[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
ggarrett wrote:
I have to second the notion that anything Uwe Boll is by far the worst crap ever to be made.
A. Are you a member of the Everything-Uwe-Boll-does-is-a-POS club? There’s a whole section on the Bloodrayne DVD extras talkingh about that.
B. It wasn’t good, but it wasn’t THAT bad (as anti-UB flamers would have you believe). The gore effects were pretty fun. Sure Michelle Rodriguez’ accent comes and goes. Sure Michael Madsen was a bad casting choice for a S&S movie. But there is WAY WAY WAY worse crap out there than this one…
C. I only see a handful of movies at the theatre each year, but at least 2-3 a week on video. What would make you think that this was a theatre movie and not a wait-for-the-video movie? It has “video” written all over it.
Comic Book blockbusters, Bruce Willis, Denzel, and Oscar nominees — these are the movies you go pay $10-15 (incl food & drink) to go see.[/quote]
My membership to the anti Uwe Boll club is strictly based on experience. I really wasn’t even aware of how much this guy was hated until Bloodrayne came out (and at which point thereafter I’d be proud to claim not only a member but president if I could)
I can only claim fanboy ignorance on seeing Bloodrayne in the theater. I liked the game, I liked the thought of Kristiana Loken as a kick ass half vampire, I thought that having Madsen and Michelle Rodriguez gave the flic some credibility, and so off I went. Fortunately there were no spoons available or I would have gouged my eyes out.
Obviously this thread has shown that tastes vary magnificently, for my money it doesn’t get much worse than Bloodrayne, it was in fact, that bad.
I would like to add that just because Mr. Boll has taken time on a DVD extra to acknowledge that hordes of people hate his shit, doesn’t in any manner deflate the merit of that dislike. He’s a crap director, his movies are crap, not because other people seem to think so, but because to me his flics are bad, real bad.