|
|
Yeah, whatever. (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} photosinensis) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2007-08-14 22:41:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Face the facts: your movie sucks
There's nothing in the world more painful than a Uwe Boll movie. Nothing. You could be sitting in the emergency room with an exploded appendix, a 12 cm kidney stone, and going into labor--all at the same time--and at least comfort yourself with the fact that you're not watching one of his movies.
Of course, that doesn't stop him.
He's recently unleashed his latest creation upon the world: Postal, which is based upon a video game of the same name. Of course, this is pretty much his formula: take a mediocre to decent video game, turn it into a shitty movie, and then harass the critics when they pan it.
Today's harassment comes from Wired's gaming blog, which recently panned the film as the predictable piece of shit it was. Mr. Boll actually saw the review and had this to say to the author (spelling, capitalization, and grammar have been preserved from Mr. Boll's original e-mail):
Now, last I checked, Wired isn't about making movies, but it reviewed the movie as it is a spinoff of a video game, something that the website and magazine cover. Thus, it would go to show that the reviewer is not a "wanna bee filmmaker" but a video game enthusiast who occasionally sees a movie. I doubt that the author has even touched a video camera, save to make some videos of the kids at home that he never intends to leave his family.
I also fail to see how an R rating means that the MPAA "understood the satire". Generally, I always thought that an R rating meant that the movie was entirely unsuitable for children under the grounds of profane language, moderate violence, some sexual content, or a combination of the above. I'll take it that the script drops more than two F-bombs and the film's plot is driven by violence. After all, it is based on a video game.
The reviewer, like any decent reporter, blogger or not, asks Mr. Boll for an interview, but does say that "Any and all requests for boxing matches, meanwhile, will be politely declined." For the record, Mr. Boll was once a professional boxer, and can beat the crap out of you--though this still does not validate the films he's made.
Finally, Mr. Boll's publicist comes in, but is not the ray of sanity anyone was looking for.
I would love to know what "other critics LOVED" this movie. Seriously, I would. I sincerely doubt that any of these so-called critics were legitimately employed or syndicated in any professional capacity. Either that, or these reviewers were mentally deficient 13-year-old boys that would love anything if you put enough gunfire and explosions into it. The audience can be excused, as it was probably mostly made up of Mr. Boll's relatives and yes-men.
Still, I'm waiting for the day when Mr. Boll realizes that nobody outside his family likes his movies and takes his toys and goes away in a huff.
ETA: Wow, I went over the top there. I must remember not to post wanks until after I've slept.
There's nothing in the world more painful than a Uwe Boll movie. Nothing. You could be sitting in the emergency room with an exploded appendix, a 12 cm kidney stone, and going into labor--all at the same time--and at least comfort yourself with the fact that you're not watching one of his movies.
Of course, that doesn't stop him.
He's recently unleashed his latest creation upon the world: Postal, which is based upon a video game of the same name. Of course, this is pretty much his formula: take a mediocre to decent video game, turn it into a shitty movie, and then harass the critics when they pan it.
Today's harassment comes from Wired's gaming blog, which recently panned the film as the predictable piece of shit it was. Mr. Boll actually saw the review and had this to say to the author (spelling, capitalization, and grammar have been preserved from Mr. Boll's original e-mail):
chris
your review shows me only that you dont understand anything about movies and that you are a untalented wanna bee filmmaker with no balls and no understanding what POSTAL is. you dont see courage because you are nothing. and no go to your mum and fuck her ...because she cooks for you now since 30 years ..so she deserves it.
people like you are the reason that independent movies have no chance anymore.
uwe boll
PS: POSTAL is R RATED . The MPAA understood the satire -- you not -- you dumb fuck
Now, last I checked, Wired isn't about making movies, but it reviewed the movie as it is a spinoff of a video game, something that the website and magazine cover. Thus, it would go to show that the reviewer is not a "wanna bee filmmaker" but a video game enthusiast who occasionally sees a movie. I doubt that the author has even touched a video camera, save to make some videos of the kids at home that he never intends to leave his family.
I also fail to see how an R rating means that the MPAA "understood the satire". Generally, I always thought that an R rating meant that the movie was entirely unsuitable for children under the grounds of profane language, moderate violence, some sexual content, or a combination of the above. I'll take it that the script drops more than two F-bombs and the film's plot is driven by violence. After all, it is based on a video game.
The reviewer, like any decent reporter, blogger or not, asks Mr. Boll for an interview, but does say that "Any and all requests for boxing matches, meanwhile, will be politely declined." For the record, Mr. Boll was once a professional boxer, and can beat the crap out of you--though this still does not validate the films he's made.
Finally, Mr. Boll's publicist comes in, but is not the ray of sanity anyone was looking for.
Chris wrote that article in bad faith to damage me. His whole goal is to destroy my business. If he cannot see that scenes (for example WELFARE OFFICE, Job Interview) are genius in that movie - then there are 2 possibilities: he is dump and has no idea what movies are or he hates me and is dissappointed about his own shitty career.
He ignored also that the audience enjoyed the movie and tons of other critics LOVED it.
I would love to know what "other critics LOVED" this movie. Seriously, I would. I sincerely doubt that any of these so-called critics were legitimately employed or syndicated in any professional capacity. Either that, or these reviewers were mentally deficient 13-year-old boys that would love anything if you put enough gunfire and explosions into it. The audience can be excused, as it was probably mostly made up of Mr. Boll's relatives and yes-men.
Still, I'm waiting for the day when Mr. Boll realizes that nobody outside his family likes his movies and takes his toys and goes away in a huff.
ETA: Wow, I went over the top there. I must remember not to post wanks until after I've slept.
Post a comment in response:
