Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: nobody on July 02, 2005, 08:11:42 PM



Title: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: nobody on July 02, 2005, 08:11:42 PM
Will anyone survive Uwe Boll's next film?

Rotten Tomatoes  (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=213168/)


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 02, 2005, 09:57:15 PM
Nobody,

Nothing against you, but I'm really sick of everyone blasting Uwe Boll's flicks.  I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person alive who honestly loves his films.  

Boll's films are about the most fun damn films out there.  They are insanely bad, plot holes abound, acting is atrocious, yet are 100% entertaining from beginning to end.  I say bring on the films Boll, even if it means that my wife and I will be the only ones in the theater as was the case with Alone In The Dark.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: nobody on July 02, 2005, 11:15:58 PM
I could've enjoyed Uwe Boll in the same manner you have, but he put his filthy paws all over Bloodrayne- a video game I absolutely loved- and I can't forgive him for that. A Bloodrayne movie, filmed by a competent director, could've been an outstanding film- especially if it was set in the proper time and place (1940's Germany).


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Alan Smithee on July 02, 2005, 11:50:25 PM
Wow. It's weird to see BURT REYNOLDS play a role as a king. Even if it is in a Uwe Boll film.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on July 03, 2005, 12:11:02 AM
I see Skaboi and Nobody points. I too am getting tired of people blasting boll. The thing is I am a video game fan too. Bloodrayne is not the best game but its fun.  Its just a vampire chick killing Nazis a really don't see how you can mess that up. Boll decides to go with a prequel which personal I don't like. I am not going to dish out  $10 to see in the theater. I will just wait to rent it. I do get p**sed when I see a crappy movie in the theater maybe I will like the flim more if I rent.


_____________________________
"We Greeks created democracy! You also created homos!"-Ghost World


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 03, 2005, 11:09:24 AM
Nobody,

I understand what you mean completely.  I liked both Bloodrayne games and feel it would be better if it was set in '40s Germany with Nazis and all that.  

But, I'll probably still go see it in the theater anyway.  I don't know exactly what it is about Bolls films, I just find them so damned enjoyable.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 04, 2005, 09:36:40 AM
I'm rooting for Boll now. He's become his own underdog. I'm looking forward to the day he makes a good flick, and when it happens it will be like Rocky knocking out Ivan Drago. It'll be like Daniel-san crane kicking the Kobra Kai bully. It'll be a triumphant moment that we will all remember for the rest of our lives. And I'll be Rob Schneider up in the stands yelling, "You can do it!"

(http://www.schlocktoberfest.com/iB_html/uploads/post-3-77333-BollvsFanboys.jpg)



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 04, 2005, 10:32:02 AM
Iraq is gone

Boll stays


classic!



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: nobody on July 04, 2005, 03:58:36 PM
"Uwe Boll brought to you by Lemon Pepsi."

Now I have a drink to hate, as well as a director. lol


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 04, 2005, 05:14:08 PM
Life's too short to hate people who don't even know I exist



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: odinn7 on July 04, 2005, 08:43:42 PM
I see nothing wrong with Boll. His movies are funny...what more could you ask for? Just don't go into one of his movies thinking it's going to be a work of art and there should be no problem.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Dunners on July 04, 2005, 09:16:46 PM
...I question your tastes Foy.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 05, 2005, 08:28:31 AM
"...I question your tastes Foy."

A rather amusing statement coming from a person posting on a message board devoted to bad movies.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: odinn7 on July 05, 2005, 08:53:10 AM
Foywonder wrote:

> "...I question your tastes Foy."
>
> A rather amusing statement coming from a person posting on a
> message board devoted to bad movies.
>

Bravo!



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Dunners on July 05, 2005, 01:03:07 PM
"A rather amusing statement coming from a person posting on a message board devoted to bad movies."

Not as amusing as the fact that about half of the folks on this board who enjoy such films as manos: the hands of fate,  the creeping terror, and Ed wood stuff among other bad films cant stand Boll or his films.

To be honest you almost sound like a 'Boll troll' with your support of this guy.

I have to say Boll is an insult to bad movies everywhere.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Menard on July 05, 2005, 01:05:16 PM
Uh, is it possible to be an insult to bad movies?



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 05, 2005, 05:09:23 PM
"To be honest you almost sound like a 'Boll troll' with your support of this guy."

