Aedh's official "Boll Weevils" thread

[Aedh]

Just call me a "Boll Weevil." I like Zer Bollmeister. He gets away with making movies that no one but he seems to like. However ... he manages to stay in business somehow, while far, far 'better' directors are exiled by the critics' orders.

Anyone else?

For one differing opinion .... (hilariously differing, not sparing the use of adult language) ... check out this link:

game-brains.com/archive/feb14_2005/uwe_boll.htm

[Aedh]

Last night I saw "Bloodrayne: Deliverance." As one commenter put it ... "Surprisingly un-terrible." Apart from the star it had a cast of competent, work-horse actors, some good lines, and beautiful location settings in the Canadian Rockies (during daylight scenes, that is. I'd have taken a few more of those.) The star, Natassia Malthe--whose presence was probably required in order for the film to be 'certified Canadian'--also turned in some moments when actual acting happened. Not art ... not even a great movie. But for one with a script based on a video game, I'd have to say one of the best I've seen.

For the uninitiated I should put in a word ... you will see a peculiar "Canada" logo on some movies. Canada has laws which govern its media and broadcasting, and are meant to keep the country from being swamped by US productions. Every media outlet must show/broadcast a certain amount of "Canadian content" in order to retain its license, and the rules which make up exactly what defines "Canadian content" are wonderful and peculiar reading. This movie bears the "Canada" logo. Since Canadian artists, producers, actors, etc., are more or less guaranteed jobs, it frees them to produce some stunningly creative and original content with the knowlege that someone, somewhere in Canada, will have to show it. Of course by the same token that leads to a fair amount of junk as well. I'd say this movie falls somewhere in between.

[clericjay]

It's a cool thing that a German director made his name in the US filming world, but does he need to be so bad?
I'm very disappointed of Boll. I've seen "Alone in the Dark" and "Bloodrayne 2" only, but this is enough to say that he seems to be a terrible director. Both were horrible films from my point of view and some of the worst I've ever seen..
Many of my friends told me something about the Boll films they have seen and no one liked any of them.

But you are totally right about his somehow survival in the business. It's really astonishing how someone like him is able to survive in the business. I'd like to know how he can do this. What may his secret be? It can't be "making good movies", though this is always a matter of taste, but it doesn't match with my personal one.

Boll: A anti-role-model for making good movies, a perfect role-model for surviving in the business for a long time.
_{Pretty controversial that man, isn't he?}

[Aedh]

Well, I say that I like him, but I don't defend him. It's more like ... I'm trying to find an explanation for him.

I agree that he's not a good director ... whatever a "good" director is. I guess I don't know enough about directing to tell. I know that my turns at directing for the stage all ended in complete disaster. ... ...

However, Mr Boll's long career indicates that he's pleasing someone, or else he'd be a car park attendant by now. I think his movies are entertaining, realising that entertaining and good are not necessarily the same thing. I like them because, well, I don't know why. I just do. It's not as though I'm a troglodyte--I have a University degree in drama. But Boll doesn't care--he hoists his middle finger in salute to the critics, and goes off and makes more movies, which is obviously something he enjoys doing, even if he's not very good at it ... rather like Winston Churchill painting his landscapes.

And after all, the original "Bloodrayne" wouldn't have featured ace actors like Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen, who can pick and choose whatever they like, if they hadn't seen something that they liked--would it? I find it all fascinating. And I'd like to know--in a comradely and curious way--just why everyone finds his work so horrible, when I don't see it. What are two or three of the worst things? Perhaps I can break myself of this bad taste.

[clericjay]

I've read some interviews with Mr. Boll and he says very often that he likes shooting films most and that he tries to shoot always. So he goes from one film to the next, always keen on shooting it for his own pleasure. Well, he leaves that impression to me.

What's so bad about his movies? Well, where should I start?

Alone in the Dark: Bad and predictable story without any tension. _{Okay, that's not the only film by far...} No convincing acting. Illogical connection of scenes and events. The figures acting in the story are stupid, especially the soldiers at the end. All these were things, which have been done wrong by other persons, but I think that a good director would not take something with so many unsatisfying work into his film. The only thing I liked about the movie were the creature effects, which were well done.

Bloodrayne 2: Nearly the same thing. A story which could have easily ended during the first meeting of the villain and the protagonist, but she hesitated and nobody knows why. Unconvincing acting (from my point of view) terrible dialogues (well, that seems to be one of my own weaknesses still, as my brother tries to tell me, but I'm working on it), actions and characters, which did not make any sense, no tension at all, so I did not pay any attention to the film after about 50 minutes, because I started a conversation with someone about the film. This is very seldom that I don't watch a film until its end, so the film must have been very boring to me.

I'm very sorry if I offended any fans of Boll, but this were my subjective impressions. But I can't remember everything, because it has been some time, when I last saw these films and I haven't seen any of them a second time, because they bored me back then.
I must admit that extremely bad films can be very entertaining, but I prefer films with tension and an understandable story.

[Aedh]

Enlightenment!!!

Thanks for sharing! I understand ... sometimes a film or play will "rub me the wrong way" as they say. I believe I understand everything now.

I think it is because to me, life itself is like a bad movie. In real life, people we meet every day are insincere, unconvincing, boring, cloddish, tedious, and sometimes outright stupid. (I'm not speaking of every single person--no one on this forum certainly--but most people.) They don't seem to know what they're doing half the time. Most can't or won't dress themselves properly. They make mistake after mistake. They do things that make no sense, and fail to do something when it would make sense. The unexpected happens continually, and the expected often fails to materialise. I think I like Boll's work because I find it to mirror reality quite precisely. I find very little 'realism' in actual reality. RealISM, after all, is an artistic accomplishment.

It is when people always say something witty or relevant ... are interesting and clever and mysterious ... take action when it's called for ... make quick, decisive determinations ... see into others' hearts with quick intuition and perceptiveness ... seldom if ever mistaken ... and act with skill and ingenuity, that a feeling of unreality starts to strike me. This isn't the world I live in, for the most part, at least not when I'm out on the street.

Welcome to "Your Life: a film by Uwe Boll." Hahahaha!! ;D