idiots giving it a bad rating just cause of uwe
its true title says it all it wasnt nearly as bad as i expectedshare
its true title says it all it wasnt nearly as bad as i expectedshare
Get used to it. Although it's beginning to die down you will always have the morons who can't get over the fact that Boll has improved greatly since "Alone in the dark".
"Now we are carrying so much hate and jade that we're not much better than you"
On its own this was actually a pretty poor film - the 'love scene' and the general acting was atrocious.
But if you're wanting Far Cry on the big screen, well, this wasn't bad.
Like Max Payne - as a movie it was poor, but as a video game adaptation it wasn't terrible.
I would say: On the contrary!
If the movies weren't game adaptions but films on their own, then they wouldn't have been half-bad.
But they are game adaptions, and everyone who cherishes these games got terribly disappointed with Far Cry and Max Payne - thus the poor ratings.
Postal on the other side somehow managed to capture parts of the spirit and atmosphere of the game - so with Postal you would be right: on its own, the film is very mediocre, but as an adaption of a fairly twisted game, it was very much okay.
I wouldn't say he's made giant steps since Alone in the Dark.
Bloodrayne was incredibly bad, possibly even worse than AotD.
In the Name of the King was downright embarassing. It wasn't worse than Bloodrayne or AotD, but it wasn't much better. I actually began to feel somewhat bad for the man after watching this.
Seed was....passable. I don't know that I could say much about it beyond that.
Postal was entertaining. Not a great film, by any means, or even really a good one, but it was at least entertaining.
BloodRayne II was actually worse than the first one and definitely worse than AotD.
I haven't seen Tunnel Rats, so I can't comment on that.
So since Alone in the Dark he's made 3 equally as bad, if not worse films, one mediocre film, and one mindlessly entertaining film. I wouldn't call that greatly improved.
That said, I don't think a film should be rated negatively just because he directed it, and some people definitely give his films 1s even though they haven't seen them. Although, even if they had I doubt it would have improved the score too much, as most of his films are that bad. The video game-based ones at least.
Let's not pretend that if there wasn't the anti-Boll vote that these films would be averaging in the 6s or 7s. They'd still be rated fairly low, even if not quite AS low.
I think you're mistaken. They're not your games. You didn't create them, you didn't work on them. By this rationale Boll has as much right to make them as you do to complain about them. The fact is, Boll paid for the screen rights to these games, so in fact they belong more to him than they do to you. He paid for the right to adapt them, you paid for the right to play the original VG - you see the difference.
At any rate it's a moot point; in 20 years time the games that Boll has adapted won't mean anything to anyone beyond the people who played them at the time. They'll be as relevant as Duck Hunt or Kamikaze. Unlike movies, which will always find an audience, no mattter how bad, no one really cares about videogames from over a decade ago.
Unlike movies, which will always find an audience, no mattter how bad, no one really cares about videogames from over a decade ago.
You don't speak for everyone. Stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about, ignorant old fart.
"Worship me or I'll torture you forever"
-Your loving God.
Myself, I see no problem with rating all of his movies as a one.
Why? Because it may take 50 or even 100 movies, but at some point he is going to realise that he isn't very good at what he's trying to do and get a job elsewhere.
Didn't your parents ever tell you off for laughing at someone doing something stupid but funny, and say "Don't encourage him!".
Well, when Uwe Boll makes a movie, don't encourage him!
And I have seen it, it sucked.....
Far Cry 2 the game had better acting, a better script, and better direction. Maybe thats his whole plan, he doesn't want to make games look bad....
all his movies are *beep* PERIOD
why call us idiots when you yourself sound like you actually enjoy them, that says something about yourself...
hey guess what OP
i saw the movie and..... I GAVE IT ONE STAR
yes shockin i sat all the way through it! because... dumdumdum it is awful. There is NO defence for uwe he is the most incompetent thing working in film today.
far cry deserves its 1 star... most uwe films deserve less.
