ROTTEN TOMATOES: Has Uwe Boll Directed His Final Big-Budget Flop?

Has Uwe Boll Directed His Final Big-Budget Flop?

by Jeff Giles | January 15, 2008

Summary

Dozens of you have repeatedly wondered what it would take to keep Uwe Boll from making more big-budget films. As of today, you may finally have your answer. Back to Article

(1-53 of 53 posts) | Reply

Elixor writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:37 AM

Thank you Germany.

(Reply to this)

calmeacham writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:40 AM

This is great news to start my Tuesday off.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Bowler writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:41 AM

There is a god!

(Reply to this)

Astr0creep writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:44 AM

THERE

IS

A

GOD

!!!

(Reply to this)

StupidSmurf writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:08 AM

And so, a boil (Uwe Boil!?!?) on the arse of cinema is finally lanced!!!!!

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:22 AM

Nice, Smurf... nice.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:27 AM

but... but... he hasn't had his Plan 9 from Outter Space yet????

(Reply to this)

Dave the Destroyer writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:33 AM

Interesting. I wonder who he'll blame for THIS downturn. Possibly....the AUDIENCE?
Yeah, that sounds about right.....

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:38 AM

Yay! May his big budget career rest in peace.

(Reply to this)

walkingdead09 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:42 AM

It's nice to see people get fired in Hollywood like in the normal life. I mean, Jason Strathman does all these action movies and they just put them in different time settings, its like Rob Schneider. Let's make him an Animal, and then lets make him a 16 year old girl and then lets make him a gigelow. Or All Will Ferrells movies...He's a nascar driver at the top has a fall from grace makes a come back. He's a news anchor, at the top fall from grace makes a come back, hes a figure skater at the top and makes a comeback. Come on, what happened to people making flicks like Pulp Fiction, Mememto and so on and so forth.

I like how this guy gets fired and says I can get back to my real passion, if I lose my job and start flipping burgers I will tell my wife that Im back to my real passion.

HAHHA I love to internet rant.

(Reply to this)

Astr0creep writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#1470908)
It's not a video game... yet. *starts writing game design document*

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:45 AM

I'm pretty sure this is the third or fourth sign of the appocalypse-- Something actually happening according to logic, reason and good sense within 1000 miles of Hollywood.

Now we must focus our attention on those unforgivable turds who make the 'Epic Movie' and 'Meet the Spartans' travesties...

"You men have bled with Wallace. Now bleed with me!"

(Reply to this)

LowBalls writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:52 AM

In Hollywood, if you make bad movie, you pay for it. In Germany, bad movie pay for you! (not anymore)

(Reply to this)

dennischu22 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:04 AM

Finally, his reign of terror comes to an end.

(Reply to this)

aconline writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:09 AM

I was holding my breath for another round of Uwe Boll boxing. They should film that and show it in theaters. It would do better then the fecal matter that he passes as a movie.

(Reply to this)

EdwardBlake writes:
on Jan 15 2008 08:11 AM

How the hell is it possible for one guy to make so many beyond crappy movies?

Further, why the hell do so many incredible actors decide to work with him? Michael Madsen, Ray Liotta, Sissy Spacek. WTF!!!

I once saw ten minutes of House of the Dead. I was so angry I might as well have been bitten by a rage monkey.

That Neill Blomkampf guy looks (emphasis LOOKS) like he has some potential. Those Halo shorts were pretty cool on such a low budget. If Hollywood wants to give big budgets to a no-name fanboy, let it be him.

(Reply to this)

cypress550 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 08:20 AM

lets hope this news is true

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jan 15 2008 08:33 AM

edblake...he must give good head. who knows, maybe its like a dare thing between actors. "hey jason...i bet you won't...take a role where you play a tranvestite hooker from Thailand that has to win a dancing contest to afford the surgery for a sex change! well, its either that ooooor...you do a movie with Uwe boll. i dare you!" it has to be something. i saw Bloodrayne and initially saw the cast and i'm like...woah, this should be great! this is before i knew of Boll. i have never seen GOOD actors be so bad. i actually pressed rewind during some of those scenes and tried to study how the h3ll a guy can take GOOD actors and make them sh3t. only other guy i've seen do it THAT well is george lucas. its almost impressive if you think about it. take really good actors and somehow make them horrible. it'd be like coaching the 1992 USA Dream Team(jordan, magic, bird)...and having them lose to the Republic of ****scanistan.

