Nice disclaimer. Seconded for an addition of “You’ve been warned. No refunds, rent at your own risk”
I agree with Half Man Half Wit. According to Uwe Boll’s wikipedia page, he is not exploiting a loophole in the tax law, he’s using it exactly as intended. If the movie loses money, then you get a tax write off.
Wait a minnit! They have to be flops? That explains a lot, but it’s starting to sound like a real-life A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.
I was gonna say a real-life Producers, especially since Germans are involved.
I’ve heard there was an actual loophole, but it was closed after his first or second film, and he didn’t intentionally exploit it. It’s just a good story.
But Uwe Boll isn’t the worst writer-director in the world. Stevan Mena is.
The reason I’m gonna continue to call it a loophole is that I sincerely doubt the *intention *of the law was to produce more flops. “Using it as intended” simply means he’s working within the law. Like . . . a loophole.
D’oh! You’re right. I was thinking Zero Mostel and conflated the two. I plead pre-caffeine.
Fair enough.
Unless, of course, the critics are shown to actually have more fighting experience than Boll himself.
I once had dinner with Uwe Boll (ooo, there’s a movie! “My Dinner With Uwe”). He seemed like a nice enough fellow. He had a pretty impressive knowledge of film, and really seemed to love what he does. He genuinely has no idea just how incompetent he is as a filmmaker. In his mind, we’re all wrong, and he’s a genius.
But, on the other hand, he did pick up the dinner tab.
No loo-vay for Uwe around here, huh?
I wouldn’t mind seeing a documentary of Uwe Boll and Andre Gregory having dinner together… could be erudite and witty conversation, could be a no-rules-barred cage match.
[checking with Wiki]
Andre Gregory’s still alive, but he’s 74. Maybe Boll could fight with his right arm tied behind his back, or something.
I’m having a tough time believing that his movies are really as bad as everyone says they are, but then I haven’t seen any. Can you guys recommend one to somebody who usually has no interest whatsoever in superheroes, other comic book characters, or torture-porn flicks?
The “loophole” existed for several years and closed in 2005. Unfortunately I can’t explain the details (and it is surprisingly hard to find good explanations of obsolete tax law) but as far as I can tell it wasn’t all that spectacular. The general idea was that these film funds generated huge losses initially and at the time you could offset those against any other income, lowering your taxes significantly. Later you had to pay taxes on profits from this investment but those were generated in smaller increments at a later time. Apparently because of the tax effects it was worth it even when the real return on investment was rather poor. Besides a few funds that made actual profit the old-fashioned way there were some where the real business was pretty unimpressive and everything was about the tax effects. In addition to that film funds were a notorious investment fad in the twilight years of the dotcom bubble and shortly afterwards and many simply lost money.
There’s an extra feature on the Bloodrayne DVD called “Dinner with Uwe,” where two semiretarded fanwankers asked him stupid questions through mouthfuls of Thai food. He comes off as, yes, knowledgeable, but also a real idiot.
I think the point is that these films cannot be recommended for anyone. Therefore, take your pick.
There are people who are un-ironically fans of him? The world is a strange place.
Definitely. There’s a review of Heart of America that calls it “Hands down Uwe Boll’s best movie”–and gives it one star. A case could be made that it is, in fact, his best, but it’s also a terrible movie. It’s the exploitation flick based on the Columbine shootings. There’s a scene where the football team rapes a retarded girl, and the scene is shot for maximum boob-view.
*Bloodrayne *is immensely entertaining, but mostly because you’re like–wait, that doesn’t make any sense at ALL–or the hilariousness of the clunky editing, which makes it feel like the MadTV parodies of the Dolomite movies. Or the extremely amateurish–but enthusiastic–gore effects. Kind of a straight-faced Evil Dead. It’s a fascinating study in how NOT to make a movie.
Same goes for Alone in the Dark. Just, like, wow. First off, Tara Reid plays a scientist. Nuff said, right? Plus–OK, they want to show that there’s a problem with the electrical systems in the museum where most of the movie takes place. Mostly so they can shoot in the shadows, I think. But then, for “effect,” the set is lit by wildly flashing and waving lights, like a disco floor. I think we’re supposed to think that the display spotlights have gone crazy or something. Or more likely, we’re not sposed to think anything at all.
*In the Name of the King *is not as entertainingly bad; it’s about as boring as a medieval swordfight movie could possibly be. Not ever Jason Statham can breathe any life into it.
Postal–now, *Postal *is a masterpiece of outrageous bad taste. It’s clunkily made; it’s basically a catalogue of anti-PC outrages. It feels a bit perfunctory–kind of like what made *It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia *wear thin; you could just see them going down the list of cliche outrages: Nazis, check; child molesters, check. Pretty much the same outrages are checked off in Postal, but it has the added frisson of Dave Foley’s first full frontal, and Verne Troyer getting gang raped by chimpanzees. Again I say, masterpiece. Run, don’t walk.
Alone in the Dark was only half as bad as everyone says. I was able to watch it all the way through without praying for death as a reprieve.
I love the first line of that article: