Undercover Quint at AFM kicks it off
with Uwe Boll's latest masterpiece,
ALONE IN THE DARK!!
Ahoy, squirts!
Quint here, currently typing from
the Great White North where I'm
lumbering about looking for something
fun to do before I head back to Austin,
which I've only spent 3 days of this
month residing in. You see, for the last
week and some change I've been lurking
around Santa Monica infiltrating the
American Film Market, a gathering of
foreigners who buy up the distribution
rights to everything from in the work
flicks like SILENT HILL (which sold
every foreign territory and the script
isn't finished yet) to well known indies
like BEYOND THE SEA to direct to video
trash like EMANNUELE FUCKS THE TWO-DICKED
ALIEN HORDE part 4 and now I'm almost
halfway into my 6 day jaunt around
Toronto. No rest for the wicked, Dr.
Thompson would say. I figured I'd take a
break from freezing Toronto and let you
folks know about the AFM and start the
chain of reviews from some of the flicks
I saw there.
Roaming the halls of the Loews hotel
and seeing the posters advertising the
world's worst movies is in a strange way
very humbling. There's an insane amount
of junk out there. But I love walking
the halls because hidden in the pools of
shit, you'll find gems. For example, in
between SNAKEWOMAN 4 and BLOODY BITCHES:
PERIOD ZERO (not for real titles, but
not far off, either) are pictures from
DOMINO. The two I saw had Keira
Knightley looking damn hot, hair cut
short, face pale and a little more
muscular than I've seen her before. One
has her sitting on a couch outdoors with
the city of LA behind her at dusk. This
one was a production photo with the
camera and operator sizing up the lovely
lady. The other was a still from the
film of Keira with a shotgun up and
ready.
Anyway, long story short is press
has a hard time getting into this event
as it's not a festival, but only for
business purposes. The few press that
get in have very limited access, but
I've been able to bypass all that by
getting my grubby little mitts on a
buyer's badge for the last few
conventions, which gets me into all the
screenings.
Matter of fact, it was AFM a couple
years ago when I saw Uwe Boll's
excruciating puddle of dog vomit, HOUSE
OF THE DEAD. I gave it the most negative
review in my 7 year history of writing
for AICN and I don't regret one single
word of it. Boll crafted the single
worst, most patheticly retarded movie
I've ever witnessed on the big screen,
and I've seen some really shitty-ass
movies. Please, give my HOTD review a
read if you haven't read it, for I fear
that my review of his latest gob of goo
isn't going to be nearly as
entertaining.
You can read it here .
I am very disappointed in ALONE IN
THE DARK because it's not as shitty as
HOUSE OF THE DEAD, yet nowhere near a
good movie. The cinematography by
Mathias Neumann is actually very good.
So good, in fact, that I refuse to
believe that this is the same man who
shot HOUSE OF THE DEAD, which looked
like a pair of mentally retarded 6 year
olds with a 10 year old hi-8 video
camera were at the helm. This one feels
like a real movie, with nice atmosphere.
Unfortunately, the pretty cinematography
isn't enough to make you overlook the
world's worst acting (Tara Reid deserves
a punch in the mouth for her performance
in this film), an inane plot that goes
nowhere and the most cliched overused
character stereotypes Boll could have
dug up. Compared to HOUSE OF THE DEAD,
the film is a step up, but it's still a
turd sandwich, just not a soggy one.
The plot of the movie follows
supernatural detective Edward Carnby as
he searches out the meaning behind the
appearance of these vicious creatures
that seem to be able to appear and
disappear at will and aren't too fond of
light. He finds that these slimy fuckers
are tied into his childhood where he was
one of 30 kids who disappeared from an
orphanage for an undisclosed amount of
time and were then returned without any
memory of what happened. Carnby used to
be a part of an agency called 713 and
isn't on friendly terms with the current
head of the organization (Stephen Dorff).
Of course the two end up having to help
each other out, but that doesn't happen
until about halfway through the movie.