No. I used to be one of the constant Boll bashers myself at one time.  I just think the endless cycle of hatred for the guy has gone so ridiculously over the top that I'm now rooting for him to make a good film just so everyone that keeps ragging on him endlessly gets left speechless. And if he doesn't and continues to make bad movies, that's fine too, since I'm a fan of bad movies. Either way, it's fine with me.

"I have to say Boll is an insult to bad movies everywhere."

As opposed to Al Adamson or Jerry Warren? Sorry, but Boll isn't even the worst of the worst.

And these constant comparisons to Edward D. Wood Jr. have got to stop. It's the wrong comparison. The guy is too technically proficient to warrant comparisons to Wood. Uwe Boll is the MTV version of Bruno Mattei.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Dunners on July 05, 2005, 11:48:37 PM
Three words Menard, House of the dead.

K, I understand where yer coming from Foy. I actually try to stay away from comparring Boll to Wood because yes Boll gets budgets for his films, However Wood had his own ideas and managed to be a pretty ok story teller.

My main issue with Boll however is that he goes out of his way to rip off other films.
It drive sme insane to see him re-using the matrix crap among other things.

Did you ever read that SA article about the screenwriter for Alone in the darks original script?

Theres so much insight into whats wrong with this man.

I'm soon to be an independent film maker myself(3 weeks to go, hopefully I can finish Casting and s**t) and it just disgusts me that this cluster f**k ha smanaged to suceed by ripping off other films.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 05, 2005, 11:58:27 PM
"However Wood had his own ideas and managed to be a pretty ok story teller."

Well, he had his own ideas. I think calling Ed Wood an okay storyteller is laughable though.

"My main issue with Boll however is that he goes out of his way to rip off other films.
It drive sme insane to see him re-using the matrix crap among other things."

While that's a perfectly valid criticism, it also applies to lord knows how many other filmmakers these days. How many action films of the past few years haven't blatantly stolen from THE MATRIX?

"Did you ever read that SA article about the screenwriter for Alone in the darks original script?"

Absolutely. It was hysterical. And add to it the fact that the reason he made BLOODRAYNE a 17th/18th century prequel instead of having her fighting Nazis like in the game is because the German investors would've frowned on it. Germans are rather sensitive about the whole Nazi past, even if it deals with a silly action movie based on a video game. That begs the question of why even bother with a Bloodrayne film in the first place.

From my interview with Boll and everything I've read, the idea I get as to where he keeps going wrong is that he's one of those people that gets an idea in his head and nobody can talk him out of it once he's set on it regardless of how bad an idea it actually is.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 06, 2005, 10:14:11 AM

My main issue with Boll however is that he goes out of his way to rip off other films.
It drive sme insane to see him re-using the matrix crap among other things.


You must not watch very many B-Movies....?



Post Edited (07-06-05 10:37)


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Dunners on July 06, 2005, 01:15:08 PM
Dont watch many B movies..Blashphemer!
*slaps freep in the face with a glove* this means war!

Sorry FF, but Boll does this more than any other director I've seen.
Least most of the other jack offs who chose to rip off the matrix have stopped, Boll is still doing it though.

I'm expecting Dungeon Seige will most like rip off as much of LOTR as it can while tossing in the matrix for the fight scenes.

I dunno I dont see Boll as an underdog though.
An underdog is someone who's fighting agains all the odds and you want to suceed.

Boll doesnt have to worry about budget, casting, editing, special effects or marketing.

He's already got all this s**t taken care of, the only thing he doesnt have is a large fan base cheering him on.

He's not really an underdog, hes more of a brattly little kid with a big budget and a camera.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Menard on July 06, 2005, 01:21:35 PM
Dunners wrote:

>  *slaps freep in the face with a glove*


Be careful; FF likes that kind of thing. (:



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Menard on July 06, 2005, 01:23:31 PM
Dunners wrote:

> Three words Menard, House of the dead.


LOL (:



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 06, 2005, 01:30:47 PM
He he

Sorry FF, but Boll does this more than any other director I've seen.

You seen Roger Corman's resume? :)
Or Charles Band for that matter?

Both manage to be creative occasionally, and rather entertaining, but a lot of their stuff is just ripoffs of other ideas, sometimes even thier own.