(Reply to this)

Astr0creep writes:
on Jan 15 2008 09:08 AM

Well, one thing Uwe thought us is that good actors don't make good movies. Good writers and directors make good movies.

Actors are nothing more than props that move and speak on their own.

(Reply to this)

Prosper761 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 09:44 AM

German lawmakers must have finally seen one of Boll's films and realized what they were allowing him to do to the unsuspecting movie-going public. I say we celebrate their decision to stop Dr. Boll and his insidious plot to ruin movies forever...

(Reply to this)

WeaponAndy writes:
on Jan 15 2008 09:53 AM

Darnit. In the Name of the King was a cinematic achievement. I laughed at it for the whole 2 hours that it was because it was so damned bad. It was a lot of fun with a theater full of people laughing at it's awfulness. I mean c'mon...Burt Reynolds as a medieval king? Classic. Ray Liotta as a dark mage? Hilarious. This film was pure crap but it was still entertaining to laugh at. I can see how someone paying 10 bucks would be pissed...but I only payed like 2.50 so maybe that's why it was so entertaining for me.

(Reply to this)

MaxwellAction writes:
on Jan 15 2008 10:56 AM

I would rather go through a second holocaust than see another Boll film.

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Jan 15 2008 11:42 AM

Does this mean that Uwe Boll will now challenge all of the members of German Parliament to a boxing match?

I'd love to see Angela Merkel knock his dopey @$$ OUT!

(Reply to this)

iheartbrucecampbell writes:
on Jan 15 2008 11:51 AM

is he going to beat up everyone in america now?

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Jan 15 2008 11:57 AM

I have yet to experience a Uwe Boll film yet his reputation as one of the worst filmmakers ever is giving me a nagging urge to check one out. Is there one of his movies that stands out below the rest? What is the penultimate Uwe Boll movie that I should add to my Netflix queue?

(Reply to this)

Tyrant writes:
on Jan 15 2008 12:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#1472028)
House of the Dead....rent it....watch in awe at a new level of suck.

(Reply to this)

nightbat666 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 12:26 PM

house of the dead, soooooooo horrible. I've seen better movies made by highschool students with 40 dollar budgets.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on Jan 15 2008 01:11 PM

so this explains why i heard "ding dong the witch is dead" on loud speakers everywhere

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Jan 15 2008 01:35 PM

About time, this guy has made a bloodrayne sequel that has went to the straight-to-dvd market and is planning a sequel, all the talent was put to wast in his last film, and how does he get so many big named actors in his films.

On the other hand, none of his movies, besides house of the dead, have grossed over five millions dollars.

And he shouldn't budget even lower budgeted movies because they get worser and worser everytime.

(Reply to this)

man in the water writes:
on Jan 15 2008 01:50 PM

I never thought I hear this. I have never seen a Uwe Boll film all the way through. I tried watching BloodRayne one time, but I just couldn't. Seeing Kristianna Loken destroy her career was too much, kind of like Kristen Bell in Pulse. Plus I think I was moticing the sets in Bloodrayne falling apaprt in the background, what was it all just cardboard boxes?? I also tried watching Alone in the Dark, but the acting was atrocious, and the movie moved way too slow, and I couldn't take it either. I might try to watch 20 minutes of House of the Dead too see if I can beat my record of 18 minutes, thats all I needed to see of BloodRayne. I also notice that within a year of his films being released in theatres, there already on the Sci-Fi channel, thats where you can see BloodRayne and Alone in the Dark for free. Rayne came out in 06, and in early 07, it was on Sci-Fi, guess that shows how awful he is. I think all his films should be made-for-TV Sci-Fi channel movies, but even those are better than any film Boll has ever made. I think Uwe Boll has danced his last dance.