I have no desire to get any deeper
into the plot of the film... not because
I'm wary of giving away too much of the
plot, but because I really don't want to
go back over that bullshit. It doesn't
help that due to Boll's amazing talent
to somehow muddle simple stories the
plot really doesn't go anywhere after
about the first 20 minutes. Seriously,
after the first reel change the
characters just seem to tread water for
the rest of the movie. The big reveal at
the end doesn't make any sense and
nothing in the climax of the film is
earned, just kinda thrown in there.
On top of the good cinematography
there are only two other things that
elevate this film above HOUSE OF THE
DEAD, even if it is only a few inches
above. Their names are Christian Slater
and Stephen Dorff, who are the only two
actors who give a performance in the
movie. Dorff does a particularly good
job of somehow taking the "I'm a pissed
off special forces leader, goddamnit!
Goddamnit, the hero of the film
threatens my ability to give orders,
goddamnit!" character and making it fun
to watch, if totally unoriginal. Slater
does his best, but can't really get
beyond a certain level of character with
an untalented ass-clown like Uwe Boll as
his director.
None of the positives of the film I
can chalk up to improvement on Boll's
part. Slater and Dorf have both been
good in bad movies before, so to a
certain extent they can direct
themselves. Tara Reid is amazingly
godawful in the movie. And no, she
doesn't get naked in the movie. There is
a love scene, but no nipples or
asscracks are seen. I suggest hitting
google if you want to see her big fake
titties. You shouldn't have any trouble
finding 'em this week, that's for damn
sure.
Boll didn't learn any lessons from
HOTD and still seems to want desperately
to make a Paul WS Anderson and/or a
Wachowski movie. The action is
masturbatory and made seemingly without
any idea of how to use slow-motion
effectively. He'll slow-mo random people
during a car chase over and over
again... that type of shit. He does it
because he thinks it looks cool, but
obviously has no clue how to make that
style part of the story or at least part
of the flow of the action.
As for his boner for Paul WS
Anderson, I really don't know what
that's all about. I could understand
Paul WS Anderson loving Boll, just as a
plain looking man loves his ugly friend
or a chubby girl would love their 550
pound friend. Next to Boll, Anderson
looks like a genius, a master of the
genre. If you somehow catch yourself
viewing ALONE IN THE DARK, which I DO
NOT ADVISE, you'll think someone slipped
a copy of RESIDENT EVIL onto the screen
at the end. I shit you not, the movie
ends with Tara and Christian walking
around an empty city, with crashed cars
and no people. Throw in an amazingly
shitty EVIL DEAD ending rip-off instead
of a Milla racking a shotgun and you can
imagine what bullshit this is.
I don't know why any sane person
would give the adaptation rights to
their game to Boll. HOUSE OF THE DEAD
never recouped any of its money, even
counting foreign box office and DVD
sales and no one, even Boll himself,
admits it's anything but a shitty movie
(although Boll said that it's a good
movie because it's so shitty, that being
so shitty was what he meant it to be, so
then that makes it good, right?) The man
has no talent and I'm convinced he's
funded by long buried nazi gold. He's a
taint on the genre film community and
yet Lions Gate films keeps picking up
his shitty movies. HOUSE OF THE DEAD
cost $12 million to make. Twelve Fucking
Million Dollars. Consider that SAW cost
one million and SHAUN OF THE DEAD cost
$4 million. HOTD cost $12 million and
looks like 2 month old bum piss, so I
can't even imagine how much money he
spent on ALONE IN THE DARK which
actually looks like a movie. I'd bet
it's at the very least double the budget
of HOUSE and I know the film won't pull
in $24 million plus P&A. So, how does
this fucker keep working? Can someone
explain it to me? Hate Michael Bay, hate
Paul WS Anderson, but at the very least
they make movies that make money. Boll
makes shitty movies that lose money and
he's still working. Go figure.
Anyway, that's all I have to say
about this, but I'd like to take a Q&A
with Boll that IGN did(if
you think you can tolerate a whole Boll
interview, read it here) and respond
to some of his statements. From this
point on the bullshit starts getting
deep, so buckle up your rubbers,
squirts!
GN FILMFORCE: What
is the status of Alone in the Dark?