But after watching who knows how many Aliens and Mad Max (thank you Italians) and Conan (more thanks to the Italians) ripoffs, I guess to me it's no big deal if they were directed by one person or many.  All I care about is that I was mildy entertained or at least distracted for an hour and a half or so.

As long as he makes more money then he spends, *someone* is going to keep paying him to make money.  If that's happening, then at least someone is enjoying what he is doing.  That's worthwhile in it's own right

There are actors whom I don't care for.  *shrug*  Then I don't watch stuff with them in it, but I don't let it bother me enough to care.  They don't know me so they probably don't care if I like them or not, because obviously enough people do or the wouldn't have jobs.

Look at the bright side, directors like Boll show where the bottom of the pool is, which should be encouraging for anyone who wants to get in :)



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 06, 2005, 02:12:07 PM
I'm with Freep.  I don't care what flicks this guy rips off - if I'm entertained for the hour and a half, then I have gotten my money's worth.

I can honestly say that Boll is by far not the worst director I've ever seen.  There are numerous other films out there that I would choose a Boll film instead of.  Take "The Blair Witch Project".  Today, I see it for what it was, which was a successful experiment.  But, when my wife (then g/f) and I saw it at the theater, I was furious at the film.  It was dull, not entertaining and all around sucked.

I've never had that type of feeling when watching a Boll film.  House Of The Dead, despite dealing nothing with the base subject of the game, was actually entertaning as hell.  Jurgen Prochnow(sp?) as a crazed captain, Clint Howard as his 'igor' assistant and axe wielding marathon running springboard jumping zombies!  

And what about Alone In The Dark?  A washed up Christian Slater as a paranormal detective, and Tara Reid as a well educated museum worker.  And how about the fact that nobody in the film is ever ALONE IN THE DARK!?  That's pure genius in itself.

I say give Boll more projects and I'll sit through all of them with a smile on my face.  The guy is an idiot, and doesn't have much talent when it comes to film...but dammit...I love the guy.  You have to consider that he actually thinks his films are Art.  Art..........................



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Master Blaster on July 06, 2005, 02:22:05 PM
I think that's pretty much what it's all about. Just mindless entertainment. Almost every film reviewed on this site is done by an incompetent director who's out to make a buck. It's just base exploitation and that’s what makes it fun.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: odinn7 on July 06, 2005, 02:24:23 PM
Dunners wrote:

> Three words Menard, House of the dead.

Uh...not to be picky but that's 4 words.


Skaboi wrote:

>You have to consider that he actually thinks his films are Art. Art..........................

I couldn't agree more. I like his stuff...it's funny but when you consider the statement above, it's even funnier.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Dunners on July 06, 2005, 03:51:10 PM
Oops ya got me Odinn.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: 2xSlick on July 06, 2005, 08:39:22 PM
WOW. This is like a dream come true. I saw  House of the Dead bootleged so I wouldn't fell guilty about seeing it. Then I took my friends to see Alone in the Dark. I guess now I'll have to camp outside the theatre to see his epic masterpiece!

*Note the previous statements did NOT contain SARCASM.*

To the three people in the world that bought HOTD on  DVD, does Boll do a commentary track? If so, I'll buy the dang thing tomorrow after class.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 06, 2005, 10:58:01 PM
"To the three people in the world that bought HOTD on DVD, does Boll do a commentary track? If so, I'll buy the dang thing tomorrow after class."

Yes, he does, but it isn't very good. The other audio commentary track is better with screenwriter/producer Mark Altman ever so diplomatically laying all the blame for the movie's problems squarely at Boll's feet. Case in point, the time and money it took them to construct that little walkway over the pond that a couple zombies pop of made it impossible to film the scenes featuring the freaking backstory explaining the villain's motivations.

Boll's audio commentary track on ALONE IN THE DARK is better since he tries desperately in vain to explain away the film's constant stream of illogic.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 07, 2005, 07:39:48 AM
I have yet to rent Alone In The Dark on DVD.  It was a good laugh in the theater... I can only imagine it being inhanced by Boll's commentary.  

As for Mark Altman's commentary on House Of The Dead....didn't Dave Parker from The Dead Hate The Living have a hand in HOTD?  I seem to remember an interview with him a while back saying he had been brought in for rewrites at some point.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Foywonder on July 07, 2005, 11:54:04 AM
Dave Parker wrote the first draft but hardly any of it turned up in the film they shot yet he still had his name sullied by being attached.



