Has Uwe Boll made any stars?

We all know that Uwe Boll is the man who makes Ed Wood look like a genius, but have any of the actors in his films gone on to become stars?

Put another way, should we tolerate - even admire - Boll because he gives aspiring actors a chance? Or are his films a resting-place for actors? What about film crew?

I’ve been through the list of his films on Wiki and not spotted anyone of note apart from Jurgen Prochnow.

I don’t think he can make stars, but he can convince C List stars desperate for attention to make an appearance.

Alone In The Dark starred Christian Slater, Tara Reid, and Stephen Dorff.
Bloodrayne starred Kristanna Loken, Michael Madsen, Billy Zane, Michelle Rodriguez, and Ben Kingsley.
In The Name of the King starred, against all expectation, Jason Statham, Leelee Sobieski, John Rhys-Davies, Ron Perlman, Claire Forlani, Kristanna Loken, Matthew Lillard, Ray Liotta, and Burt Reynolds.

It seemed to go sour after that. He couldn’t fool anyone any longer.

From what I understand the money dried up. Apparently Uwe Boll movies were used as some sort of bizarre tax shelter by German investors, they’d toss half a million Euros his way and then make a cultural investment deduction on their tax form. And then they fully expected the movies to tank horribly so they wouldn’t need to declare a profit on the investment, presumably. And no, the scam didn’t go sour because he accidentally made a profitable movie, instead the German government wised up and plugged the loophole a couple years back.

Ah, I must have accidentally skipped that one. But there’s no one who’s gone from obscurity to stardom?

Well, there’s Uwe Boll. :smiley:

Do you have any info on how this works? I don’t understand. Apparently Wikipedia says:

But that doesn’t make sense to me, plus it’s a Wikipedia article on a controversial figure in the movie industry. If a German company throws 1 million euros at Boll, and he loses them money, then the company claims 1m euro tax deduction, they’re still out of pocket for some amount up to (or including) 1m euros. What have I missed?

Just a WAG here, but I’d say that it essentially offered a risk free gamble for those investors. If you’re a multimillionaire and you’re going to owe $2M in taxes to the government and you have the option of investing $1M in a movie, which might turn a profit or it might not, then why wouldn’t you give it a shot? That $1M is leaving your bank account one way or another, it’s either going to the government as a tax or it’s going into some dud of a movie. As far as the multimillionaire is concerned it’s a wash, but at least with the movie you have a slim chance of getting some profit back. And if that movie returns $1.2M on that $1M investment the rich guy gets his $1M back free and clear and only owes tax on the $200K. When your income tax is 40% or more that’d be a savings of perhaps $400K or more.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Plus, some of his movies were so incredibly cheap they did manage to make money - if he always lost cash it wouldn’t have ever worked.