UWE BOLL: We did the test
screening and the movie's not finished…
It will go out in February, but we did a
test screening and then two or three
Internet freaks sitting in the test
screening [started] writing s**t about
the movie. The thing actually is,
everybody who saw it really likes the
movie
Obviously not "everybody" or else
you wouldn't have these negative
reviews. Nobody who sees your movie and
writes a bad review is secretly loving
the movie on the inside, dude.
, but it is a complicated movie. I
didn't want to do another flat movie
like House of the Dead, where it's only
fun but no story.
HOUSE OF THE DEAD was fun?.
And I didn't want to do a movie like
Alien Vs. Predator,
No, you just keep wanting to make
RESIDENT EVIL over and over again.
where you have that totally easy
set-up, everybody gets it, and it's only
like, 'Rule number one, rule number
three.'
Am I the only one who doesn't
understand what the hell that means?
Alone in the Dark is a complicated
game and it is about finding keys,
finding answers and the H.P. Lovecraft
novels, they're all, let's say connected
to the end of the world and to what we
do with civilization. I thought it is
good to make a movie where you have to
find out on your own what the story's
about, what the background is. We don't
have only creatures around, we have also
things going around that are connected
to Edward Carnby's history, the thing
with Christian Slater… I'm really pissed
right now about a few Web pages.
IGNFF: We're not
one of them, are we?
BOLL: (Laughs) No, this is the point.
Look, it's hard enough in the Hollywood
studio system, that people are not
getting it, how powerful videogames are.
It's hard enough to convince people in
the studio to make a big release for a
movie. So right now we have two majors
[who] want to do it and we have to
figure out this week who's doing Alone
in the Dark, who's doing the release.
The main point for me is, the same
people writing that s**t on the
Internet, these are the people that
should be happy that someone is doing
it, because the studio [doesn't] give a
s**t, they would do only Erin Brockovich
movies mixed with Van Helsing. You see
all the comic book movies, yeah this is
what the studio executives are
"getting." 'Oh, I know it, because I
read it 25 years ago.' But videogames,
they have no lobby… We have that great
new thing in the market… That videogames
are the best selling books of the
younger generation, videogames are also
influencing the whole entertainment
industry, but it's not true. It's
infiltrating, it has a connection to,
like, us, but it has no connection to
the studio people. They didn't even know
what Alone in the Dark is… What I don't
get, what the strategy of these geeks
is. I tried to be in a dialogue with the
guy… Right now, here online, AntoFreden,
BobaFett38, FatGuy2, Melon5555. These
are all people, they are online for
horror [and] zombie forums… They are in
contact with me, they are emailing with
me. They are on my buddy list. I try to
be in a dialogue with these guys because
I am interested what the fans think. But
what I really want, because other
directors are not doing it this way, but
what I really want is, really before
they write bulls**t, they should think a
little about it, they should look out in
the theater. There were 280 people in
the test screening and only these five
idiots think it's a bad movie…
So, let me get this straight... If
we love video games we should support
Uwe Boll through his self-masturbatory,
terribly directed films that have
nothing to do with the original source
material anyway? How does supporting bad
films help anybody? Keeping all opinion
out of it, let's look at the numbers
like we were a Hollywood bean counter.
Studios look at money. Money, money,
money. Numbers: $12 million production
budget. $10 million advertising. Total
of $22 million. Total WORLDWIDE BOX
OFFICE for HOUSE OF THE DEAD:
$13,818,181. You're not helping your
cause by making a bad movie that fails
at the box office. Box office doesn't
mean everything, of course, but the
quality of the film is sub-substandard
on top of it.
IMDB
has a user rating of 2.3 (out of 10)
from 2,806 votes cast. It barely edges
out JAWS: THE REVENGE and COOL AS ICE on
the Top 100 Worst films by rating. How
does that help video game movies? Uwe,
if you somehow make a good movie, we'll
support it. Not because it's a video
game movie or a horror movie or fantasy
movie or whatever. If it's a good movie,
that isn't made to placate the
director's ego, then you'll see people
lining up to support you. Not until
then.
IGNFF: So the
reaction otherwise was good?