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 07, 2005, 12:18:25 PM
Foy,

That's really a shame.  The Dead Hate The Living wasn't too bad, and I was quite surprised at how bad the HOTD script was.  I figured that Parker, being a horror buff and all, would have done a better script.

The "Holy Trinity" line from HOTD was classic Parker though:

- "You know the Holy Trinity.  Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead, Day Of The Dead!".



Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 27, 2008, 04:36:18 AM
Nothing against you, but I'm really sick of everyone blasting Uwe Boll's flicks.  I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person alive who honestly loves his films. 

Boll's films are about the most fun damn films out there.  They are insanely bad, plot holes abound, acting is atrocious, yet are 100% entertaining from beginning to end.  I say bring on the films Boll, even if it means that my wife and I will be the only ones in the theater as was the case with Alone In The Dark.

I'll join ya, buddy. Have some +Karma.

Quote
A Bloodrayne movie . . . if it was set in the proper time and place (1940's Germany).

Well, Bloodrayne is a prequel. The idea was that that was to show how she became the Rayne you know from the videogame, then the sequel is an interesting inbetweener, and Bloodrayne 3 is to adapt the videogame. It's been planned from day 1.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Jack on April 27, 2008, 08:12:54 AM
Saw Bloodrayne Deliverance last night.  Well, most of it.  Got bored in the middle and started wandering around the house looking for something to do.  I'd suggest just watching the trailer, it hits all the important parts of the movie, in order, and the actual film doesn't really expand on the trailer one bit.  It tries hard to be a spaghetti western, but it lacks any sort of interesting, well developed characters.  I was sort of hoping for something weird when the opening credits rolled, and the production design was credited to somebody named "Tink", but it was just a very average Sci-Fi Channel Saturday night movie. 


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 27, 2008, 08:43:48 AM
It seems to be a common problem in Uwe Boll movies that things randomly slow down at the mid-way point. It was also my only real complaint about Deliverance, otherwise it had everything which makes a good spaghetti western - a quiet town being terrorized by bandits, a mysterious Clint Eastwood-like hero(ine) who shows up and quietly kicks a lot of ass, an "in jail" segment and a final duel, but adding vampires into the mix was rather cool in my opinion and reminded me of this videogame I played once, "Darkwatch". Having Billie the Kid as a centuries old vampire who just happened to hang out in the wild west was pretty cool, too.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: RCMerchant on April 27, 2008, 09:19:48 AM
I've never seen a Uwe Boll pcture. But I would like to see POSTAL.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 27, 2008, 10:24:41 AM
I've never seen a Uwe Boll pcture.


NEVER?!! You my friend have missed some real treats, they are not any where near as bad as some would have folks believe. This movie "In the Name of the King" is a decent film, is it lacking? Yes. Is it going to win an Oscar? No. It's not 3 hours in run time, it's actually only 2:07 ... but it thread was started long before the movie was released.

I think Uwe Boll as become everyones cinematic whipping boy, with large expanses of the viewing public slamming his films. Well I've got one question to all of those that dislike with a passion the films of Uwe Boll? How many films have you made? At least the guy is out there making something, good or bad. Personally I've seen plenty of movies far worse than anything Boll has made, where is the disdain for their director? "The Maize (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451109/)" come to mind, where is the dislike for Bill Cowell?


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Oldskool138 on April 27, 2008, 11:07:19 AM
So the last time somebody posted in this thread before today was July 07, 2005?!  Wow!   :buggedout:


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 27, 2008, 02:26:30 PM
Yeah, lol, sorry, I was having an Uwe Boll season to prepare for an article for HooplaNet and I've been wondering what you guys thought of the films I'm being pleasantly surprised by, so I did a search for Uwe Boll and found this :P

I've never seen a Uwe Boll pcture.


NEVER?!! You my friend have missed some real treats, they are not any where near as bad as some would have folks believe. This movie "In the Name of the King" is a decent film, is it lacking? Yes. Is it going to win an Oscar? No. It's not 3 hours in run time, it's actually only 2:07 ... but it thread was started long before the movie was released.

I think Uwe Boll as become everyones cinematic whipping boy, with large expanses of the viewing public slamming his films. Well I've got one question to all of those that dislike with a passion the films of Uwe Boll? How many films have you made? At least the guy is out there making something, good or bad. Personally I've seen plenty of movies far worse than anything Boll has made, where is the disdain for their director? "The Maize ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451109/[/url])" come to mind, where is the dislike for Bill Cowell?


