movies were so badly received, blah blah blah.' I know tons of movies that were way worse than Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead." He doesn't actually say it's good. He just says "There sure are a lot of worse movies." Someone should tell him that being the best of the losers isn't anything to take pride in.
And all God's people said, "Amen".
Let me get this straight.
We develop a fondness for a particular game. He gets the license then creates a movie that can only be described as a poorly-done "B" movie (yes, there are plenty of well-done "B" movies). Fans are greatly disappointed in what he did to the movie and by association the game. The fans voice their displeasure. Then he gets angry that fans are disappointed? What's wrong with this picture?!!!
What does he expect fans to do? Just say, "Oh, thank you! Thank you for converting a game to a movie that I was hoping more than anything to end right after the beginning credits started! We are so grateful!"
His views of the modern gamer and modern movie-goer is clearly so low as to be insulting. I've seen productions from amateur (read: still-in-film-school) movie makers that were wonderfully written with really impressive cinematogrphy and editing; I've also been on the crew of indepenent films that were fun to film and fun to watch because the director had a solid vision of what the scripts were trying to project. (No, not porn. Seriously!) If film students and amateur film makers can make entertaining movies on showstring budgets, there really is not much of an excuse for Boll (or any director) who has lots of funding behind him not to create a movie that's at least watchable.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this distorted view within a lot of directorial circles that (HIGH PROFILE STORY or STORY WITH STRONG FAN BASE) + ACKNOWLEDGED STARS = GUARANTEED SUCCESS. I present as proof of this misguided belief Gigli, Bloodrayne, and Battlefield: Earth to name a few.
Hey, Boll, don't let the gamepad hit you in the ass on the way out.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
"I get bashed as the worldwide enemy number one in film-making by people who are working at Starbucks and who also want to make movies. It's ridiculous - it's completely idiotic because they're hitting on a guy who actually made it happen, but I started my career in the same position as anybody else," Boll argues.
Actually, we are bashing you because "you make it happen". Praise the lord that you are giving up on video game franchises.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Has anyone else seen the trailer for Dungeon Seige? Words cannot convey the levels of suckage this movie appears to achieve. It's got zombie NINJAS!
The real problem is that he doesn't even know why people hate him - which leads me to assume that he doesn't even read the criticisms and reviews of his movies. Well, I hope Uwe Boll reads this one, and it might clear it up for him. The problem is that he's obviously not a gamer. He doesn't seem to care about the game properties that he makes movies for, and he alienates the fans of those games, and all gamers in general. Gamers despise him because he seems to be hanging on to the coat tails of game licenses to make a quick buck and run - and he keeps doing it.
House of the Dead the game was about a HOUSE infested with zombies, and some detective type people going in and shooting zombies - not a great or original premise, but that's the game. That's what he should have worked around to create a better plot. House of the Dead the movie, though, was about a bunch of college kids who go to a rave on an island with zombies. How is that anything like the slim plot that was already in the game?
Alone in the Dark the game had a similar plot to House of the Dead in that there's a HOUSE and there's zombies - except this one had more potential to make a decent horror film, as even the name implies. But, Uwe Boll again scrapped everything that made the game what it was - except for zombies and monsters, and he made it into more of an action film.
In the interview, Uwe Boll complains that games aren't known for their stories anyway. Maybe he should play them once in awhile instead of hunting for the cheapest license he could sink his fangs into. Maybe get a license for Grim Fandango, or Beyond Good and Evil, or Pandora Directive, or Gabriel Knight instead of some mindless shooter, and he'll have more material to work off of. However, as his history has shown to not follow the source material at all (however slim that material may be), I wouldn't trust him with those licenses either.