(Reply to this)

Synyster_Gates writes:
on Jan 15 2008 02:18 PM

Finally! I hope this is true! I so hope it is!

(Reply to this)

iakobos writes:
on Jan 15 2008 02:48 PM

I've only seen part of one Boll movie and that was Blood Rayne. I didn't realize what it was at first but got into it because it had Kristina Loken. And as I'm watching it it becomes imediately obvious that it's a very poorly done movie and I'm thinking, "How did Loken wind up in this crap." Then when it was over I saw Boll's name on it and then I was like, "Oh yeah, that's the director who has the (well deserved) all time worst reputation on Rottentomatoes."

And to think that we had European, or in this case German socialism to thank all this time for funding his movies.

(Reply to this)

trpsomewhere writes:
on Jan 15 2008 03:51 PM

the only part of bloodrayne I was tempted to watch was when Loken was naked... but even that was pathetic! I mean... Kristiana Loken in a sex scene can burn the town... but in this case... *sigh*

(Reply to this)

Cowboyninja writes:
on Jan 15 2008 04:30 PM

Ray Liotta GOTTA EAT!

(Reply to this)

Relapse writes:
on Jan 15 2008 05:14 PM

Michael Madsen: Incredible Actor? NO!

(Reply to this)

Novastar. writes:
on Jan 15 2008 06:41 PM

Such an expensive filmschool yet he never learned the trade.

(Reply to this)

kROCK writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:06 PM

Thank you God!

(Reply to this)

gigantor21 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:41 PM

Hopefully, this will be a watershed moment for tax reform around the world.

I'm surprised they didn't change the code earlier TBH. Boll has been ****ting on Germany's rep for years.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jan 15 2008 07:47 PM

ahahahahaahahahahha, I've never been so happy, ahahahahahahahahaahahha. I hate his guts so much.

(Reply to this)

Ryze writes:
on Jan 15 2008 08:01 PM

The problem with making a game into a film is the interaction. We took part in these games and were apart of there outcome. When you make a movie from a game you are taking that interaction away. So the movie has to be great, because if its not there is no other value than it sucks. You might play a game and think the story line sucks, but the gameplay is great. Or vice versa. There are aspects of a game that can turn you off. However a game can offer so much more opposed to just watching a movie.

Boll is obviously a two bit hack with no original ideas. So he takes a thin story line from a game and thinks he can write a movie. Lets take Dungeon Siege. There could have been a good movie created with this world, but unless you are passionate about the source you can not generate the same emotions you get from actually playing. Not only do you have to make an entertaining movie for the average person. You also have to consider fans of the game, because if you tread on there sacred ground they can be the worst critics you would ever want to know.

Boll has done this repeatidly and has not delivered even an ok adaptation. Its a shame when someone makes a movie out of material he does not give a crap about.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Jan 17 2008 12:33 AM

It's like the end of an era.

Rest in peace Mr. Boll. You were a legend in your own time.

(Reply to this)

Bonogamy writes:
on Jan 17 2008 01:50 AM

I work part-time at Wal-Mart and I'm expecting In the Name of the King to spend 2-3 weeks on the $20-30 new release shelf before it's forever banished to the 2/$10 bin, where it rightly deserves to be (and what kind of masochistic sucker would pay full price for it on it's first week of release?) I can't imagine that anyone would buy it on PPV or rent it on Netflix when I guarantee you'll be able to see it on broadcast TV stations less than a year from now. I'd send my son to military school if he wanted to take money out of my pocket to buy it.

Thanks, Germany, you've actually leapfrogged Canada as the country most willing to throw taxpayers' money at bad cinema.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Jan 17 2008 11:35 AM

"In the Name of the King" is a big budget film? The previews look like it was filmed with a Camcorder.

(Reply to this)

Lighthope writes:
on Jan 17 2008 11:42 PM

So this is Germany's fault? Great. Three times in 100 years that we have to go kick their butts for doing something horrible! How dare you foster more of Uwe Boll on us! Just for that, you have to KEEP David Hasselhoff! No sending him back for "talent" shows!

