idiots giving it a bad rating just cause of uwe
its true title says it all it wasnt nearly as bad as i expected
shareGet 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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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.