If someone took Harry Potter and turned it into a teen comedy road picture taking place in the US, people would be pissed. So Boll shouldn't be surprised that fans are pissed that he doesn't stay true to his source material.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Jesus, some guys never get it, do they? He seems to see the games industry as some sort of trash can, where he (or someone) can dig the "buzzwords" (Alone in the Dark, Far Cry, etc) to put together his sorry excuses for a movie... Ok, so what if House of the Dead is a "shooter"... So the Bible is a bunch of stupid stories! It's not what it is, it's how it's made!! He talks about Schindler's List... What's that? It's a story about a guy that saves a bunch of people during a world war! So what, right? No biggie! Hey hey, what about LOTR? A stupid collection of stupid books about hair-feet-people that must destroy a stupid ring that someone stupid created with infinite power... Oh well... Wait a minute! I know! Let's make a movie about Bowl, but using only trained monkeys, see if he likes it... Even better, let the movie be directed by monkeys, given enough time they will come up with something way better than Bowl ever did...
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
How does one get into making porn, I don't know any people that are really dead on the inside. Any pointers?
The source material and its "shallowness" are irrelevant. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the "Star Trek" series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Her vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done.
Instead, we get a piece of schlock that was nothing more than the Bloodrayne name and blades with some blood and guts. Oh, and a very-easy-on-the-eyes babe. Hey, is that Ben Kingsley? That Ghandi guy? Well, that certainly gives the movie credibility! (Not.) It was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly thought out.
The fact that its source was a video game cannot be more irrelevant.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
It had to be said.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Uwe Boll? Who?
Well, I have some Karma I don't mind burning, so I'll play devil's advocate here for a while...
ASSUME for a minute you have no idea who this "Uwe Boll" guy is or what he did, and also ASSUME for a few more minutes you never played any of the videogames he made into movies.
Now the fun part starts.
First, look at the budgets of his movies. And what actors played (so how much money went into the actual movie as opposed to payroll). And who the heck wrote the scripts.
Take a peek at how (many) other movies with the same budgeting came out (quality-wise). You'd probably be surprised to see that quite many flopped badly, even without heavy negative publicity.
Now, suddendly remember you saw something with the same name. Uh, a video game. Hmm... you start remembering playing it. And you compare it to the movie, start cursing or something, "this wasn't even remotely close, I played something else". Well, newsflash, it's a script based on the video game, not a rehash of the game itself. And with almost nobody from the "original game team" aboard at any stage in the film's making, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EXPECT ?
One word for you: DOOM, the movie.
Uwe Boll ? Nah.
Sucked ? Kinda' like the same as Uwe Boll's movies sucked compared to the video games they depicted.
Personally, I didn't find Alone in the Dark half as bad as I expected (except for the cheesy story and average acting)... probably because I had never seen any other Uwe Boll movies before, and because (shock) I never played a single Alone in the Dark.
BOTTOM LINE ?
I don't find anything *basically* wrong in the interview, as per initial "assumptions".
Ask yourself, would you have done any better if you had zero knowledge of that game you bought the franchise for, were not a gamer yourself, and you had his limited budget ?
I didn't think so either.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Wait, I haven't seen House of the Dead, but is he saying that it was ten times worse than Blood Rayne!? That seems pretty implausible. I mean, it seems like "I'd rather gauge my eyes out with dirty shrimp forks than see this movie again" would be fairly close to the bottom of the scale.
At least Doom made an EFFORT to replicate the game on film. Yes, they changed the thing about hell to something about zombies. Yes, they forgot to put in a Cyberdemon.
But it still took place on Phobos, still got in shots of all the required guns and enemies STRAIGHT FROM THE GAME, and even had an ENTIRE SUBPLOT revolve around Sarge's search for the BFG-9000. There were plenty of in-jokes for fans, like Karl Urban's character being named John, a dead scientist named Carmack, and Rock's utterance of the three words we were all waiting to hear once he found the BFG - the computer monitor might call it the Bio Force Gun, but we at least got to HEAR it get called the Big Fucking Gun.
On top of that, I remember reading in an interview with someone from ID that the producers actually used art design from Doom 3 as a basis for the set design. You know what? It shows. The overhead lighting above doors, the fonts, everything seems ripped out of the game and come to life on screen - which is the WAY IT SHOULD BE.
Was Doom high art? No. But it was awesome, awesome Nerd Porn, which is exactly what a good video game movie SHOULD be, and my friends and I had a great time sitting in the theater picking out all the references to the game we know and love. Boll has yet to accomplish this.
"Words cannot convey the levels of suckage this movie appears to achieve. It's got zombie NINJAS!"
The word you're looking for is "camp". As in a "campy" film.
Read Uwe Boll: Money For Nothing for a possible reason his movies are so bad. Short version: video game licenses are cheap, and German tax laws make bad movies a write-off.
I read that as Ewe Bowel smash!
Speaking of which, I just remembered there is something I must go do.
Did anybody else catch House of the Dead 2 on the Sci-Fi Channel last saturday? Now, I only saw the first 15 minutes of HotD2, but those few minutes were funny and exciting, everything that House of the Dead was not. If you want hard, scientific proof, check the IMDB user rating. HotD got got 2.1 out of 10 stars, while HotD2 got 4 out of 10 stars. It was almost twice as good, but, according to the Uwe Boll interview, he states each of his movies are ten times better than the last one. So if he made House of the Dead 2, it would have earned 21 stars out of 10! Now that would have been an awesome movie!
To be fair, FarCry was B-Movie material in terms of plot anyway. The "acting" was ridiculously laughable, with the stereotyped male lead who's just out to kill everything that moves, or make moves on them (see also: female lead, with gratuitous semi-naked scenes of course). The revelation that the end bad guy is the one who's been helping you all along was an awful ending, so predictable and cheesy, and the plot itself was pretty poor. I don't think it could be "ruined" when it wasn't to the standard of, say, HL2, to start with.
So in his estimates, that means about 500 to 1000 people have seen his movies and less than fifty knew him before House of the Dead.
Based on the paltry box office results from his recent movies, I'd say that sounds about right.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
So at the end of the interview he says:
Course he does. "Before they judge, they should see the film, that's the first thing. Second, they should really try to compare it fairly, and not based on my name.
"If people really think I'm completely talentless, and this is to journalists, they should at least rent one of my earlier movies, like Heart of America, which is a really, really good movie.
"And then they should say, 'Okay, this is the history of this director, we should judge him based on this.' They shouldn't say, 'This guy cannot make movies,' because this is unfair. I think it's very arrogant that a lot of journalists are not even willing see that movie before they judge my directing ability."
This doesn't make any sense... So maybe he made a decent movie a long time ago (I've never seen any of them to be truthful), but what does that have to do with how people view his current movies? If a movie sucks it's not going to be any better because the director made a good movie in his past. All it'll say is that the director might be "past their prime".
The problem is that none of the movie makers seem capable of respecting the source material. Doom is of course the worst offender. Doom the game had three elements and the movie had none of them. It has already been discussed enough but it is true for EVERY game movie.
It reminds me of the horror stories that happen when americans get their paws on british comedy. Hitchhikers guide anyone? Read up on Terry Pratchet with both his discworld series and Good Omens. Red Dwarf? The american pilot can be found if you got a strong stomach. It is not new either. Check the old british comedy Porridge. Oh and the americans ain't the only one to blame. There was a dutch version of it too. Truly horrible.
Nor is it just the americans doing it. There are foreign 'remakes' of "Who's the boss" that should have their producers shot for wasting good film.
Why does it happen? I don't know. What exactly makes you pick a very popular property and then take out those elements that make it what it is? Red Dwarf is 4 male losers in space. So why did the americans make one female? Discworld/Omen has Death. So why do you tell the writers to loose the skeleton?
Frankly I am not suprised that movie makers don't get games because they haven't been doing to well with anything else either. I am pretty sure that if a movie maker would get his hands on the game chess we would loose the black and white sides and instead it would be a small multi-colored rebel army vs zombies from mars because that is what the focus group told them sells.
Frankly Uwe Boll has a point, he may be bad but there a lot worse out there. Popular property == butchery in the hand of a filmmaker.
Perhaps he is right about game studios not doing enough. Would a modern Marvel allow Spiderman to be butchered like this? Probably not but none of the game studios seem upset with Uwe Boll. Rather then interviewing him interview the person reponsible for selling the license and ask them why they did not protect their title.
We had some interviews with the people from Doom but the only thing I got out of it was that they were happy to take the cash. They didn't seem to care one shit about what the movie would be like.