BOLL: Yeah, absolutely! The point is,
what we need is more support for these
kinds of movies if they want to get
bigger and better movies made out of
videogames. They shouldn't talk the
movies dead before they even get a
release…
Did you ever consider we'd be less
apt to "talk the movie dead" if there
wasn't something dreadfully wrong? We'd
talk the movie alive if you made
something worthy of such effort...
One guy on awful.com or whatever the
home page name is, he wrote that I was
there. He wrote [that] I was at the test
screening and talked to the people… I'm
in Romania shooting BloodRayne! I don't
fly to LA for 10 hours and then go back.
This is another point where I really
thought about, 'What the f**k is this
guy writing here?!? It was also a little
funny to be honest. It's just all that
stuff. [Loud exhale] I just have it in
front of me, general comments from the
Alone in the Dark [test screening
comment cards]: "Just like Resident Evil
except Alone is better," "It's a guy
movie, it's a great movie, the best part
was the ending," "Definitely fun," "It's
fun to go to see," "The end with all the
killings was a bit too long..."
Not a good comment.
(Laughs) And "Good popcorn movie,"
"Great! I almost jumped out of my seat
during several scenes…"
"Almost"? This is not a positive
comment.
"I think that the monsters are very
good, but the zombie people were really
cool…" "Laughs and suspense, but I'm not
a big fan of guts and gore..." (Laughs)
"The monsters are too funny," one guy
says.
Also not a positive comment.
"There are many parts of the movie
that make you think…"
I suspect that one isn't positive
either. Make you think of what? Slitting
your throat?
"If you like sci-fi movies, this is
the one to see…" Christian Slater got
the best response. A lot of people said,
'This is definitely a comeback movie
from Christian Slater, he's so great.'
If by great you mean elevated by the
shortcomings of all the other speaking
roles (excluding Dorff). It's no
performance for the ages, but it ain't
bad either.
If the movie is so sh***y, what the
guy is writing [on the website], then
why are the people saying something
different,
Because it's an opinion, jackass.
There is no right or wrong.
this is the point… I'm really pissed
about it, still… If there's only that
crap out on these Web pages, then
everybody is talking about only that
thing. It's pissing me off…
I'm happy about that. Maybe one of
these days you'll take these comments to
heart and either A) Drop out of the game
or B) Improve yourself. It's actually
very simple to please fans. Treat the
material with respect, have a vision and
tell a competent story. You're starting
to get real actors. Slater, Dorff and
now Ben Kingsley (which I'm still
baffled about, but hey... he also
accepted THUNDERBIRDS) with BLOODRAYNE.
I doubt you'll listen to anything I have
to say being that you've already brushed
off the others that have written about
your movies as "not getting it." We get
it, trust me.
In closing, if Mr. Boll (I refuse to
call him Dr.) really wants to help video
game movies then he'd stop making them.
He's arrogant in interviews and in
person (I saw him speak before he showed
HOUSE OF THE DEAD at AFM and he was
bragging about how the movie would make
more money than RESIDENT EVIL and how
they had spent so much money on it), but
unlike some other famously arrogant
filmmakers, he doesn't have the goods to
back him up. For the love of God, the
best movie he's made is one that is just
not shitty enough to save it from being
unbearable. His defenders are either his
investors or people who claim he's the
new Ed Wood. That's high praise to him,
but once again totally unearned. Ed
Wood, at his core, loved films so much
that he had to make his own. There was a
love and respect for the genre and that
showed through in his hilariously bad
movies. I get the feeling Boll is in
this for the fortune and glory. His
aping of Paul WS Anderson and the MATRIX
flicks doesn't feel like someone in love
with those films. It feels like "Hey,
this is what's popular and I can sell
this market if I have enough spin-around
effects..."
Now, after having my annual Boll
bitch-fest, the dude is going to be out
of mind. I really don't consider him
significant enough to bother writing
these rants, until I'm subjected to his
movies that is. ALONE IN THE DARK made
me want to vent a bit and I'm sure you
won't see the last of me beating up on
poor Uwe. He's got BLOODRAYNE in the
pipeline and he's always busy trying to
get his grubby little mitts on
potentially cool adaptations, so there
will be more bitching to be done, but
until that day this is Quint bidding you
all a fond farewell and adieu.
|