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and good with ketchup.

--== TIGERS' QUEST - www.tigersquest.com
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS - www.dwad.net
--== A CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - http://christmas.dwad.net

(Reply to this)

HairyHartounian writes:
on Jan 18 2008 03:13 AM

Time to get cracking on that wallet-friendly big screen adaptation of 'Q*bert.'

(Reply to this)

scriptdoctor writes:
on Jan 18 2008 11:26 PM

I haven't seen his latest effort, do the cast have mullets in this one too?

(Reply to this)

MacTheNaif writes:
on Jan 19 2008 08:19 AM

"Well, one thing Uwe thought us is that good actors don't make good movies. Good writers and directors make good movies. Actors are nothing more than props that move and speak on their own."

I wouldn't go that far. Good actors are not -sufficient- to make a good movie by themselves, but they're a lot more than moving props. If you start with a good script and a good director, adding good actors can make it even better. But tossing great actors into a steaming pile of excrement only makes the disaster that much more tragic by wasting good talent.

(Reply to this)

remyrem12 writes:
on Jan 19 2008 11:30 AM

This is the best thing Germany has done since surrendering in World War Two.

(Reply to this)

eddieramirez writes:
on Jan 20 2008 01:26 AM

it's upsetting to think that an idiot director like this guy has made movies when other more talented directors are too incapacitated to get into the directing mainstream.

it's a shame to think though, if THIS guy can make movies and actually got backers to pay for them, why can't we? the fact that an idiot could do that is kinda inspiring for the rest of us with a little more brain capacity, and kinda inspiring. thank u uwe boll for proving that even an idiot can do this.

(Reply to this)

RuinerxxSINCITY writes:
on Jan 20 2008 04:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#1470908)
Uwe Boll never had the passion to make a great film like Ed Wood. Ed Wood actually believed in himself. Uwe Boll is a parasite.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Jan 21 2008 12:13 PM

Oh my God. I can walk now! And I can see! I'm no longer blind. YAY!

(Reply to this)

Githerax writes:
on Jan 22 2008 10:33 AM

My movie-going behavior has changed solely do to Uwe Boll.

Before 'Alone in the Dark', I was the type of movie-goer who might spend $10 even on a shakey movie, just to pass the time. However, since Uwe Boll's work, I now have adopted a new movie-going policy:

1.) I wait for the critical reviews to be posted. If no reviews are posted three days prior to the film's release, I take that as a sign that the studio doesn't want the public to know about the movie and therefore is hiding something bad. I don't buy tickets to any movie like this, period.

2.) I wait for the critical reviews and the internet community reviews. If these offer some hope for the film I will go, but I won't buy a ticket for the film itself; I'll buy a ticket for a known, proven good movie and just walk into the questionable movie's theater.

3.) If the movie was truly worthwhile, I will invite my friends and go again, this time paying for that movie's ticket.

I can trace the development of this method directly to 'Alone in the Dark'. The story was so disengaging, actually repulsive, that my mind wandered I got up and left the theater and went to a bookstore. When I got home my wife asked me what I had been doing, and I told her I had lunch and hung out at Borders. Only then did I remember I had also gone to a movie; I had completely blocked the experience from my memory.

I was ashamed and I regretted having passed years paying Hollywood for bad movies. I realized I was part of the problem. I had taught Hollywood that marketing and brand recognition were more imporant to me than good cinema. In a way, I can't blame the studios. However, from that day onward I have resolved to make Hollywood earn its money. My movie attendance will be inversely proportional to the amount of marketing, and directly proportional to the amount of critical preview I see. If a movie fails to satisfy my standards in these pre-requisites, I may still decide to see it, but I will certainly not pay for it.

If enough people adopt this kind of policy, the studios will learn very quickly. I figure it'll take about six years for the bad movie habits to shake out, but after that point we can be assured of at least a certain consistency of quality in film, if not "great" cinema every time. Who's with me?

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Apr 01 2008 12:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1486587)
..that's one of the most hilarious things I've ever envisioned. . .

(Reply to this)