Perhaps it is a vicious downward spiral. Game movies are 'flops' so if you can sell the license you take whatever you can get rather then risk loosing essentially free income. BEcause the game studios don't bother to protect their property (how many property owners do? I think Pratchett and the Red Dwarf guys are among the exceptions for having turned down movie makers) then the movie makers feels compelled to 'change' the property to better fit focus groups.
If you want to understand why game movies suck study Doom. It is the simplest property requiring no quality actors to tell a complex backstory. You only have to put a guy in marine uniform on mars slaughtering demons. That is it. When you figured out why they could not do that then you have figured out why game movies suck.
Movie makers just can't seem to learn that when you take a popular property you do not get a 'free' audience. You get a whole lot of 'free' critics who will be checking up on every factoid. When George Lucas made Star Wars A New Hope he was free. Yet if you make a "star wars' game you do not get a free audience unless you manage to get everything right that makes star wars star wars. Say you made an MMORPG and suddenly decided that Jedi are not the asskickers of the universe but can be owned by a medic. Do you think that would still get you the millions of star wars fans as free customers? Ask SOE.
Same is true the other way around. You can use a popular property in a different media but you got to respect the source.
Back to Doom the feeling I get is that the makers should just have made a non doom movie. Everything said in every interview gave me the impression they didn't want to make Doom the Movie but that just someone thought using its name would help sell it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Best..quote...ever.
Okay, I'll admit it, I worship Uwe and hope he keeps making video game movies. Why? Because all video game movies suck (let's face it video game stories are trash to begin with--usually just cheap exercises in setting you up for some preditable gameplay). But at least Uwe's suck **ROYALLY**!
I mean, they're so bad they're worth watching just for laughs. How can anyone watch House of the Dead and not laugh when, and this is no joke, HE ACTUALLY RANDOMLY SPLICES GAME FOOTAGE INTO THE MOVIE. What other director would have the sheer balls to randomly throw in gratuitous video game footage from a crappy early 90's FPS into his movie?
Why settle for other video game movie directors who JUST suck? Why not go for the gusto and demand one who sucks on an EPIC scale? I don't want my videogame movies to be merely bad, I want them to stink up the screen with the kind of pretension, lack of skill, and sheer incompetence that would make Ed Wood blush!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Some guys are making a no-budget MGS3 movie and I'm more excited about this than about anything Mr. Boll made. They've got a trailer on their official website:
http://corral.elrellano.com/
Mr. Boll even has a small cameo at the end. (In the english version at least.)
(The special effects are made by the same guy who made the Nintendo ON fan movie a while ago.)
I didn't even know who this guy was before reading the article, but now that I know the crap he's responsible for, I can't stand him. And they say there's no such thing as bad publicity.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
http://www.petitiononline.com/7292442/petition-sig n.html?/
maybe, just maybe.
"I've met tons of people who think BloodRayne is way better than Underworld 2, but they're not going on the Internet and writing that...
Oh, I'll write it, I'll write it! I may even believe it.
But if you're aiming to be better than Underworld 2, the sequel to a movie about ass-kicking vampires fighting ass-kicking werewolves in which at the end there's an ass-kicking half-vampire half-werewolf, then it's like figuring you're damned already but you can at least try to get sent to the fourth level of hell instead of the sixth or seventh.
He's a typical incompetent, so much that he can't even see his own incompetence. [Sung to the tune of "Nowhere man."]
Perhaps He should start out slow
stop animation PONG the movie
Work his way up to Pac Man and the Bandit.
Elevator Action III:The Basement.
Spy Hunter IV: Herbie Does Quebec.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It's all too easy to go after Uwe Boll for making these horrible films, and it's right to do so (vote with your dollars and all that). What i simply cannot understand is why he's allowed to acquire all of the licenses required to create these movie. Where is the scorn directed towards the gaming companies for being sell outs and letting this flop-creator use their name?
I want to hear from teh game creators themselves, the people who toiled in a cubicle for days and months to release some game (one they might even be proud of) only too see that down the road some notoriously bad director has taken a bit of what they helped create and utterly twist it into something completely different. Did the creative directors and writers behind Dungeon Siege, Blood Rayne, and Far Cry simply shut up and line their pockets, or is this out of their hands?
