Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I predict this movie will be a real hit with the leadership in Iran.

I just have this feeling that we'll either get jewish ninjas killing all the Nazis and helping everyone escape, or a love letter to the guys in Jackboots.

I can only surmise that Uwe Boll has finally realized he's never going to go down in history as the greatest filmmaker of all time, and with Ed Wood tying up worst of all time, he's set his sights on Most Detestable Director Ever.

Postal was pretty funny.

I own House of the Dead.

Blokus wrote:I own House of the Dead.

The real version or the new comedy version with added scenes?

Original

You didn't answer his question.

I payed money to watch it in theaters, then I bought the dvd. It is a good movie to get wasted to with friends.

I dare someone to herd a bunch of bored stoners into an otherwise packed screening of this movie, just to witness the mayhem. That would be worth IMAX prices.

Nurglitch wrote:Postal was pretty funny.

That's the thing. Uwe Boll could do *somewhat* well if he outright went for making comedies. It's just him trying to make video game movies and him trying to make *Dark and Gritty* movies, then failing miserably.

I love the way Producers keep giving this guy money to make films.

If Boll actually tried making a comedy he would probably end up with something like 'The Road' but starring Will Ferrel and Owen Wilson.

Hapless survivors watching humanity succumb to its most bestial nature trying not to get eaten by cannibals.

'It's laugh after laugh' .

Mr. Burning wrote:I love the way Producers keep giving this guy money to make films.

I'm sure if you dug into the financials you'd find that it is some combination of tax shelters and/or money laundering.

The huge glut of poorly made 80's action/adventure sci-fi/fantasy movies that we all know and love were largely funded by millionaires and billionaires taking advantage of a tricky California tax structure that allowed them to "hide" money away from the IRS for a few months while a film was in production. So what happens is they invest $100 million in the film, shoot the film on a million, and keep the other 99 hidden until the next quarter.

California eventually closed the "tax loophole" (which sucks, it's probably the only grossly abused tax loophole I ever approved of, because without it there would be no Beastmaster, no Mad Max, no Terminator, etc.), but many other countries have tried to encourage local film industries by recreating them.

And of course, you don't really want these movies to be successful. Because that might invite attention to the investors.

Gailbraithe wrote:I'm sure if you dug into the financials you'd find that it is some combination of tax shelters and/or money laundering.

There was talk when his early movies were released that they were deliberately bad films designed to work a piece of German tax law. There was a piece of tax law in Germany designed to encourage investment in local films that said if a film failed to turn a profit then you could claim the full cost of production as a deduction and any revenue made would not be taxed. The idea was that Boll's crappy video game movies were somehow the most likely model to come closest to breaking even without losing money.

Thing is, they closed that loophole years ago but Boll is still making films. It looks like bad German tax law is not the blame for his film career.


I think the truth is probably quite boring. Uwe Boll is a hack that doesn't care about the quality of his movies. As such, he is free to save costs wherever he can (he's bragged about hiring prostitutes as extras as they're cheaper and complain less) and won't suffer any cost blowouts (if a crew can't get a scene quite right the costs of principal shooting can blow out quickly as other scenes have to be delayed, or they have to move ahead with shooting and come back to reshoot later) but Boll doesn't care, he'll just roll on and leave his badly framed, poorly lit, poorly acted scene in his movie right next to every other poorly framed, poorly lit, poorly acted scene.

There's been a steady industry of low rent schlock for decades. Films made for pennies, and thrown out to be seen by uncritical fans.

sebster wrote:There's been a steady industry of low rent schlock for decades. Films made for pennies, and thrown out to be seen by uncritical fans.

There's a point there. There is a large, generally uncritical, audience of young men who will pay for absolute crap films that can almost be counted on as a guaranteed income -- I recall one producer (with Cannon, I think) saying that any horror film released straight to DVD, no matter how bad, is a guaranteed million dollars in your pocket.

Because lets be honest. Most of us have seen at least one, if not more of his movies. So even as bad as they are, people are watching.