--now watch closely everyone, im going to show you how to kill a god--
nah its not a 1... i gave it 3/10
but the other new bolls a actually pretty decent
didnt like seed but its definitively not a 1 either
postal is hilarious
stoic and tunnel rats are intense and unsettling movies
nobody would actually sit all the way through a 1/10 movie so something must have kept you worthy of at least a 2/3
The Good the Bad and the Ugly is the greatest movie ever made...
Uwe has some really good flicks. Heart of America was a pretty solid flick, and to all you Apollo 13 fanboys out there, it even has the praise of Ron Howard, who's little brother Clint Howard starred in it. Seed wasn't much but it wasn't supposed to be. Everything that happened in Seed stemmed from Boll's frustrations with *beep* like you who have nothing better to do than bitch about how bad his movies are. Postal was a great political satire, certainly better than the overrated Tropic Thunder(what's the message in that movie supposed to be anyways?). Plus, Boll makes far more money than you people anyways, so a big sincere "Shut the *beep* Up" to all you haters. Boll could kick your wimpy little asses anyways.
P.S. I'm not Uwe Boll, I'm the guy sick and tired of you *beep* who nitpick Boll like a bunch of upper-class snobs. Get a life, losers.
To the world you may just be somebody, but to somebody you may just be the world.
Uwe Boll's movies (feces) are a crime against the humanity. I'd rather have my testicles in a vise for an hour and a half than watch anymore of Uwe's movies.share
You have to admit, though, he's only done bad movies to games that were already bad to begin with.
Yeah, that's right, I said it. House of the Dead games sucked, Alone in the Dark 4 sucked, Bloodrayne game sucked, Far Cry series sucked, and especially Postal sucked. I don't even know why people ever supported that crappy Postal game in the first place; the graphics were terrible, the premise was led by a novelty, and everything else in it was buggy. They were all crappy games to begin with, so it's only reasonable that the movies should have been about the same degree. Maybe if they just made better games nowadays, we wouldn't have this problem (I exaggerate, of course, seeing as how Super Mario Bros. came out).
I know I'm going to get flamed for this by...everyone, but that's basically my intention anyway, so it works out well for me. But it's the honest truth, at least in my perspective; these were not good games in my opinion. And Far Cry just did not appeal to me at all.
If con is the opposite of pro, wouldn't congress be the opposite of progress?
I actually got this film out because I loved the game, and also was quite moved by Boll's film Darfur, but this film was faaaar worse than I could have imagined.
"But Gawwwge, what about the whaaaales!?"
The acting didn't bother me so much, what did bother me was that Jack Carver now has a whiny German accent and that the island they used wasn't a tropical island at all. The film itself had practically no similar moments as the game.
I do not understand all the people on the forum that have not seen this film but still comment on it.
I am not a gamer and I liked the movie.
I gave it a bad rating for being a terrible film. Talk about utter trash. The guy who Directed this should ever be allowed to make films ever again.
I have seen Fan films on You tube that are better then this.
Fascinating thread. Some real charmers on here (read: sarcasm).
"Far Cry" is a mediocre movie, pure and simple. I gave it a 5 - as mentioned in my "Sunday afternoon thread," it's got some entertainment, and it's got some real crap. Better than some, worse than others.
But to lump all of ANY filmmakers movies together is too simply not understand the concept of rating a movie, not a career. Want to say ALL of Uwe Boll's movies are crap? Go do that on his page, not individual movies.
Bloodrayne, Alone In the Dark? Terrible movies.
House of the Dead, Far Cry? Meh. Average, entertaining films when you need something mindless and kinda cheeky.
Postal, Tunnel Rats? Surprisingly good movies. "Postal" was funny, irreverent, and quite over the top, while "Tunnel Rats" was intense, gritty, and darkly-emotive.
Rampage? An amazing movie that I never want to see again. This movie is up there with "Schindler's List" in an "everyone should see this as a warning" kind of way.
no.... I just disliked Postal, Alone In The Dark and Bloodrayne.
I give his movies a try but yet to see a decent/good one from him. Want to see Rampage though I heard its actually pretty decent.
On the other hand, RAMPAGE (arguably Boll's finest film to date) boasts a fairly respectable 6.2 rating.
But yeah - I find it highly unlikely that the 2649 voters who gave it a 1 have all actually seen it.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.