Why Uwe Boll deserves to die, or at least suffer great pain.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:50 pm

If you saw <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0317676/">House Of The Dead</a>, then you know it sucks. It's a stupid, sad excuse for a horror film, and the less that is said about it, the better. Now, whether or not you've seen the movie, what you probably don't know, because you don't give a shit, is that it was produced and directed by <a href="http://imdb.com/name/nm0093051/">Uwe Boll</a>.

So. The man made a shitty movie. And?

You may have noticed the trailers for <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0369226/">Alone In The Dark</a>, what appears to be a shitty movie based off of the game series of the same name. And guess by whom it is being produced and directed?

Uwe Boll.

A look at Mr. Boll's IMDB page tells us that he has a few other movies in the works. <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0383222/">BloodRayne</a>, which is based off of the mediocre vampire chick game of the same name. <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0400426/">Far Cry</a>, again based on the game of the same name. (And, seriously, WTF?) But the best of the bunch? The <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0431132/">Hunter: The Reckoning</a> movie, in which "A group of men and women are given special powers to fight supernatural monsters who prey on humans."

...

omgwtfasdfghjkl;

Brazillian Cara · Post by **Brazillian Cara** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:56 pm

He's EVIL, Del. EVIL.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:04 pm

If everyone made great movies, wouldn't great movies cease to be great? Then every movie would just be "okay." That would be boring.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:06 pm

Then we'd have to read books! Crazy!

Post by **Segaholic2** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:07 pm

Can we kill Joel Schumacher too while we're at it?

Brazillian Cara · Post by **Brazillian Cara** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:17 pm

Wich are his other bad movies besides "Batman and Robin"?

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:23 pm

Do we really need a reason other than Batman and Robin?

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:24 pm

Speaking of Schumacher, did you hear about the Batman 1-4 Special Edition DVDs that are coming out pretty soon, Tsui?

I guess they're even releasing a director's cut of Forever, which is a bit more serious and more concentrated on Two Face and Bruce's nightmares about his parents (which it should've been in the first place). Schumacher has even said he wants this to be his "redemption" since he knows, like, everyone hates him.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:27 pm

Nothing can save those movies. There will be no redemption for Schumacher.

Man, I really wish they'd go back and redo those movies. I always felt that Jim Carrey would have made a better Joker than Riddler.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:31 pm

NO. Jack was perfect as the Joker. Carrey would fuck it up.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:32 pm

Jack wasn't over-the-top enough in my opinion.

Jim owns all.

Dache · Post by **Dache** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:36 pm

Watching House of the Dead both stoned and drunk with friends at 3AM was one of the best nights of my life.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:46 pm

Whatever happened to that Crazy Taxi movie?

Brazillian Cara · Post by **Brazillian Cara** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:50 pm

"HOOOLY SHIT, DUDE! THAT PRIEST IS MADE OF F*CKING CORPOSE PARTS!! AWESOM(passes out)"

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:40 pm

Green Gibbon! wrote:Whatever happened to that Crazy Taxi movie?

I think they realized it was the dumbest fucking thing they could ever come up with.

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:42 pm

They were beaten to the punch by another crappy taxi movie.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:42 pm

<strike>I hope that wasn't actually Taxi.</strike>
Beaten to the punch by Locit.

Locit wrote:another crappy taxi movie.

Hey hey hey, it's Crappy Taxi!! Heh.

Brazillian Cara · Post by **Brazillian Cara** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:02 pm

Yeah, Taxi. The one with Gisele Buchien (or whatever it is spelled), that plays a brazillian car thief gang boss.It just wasn't worse because there weren't a single word in spanish. And I know I typed wrong.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:25 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:Nothing can save those movies. There will be no redemption for Schumacher.

Well, I don't think a re-cut would really save it, but you know that Forever was intended to be much darker than it was. The early drafts, and actually even the shooting script, weren't quite as silly and there was a lot of re-shooting and re-editing things because the studio wanted Forever to be more of a popcorn flick than anything even remotely resembling the macabre Batman Returns, not to mention they wanted to cash in on Jim Carrey's box office draw and that's why the Riddler became the main villain over Two Face.

In fact, I even recall reading something that Tommy Lee Jones hammed up his part intentionally because he was so angry with how Carrey was playing the character, he wanted to prove that anybody could play a monkey or something. I don't know.

So anyway, I'm interested to see how different Batman Forever could have been.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:42 pm

Any superhero movie that attempts to develop two seperate villains with entirely different goals in one movie is bound for disaster.

It'd be like throwing in some other random badguy in the background of Macbeth or something. Horrible story structure is always the result because you need two climaxes.

Go ahead. Make your sex joke.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:46 pm

Zeta wrote:Horrible story structure is always the result because you need two climaxes.

Go ahead. Make your sex joke.

What? I don't see any opportunity for a sex joke. You mentioned that when a story needs multiple climaxes, it's probably not a good one. Where could I make a sex joke?

Anyway, the only superhero movies that I felt effectively pulled off the multiple villian thing so far has been Superman II and Batman Returns.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:03 pm

It'd be like throwing in some other random badguy in the background of Macbeth or something. Horrible story structure is always the result because you need two climaxes.

Sounds like you weren't a fan of World War II.

Trog13 · Post by **Trog13** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:17 pm

Didn't Batman Returns have two villains? That one turned out pretty good.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:22 pm

Amazing Grant wrote:Anyway, the only superhero movies that I felt effectively pulled off the multiple villian thing so far has been Superman II and Batman Returns.

Trog13 wrote:Didn't Batman Returns have two villains? That one turned out pretty good.

Read for comprehension.

I thought X-Men 2 was excellent, although I guess that technically wasn't two villains.

Ngangbius · Post by **Ngangbius** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:30 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:Jack wasn't over-the-top enough in my opinion.

Jim owns all.

While I don't agree that Carrey overall owns Nicholson, I have to agree that Carrey would have made a better Joker than Nicholson. His over-the-top acting would have fit the Joker's personality.

Jim Carrey is also one of the two best choices as Lupin in the proposed live-action Lupin the III movie. The other choice being Bruce Campbell.

And about Uwe Boll...god...I really hope to god that he doesn't get his hands on movie rights to the more popular franchises like Silent Hill or Metal Gear Solid. I'm amazed Ben Kingsley agreed to do the steaming pile known as Bloodrayne.