+Karma for you! :smile:


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Killer Bees on April 27, 2008, 07:26:11 PM
I could've enjoyed Uwe Boll in the same manner you have, but he put his filthy paws all over Bloodrayne- a video game I absolutely loved- and I can't forgive him for that. A Bloodrayne movie, filmed by a competent director, could've been an outstanding film- especially if it was set in the proper time and place (1940's Germany).

I don't play video games, so I'm not so reactive when they get made into bad movies.  I did see Bloodrayne and thought it was lame.  The acting was wooden and I kept expecting things to get better and they didn't.  It was just a b-grade movie to me.  Very much in the mould of Dungeons and Dragons with Jeremy Irons.  I was disappointed in that one as well.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Newt on April 27, 2008, 10:42:20 PM
The only Boll film I have seen is "In the Name of the King".  We liked it so well, we saw again.  Not a 'great' film; but it was fun.  I could go into details but I don't want to run on.  There were those in the audience who obviously had come just to heckle.  They were greatly outnumbered by those who, just as obviously, were enjoying the film.

I really did not see where the usual criticisms of Boll's work applied.  Which confirms for me that a great deal of the condemnation is a knee-jerk response.  I have read two reviews of In the Name of the King that accurately reflect what I saw in the film; both were attacked as having been written whilst the reviewer was not in his/her right mind.

Boll spoke at the first screening we saw (at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival).  The man has humour and yes, a certain arrogance.  But then, I always was under the impression that arrogance went with the territory.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: KYGOTC on April 27, 2008, 11:09:50 PM


To be honest you almost sound like a 'Boll troll' with your support of this guy.







BWWAAAHAHAHA! a WHAT?! What did he say?! Did he just say "BOLL TROLL"?!! HAHAHA!!! who SAYS that?!!

Hheh, im not making fun of you Dunners, i just think its a goofy thing to say. You get +karma.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: ulthar on April 27, 2008, 11:48:13 PM

It seems to be a common problem in Uwe Boll movies that things randomly slow down at the mid-way point.


That's really not random, that's by design.  Just about every major motion picture released nowadays does this.

Given the supposition that "we the people" have short attention spans coupled with small bladders and dry lips, this lull in the action/story is built into Act 2 for bathroom + concession stand break.

Back when movies were only 70-80 minutes long, it was less than a problem.  Now with "normal" being 90-120 minutes, that break midway is viewed by many, I suppose, as welcome.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: RCMerchant on April 28, 2008, 06:44:16 AM

It seems to be a common problem in Uwe Boll movies that things randomly slow down at the mid-way point.


That's really not random, that's by design.  Just about every major motion picture released nowadays does this.

Given the supposition that "we the people" have short attention spans coupled with small bladders and dry lips, this lull in the action/story is built into Act 2 for bathroom + concession stand break.

Back when movies were only 70-80 minutes long, it was less than a problem.  Now with "normal" being 90-120 minutes, that break midway is viewed by many, I suppose, as welcome.

Once upon a time,in very long movies (ie: TORA,TORA,TORA) they had an actual on screen INTERMISSION.Sometimes it would show little cartoon ads for soda and candy,or just play music. No need fror that now...with the pause button and TV commercials...


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 29, 2008, 02:41:24 AM

It seems to be a common problem in Uwe Boll movies that things randomly slow down at the mid-way point.


That's really not random, that's by design.  Just about every major motion picture released nowadays does this.

Given the supposition that "we the people" have short attention spans coupled with small bladders and dry lips, this lull in the action/story is built into Act 2 for bathroom + concession stand break.

Back when movies were only 70-80 minutes long, it was less than a problem.  Now with "normal" being 90-120 minutes, that break midway is viewed by many, I suppose, as welcome.

Yeah, but in a Boll movie they tend to slow down MORE.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Jack on April 29, 2008, 07:20:57 AM
a mysterious Clint Eastwood-like hero(ine)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on the whole "Clint Eastwood-like" thing.   :teddyr:


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 30, 2008, 04:27:48 AM
a mysterious Clint Eastwood-like hero(ine)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on the whole "Clint Eastwood-like" thing.   :teddyr:

How so?


