Film Threat archive logo


By Michael Ferraro | June 28, 2007

Uwe Boll is no doubt one of the most infamous filmmakers of our generation. The minute someone watches 47 seconds of any film he’s made, they automatically want to hunt him down and destroy him. He’s so bad that it seems people forgot about that other video game filmmaker, Paul WS Anderson (Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil). At least Uwe Boll didn’t mess up Alien Vs. Predator.

Boll, responsible for such classics as House of the Dead and BloodRayne, may be a touch on the misunderstood side. Sure, his films are terrible pieces of schlock but you can’t deny his charms. Just listen to this snippet of commentary from the Alone in the Dark DVD:


How can you fault a person who genuinely thinks he’s made such a great film? And I actually think he is somewhat on the right side when it wonders how people can hate his movies so easily, yet let s**t like Hide and Seek slide. I’d rather watch 6 Uwe Boll films in their entirety than sit through that Dakota Fanning nightmare one more time.

At least I can laugh at a Boll movie.

Last year, Boll decided to take on some of his worst critics in a boxing match. No one can say for sure if he was hoping to change their minds, or if he just wanted to kick some a*s, but he took on 4 critics from various publications and walked away unbruised.

I am told by some of the local press around here that when they did a public pre-screening of Alone in the Dark a few years ago, the projectionist responsible for putting the print together accidentally put the reels together in the wrong order but no one was able to tell. They just thought it was perfectly normal for Uwe to cut from a weird monster action sequence to Christian Slater having sex with that gross chick, then cut back to the monster action sequence. I really wish I didn’t miss this screening.

Also available on Youtube is the first few minutes of his newest film, Postal.


I am at a loss for words. Clearly that’s going to offend some people, if not all people. Perhaps these is why he is so hated. He’s like the “King of Comedy” for all things not funny, previously held by Carlos Mencia. What’s a Boll to do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Film Threat Blogs » Blog Archive » Fantasia 2007 - Day 7 says:

    […] You and I both know that this is just buildup to Uwe Boll’s “Postal” which had it’s world premiere tonight at the festival. I’ve talked about it and FT’s own Michael Ferraro posted a clip of the first few minutes on his blog. A comedy about 9/11 and the war on terror is something that even the South Park guys don’t have the balls to tackle. So I was definitely looking forward to seeing it, and all of you reading this right now are probably dying to know how it went. […]

  2. Jeremy Knox says:

    Well technically speaking, all movies are made for the money. It’d be ridiculous to expect a filmmaker to spend millions on a film then give it away for free. This is art, not charity. Granted some people think about the money more than others, but everyone worries about the bills eventually.

  3. Felix Vasquez Jr. says:

    Pretty true, which is sadly why almost anyone gets painted a hack these days.

    A buddy of mine who barely gets by on his writing, is trying to get published, and is now called a hack by some folks for trying.

    It’s a word like “Amazing,” used so haphazardly

  4. Felix Vasquez Jr. says:

    A hard on? Yikes, hah. No “hard on” here. I just hate him, like a lot of folks hate people like Paul WS Anderson, Uli Lommel, or McG.

    I’ve been through it with a lot of other folks, and I keep going back to the same response:
    I’ve explained time and time again, I don’t want to repeat myself.

    But venture back and you’ll find the answers in my blogs on Film Threat.

    I was having this debate at Zoetrope about what constitues a “hack” – and somebody told me a hack was somebody who “did it for the money”, and I countered that everybody wants to make money in Hollywood, hence everybody in Hollywood MUST be a hack.

    That’s a good point. Everyone does something for some sense of gain. And the word hack is a very complicated word. What justifies someone as a hack if they’re all doing it for the money? That’s why I laughed hard when folks outlandishly said “Rob Zombie isn’t some hack, he’s not doing the Halloween remake for the money.” It’s hilarious and absurd.

  5. Dave Lawler says:

    Mr. Vasquez, what is your hard-on for Eli Roth?

    I mean, holy s**t! Did he kick you or threaten you in a dark alley in Park City or something?

    I go back and forth on this new crop of filmmakers – Bay, Boll, McG, and Roth, there are many others. I was having this debate at Zoetrope about what constitues a “hack” – and somebody told me a hack was somebody who “did it for the money”, and I countered that everybody wants to make money in Hollywood, hence everybody in Hollywood MUST be a hack.

    The one thing I’ve noticed is if I see a movie by one of these guys, I’m more inclined to like it in the moment, when I’m watching it, and then hate it almost immediately afterward. Weird.

    I can’t say I enjoyed “Alone in the Dark”; I kept trying to figure how or why Tara Reid was considered attractive.

  6. Felix Vasquez Jr. says:

    Boll is much less of a threat to bad filmmaking than the likes of Eli Roth, Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, McG, and the like. So I dont hate him as much, anymore.

  7. Jeremy Knox says:

    I have always loved Uwe Boll. If he was a character in a movie instead of a real person, he’d be on T-shirts and posters like Bluto from Animal House. Terrible filmmaker, awesome human being.

Join our Film Threat Newsletter

Newsletter Icon