Page 1 of 4
Why Uwe Boll deserves to die, or at least suffer great pain.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:50 pm
by Delphine
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;
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:56 pm
by Brazillian Cara
He's EVIL, Del. EVIL.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:04 pm
by chriscaffee
If everyone made great movies, wouldn't great movies cease to be great? Then every movie would just be "okay." That would be boring.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:06 pm
by Baba O'Reily
Then we'd have to read books! Crazy!
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:07 pm
by Segaholic2
Can we kill Joel Schumacher too while we're at it?
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:17 pm
by Brazillian Cara
Wich are his other bad movies besides "Batman and Robin"?
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:23 pm
by Delphine
Do we really need a reason other than <i>Batman and Robin</i>?
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:24 pm
by Grant
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:27 pm
by Segaholic2
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:31 pm
by Delphine
NO. Jack was perfect as the Joker. Carrey would fuck it up.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:32 pm
by Segaholic2
Jack wasn't over-the-top enough in my opinion.
Jim owns all.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:36 pm
by Dache
Watching House of the Dead both stoned and drunk with friends at 3AM was one of the best nights of my life.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:46 pm
by Green Gibbon!
Whatever happened to that Crazy Taxi movie?
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:50 pm
by Brazillian Cara
"HOOOLY SHIT, DUDE! THAT PRIEST IS MADE OF F*CKING CORPOSE PARTS!! AWESOM(passes out)"
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:40 pm
by Light Speed
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:42 pm
by Locit
They were beaten to the punch by another crappy taxi movie.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:42 pm
by Spazz
<strike>I hope that wasn't actually <i>Taxi</i>.</strike>
Beaten to the punch by Locit.
Locit wrote:another crappy taxi movie.
<i>Hey hey hey, it's Crappy Taxi!!</i> Heh.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:02 pm
by Brazillian Cara
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:25 pm
by Grant
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:42 pm
by Zeta
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:46 pm
by Grant
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:03 pm
by chriscaffee
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:17 pm
by Trog13
Didn't Batman Returns have two villains? That one turned out pretty good.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:22 pm
by Segaholic2
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.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:30 pm
by Ngangbius
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.