All too obviously i'm not entirely sure how the behind the scenes mechanics of licensing work; I just want to know how it is that Boll's movies can be so thuroughly lambasted and yet he's still able to pick up the rights to make more. Basically... is there a single ounce of pride left in the artistic and creative merits behind the $'s of the video game industry? Corporate-ism tells me no... but there are humans behind this somewhere. Humans that pitch an idea because they know others will like it, not simply to see a good ROI.
Of course he will, the german tax loophole is closed.
Well, I've defended Doom's story before:
c id=13853260
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166027&
You're this testosterone spitting baddass with the biggest fucking gun in the universe, and you inevitably fail (in the first game), it's a hardcore tragedy and statement about man's impotence in the face of the inevitable.
The source material for Bloodrayne, House of the Dead, and Alone in the Dark are almost ideal for movie making. Any zombie movie you care to name could have fit into the House of the Dead universe. With Bloodrayne, the source material is so farcically light that the writer basically has a free hand to write any story they like about a vampire woman with blades on her arms... so long as it is a good story. Maybe Nazis are involved somehow, maybe not. And Alone in the Dark has had a ton of outings and an encyclopedia of reference. But all you really need is a lone detective story, a touch of the weirdly supernatural, and a flashlight in darkness.
Ironically all 3 of the games are based loosely on good movies. The Zombies in House of the Dead are almost a dead ringer for Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Alone in the Dark is based more loosely on the noir filmmaking style popular in the 40's and 50's. Rayne is a parody of Indiana Jones and The Matrix.
Really, the current best example of a game-to-movie conversion is Resident Evil. They took some basic premise from the game, and some signature sets / moments that might work as a movie, and re-created everything else. If it wasn't for the terrible CGI on the Licker, and dogs covered in cold cuts, it would have been a great movie. It encompassed many things that the game didn't have, yet the fans were happy.
You're not making a movie from a game. Your making a movie that shares the same name and certain signature elements as a game, but only those that work as a movie.
The ______ Agenda
Psst... 10 times 0 is still 0...
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Is Uwe Boll going to smash all 107 critics that panned Alone in the Dark? (1% on RT) Even the highest rated reviews there says it's only good because it's bad.
I saw Resident Evil 2 in the theaters. I thought it was good for what it was: cheesy fun. The acting was good. I liked the cinematics (atmosphere, lighting, etc). Most importantly, I was entertained. I didn't go in expecting a masterpiece.
So I watched the trailer for Dungeon Siege that somebody else kindly posted, and it looked bloody awful. Nothing screams desperation like putting a bunch of has-been actors to prop up your film.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
A rather amusing little tirade.
Where to start...
Ok first you took one of the most treasured PC games of all time, the Lovecraftian inspired Alone in the Dark, sets in in modern times and puts Tara Reid in it. I could honsestly care less about Dungeon Siege or Bloodrayne or House of the Dead, those games had little to no plot or atmosphere to them, but the steaming turd he made of AiTD is unforgivable. Movies based on video games have always been weak, but Boll has compined that with a budget movie mentality wich is a sort of alchemical compination of crap and more crap.
So for Mr. Boll:
Gamers think you suck
Critics think you suck
Independant moviegoers think you suck
Conclusion: you suck. Find a new job or go back to making regular budget crap movies.
... but I'm apparently in the minority here. Just like I'm sure that people DO exist that liked Uwe Boll's films. ...
Aside from his mother, I mean.
This is why Uwe Bol movies are crap, what would compel any sane person who has played postal to think "hmm this game is fun but what I would really enjoy is a movie based on this game"?!?!?! No one, same response to who would want to watch that movie.
And I loved playing Postal and postal 2.
Has Uwe Bol ever played any of these games? Who directed the Doom movie BTW? I just saw it last night (Netflix) and it sucked.
You should hear my theory about "Need For Speed" being a thinly veiled metaphor for drug addiction. :)
Yes. Because everyone knows that the Cocolate/Coconut/Caramel ones(Samoas?) rock Thin Mints socks. Posting anon as is really really OT.