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Jack on April 30, 2008, 07:51:15 AM
Well, with Westerns, the people involved (we're talking gunslingers) lived a very solitary existence.  They have a whole lot of time to think.  They lived out in the open country, travelling by horseback from town to town.  Might take days.  Probably didn't know anybody when they got there.  So when I see Clint, he doesn't say much, and it takes me right out of the present day and into the Wild West.  When he does say something, it's worth listening to.  He's also covered in dust, got a week's growth of beard, etc.  When he flips his poncho back to reveal his six-shooter, well, this guy's had all day every day for his whole life to practice with these things, it's gonna be exciting.  And he's never the "good guy", he's either out for personal gain or else he's taking revenge. 

The heroine in Bloodrayne 2 didn't do anything like that.  She shows up and holds a sword (which looked like chrome-plated plastic) to a guy's crotch.  Okay, mega-cheese city.  The man with no name was never ever cheesy.  She talks a lot, just like anyone in a modern day movie who's lived a life surrounded by other people.  Her clothes are clean, her hair freshly styled.  She's the heroine, she's good.  She fights the bad guys in a straightforward way, not in the way an amoral gunslinger would.  She saves the town's children from being hanged for pete's sake.  The children.  It's another cheesy situation that would never exist in a real Western. 

She's a typical heroine in a typical modern-day movie.  It's just not the same thing at all.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on April 30, 2008, 01:37:22 PM
I don't know if Clint Eastwood's movies were even MEANT to be looked into as deeply as you just did...

 :bouncegiggle:

But no, they are much better, but it was nice to switch off and see a badass cowboy character appear and save everybody again, whether all that stuff you listed is in there or not. I'm after a good time for my movies and I don't really need to check that there checklist when I watch a basic western.


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Kester Pelagius on April 30, 2008, 01:51:18 PM

It seems to be a common problem in Uwe Boll movies that things randomly slow down at the mid-way point.


That's really not random, that's by design.  Just about every major motion picture released nowadays does this.

Given the supposition that "we the people" have short attention spans coupled with small bladders and dry lips, this lull in the action/story is built into Act 2 for bathroom + concession stand break.

Back when movies were only 70-80 minutes long, it was less than a problem.  Now with "normal" being 90-120 minutes, that break midway is viewed by many, I suppose, as welcome.

That's what the INTERMISSION is for.

Never heard of an INTERMISSION?

That's a large part of the problem with movies today.   :wink:

I now return you to your bowling bash, er, bawling ewe, uhm, bole ball. . .


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: HarlotBug3 on April 30, 2008, 04:45:09 PM
I can only wonder how many other cashaddicts are pulling the same scheme of using bad movie investments to cheat taxes. It would explain so much.

I have not seen any of this man's films because I could smell the crap a mile away, unlike all the people who want us to value their opinion of how bad he is when they didn't have the perception to stay away in the first place.

"But my friend rented it/I watched a pirate."

Congrats. :lookingup:


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: Jack on May 01, 2008, 07:28:17 AM
But no, they are much better, but it was nice to switch off and see a badass cowboy character appear and save everybody again, whether all that stuff you listed is in there or not. I'm after a good time for my movies and I don't really need to check that there checklist when I watch a basic western.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly - I'd rather watch a fun B movie any day than some overblown hollywood production.  I was mostly kidding about the Clint Eastwood thing, like, he's the god of the Western genre - you just can't go around comparing other characters to him - that's blasphemy!   :smile:   :smile:


Title: Re: An All-Star Cast, a $60 Mill Budget and a 3 Hour Runtime... for Uwe Boll
Post by: DistantJ on May 02, 2008, 04:33:45 AM
But no, they are much better, but it was nice to switch off and see a badass cowboy character appear and save everybody again, whether all that stuff you listed is in there or not. I'm after a good time for my movies and I don't really need to check that there checklist when I watch a basic western.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly - I'd rather watch a fun B movie any day than some overblown hollywood production.  I was mostly kidding about the Clint Eastwood thing, like, he's the god of the Western genre - you just can't go around comparing other characters to him - that's blasphemy!   :smile:   :smile:

Ah but you can note how a character reminds you of him, which can only be a good thing. :wink: Bloodrayne 2 gave me my much needed badass western fix in this day and age of whiney Kevin Costner westerns and gay cowboys bumming each other in tents.