Sadly, Uwe Boll's retirement didn't mean an end to the kinds of films he made.

That looks terrible.

Like something Uwe Boll might have had a hand in.

I'm glad it wasn't him. I'm finding it increasingly difficult not to snicker in his direction when I see him.

Ashamed to admit this, but I actually know Uwe Boll.

Your video, Uwe Boll Takes His Ball and Goes Home, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm amazed by how many people apparently already watched the whole movie and declared it terrible or stupid. I mean, you wouldn't judge a two-hour movie based on a one-minute trailer, would you? Unless Uwe Boll or Michael Bay are involved, I tend to wait until a movie finished production and people are actually able to see the whole thing until I judge it as good or bad (and even then I acknowledge that there is something called 'opinion'). This might not be the best trailer, but I'll never understand people who judge a whole movie or TV show based on the first one-minute trailer or even a still picture from the set.

J. J. Abrams would have added more lens flare.

This was awesome though. I really wish they would make a Half-Life movie (as long as it's not directed by Uwe Boll or Paul W.S. Anderson).

>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?

cough Hudson Hawk cough Armageddon cough


While both those films are fairly bad, they are FAR more watchable than the true dregs of movies that have been made by people such as Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan--when M.N.S. made a good show, followed by a decent one, and then proceeded to believe that he made the best films man had ever bear witness to. Plus we both know that there was an audience (and a large one for Armageddon) for BOTH of those movies and also Air Force One, @Payback; sure, they weren't me and you (or @Payback), but there are a lot of people in this world that do not ask very much from their movies.

It's when a movie lets down EVEN THEM that it is a pure and utter failure, able to be ridiculed without equal until the end of time. These are the worst films made. Of course many of the movies that DO succeed, like Prometheus right now (June 2012--for reference), can be made fun of A LOT (like Armageddon, which has been the punchline to many jokes). Why? Because, they have MASSIVE disconnects from reality or other bad writing and screenplay mechanics that they are just ridiculous when thought about with any amount of real thought and prowess in a subject dealing with the movie and it's attempt to portray reality in another light that is utterly false. As I said they appeal to the "entertainment" type audience; someone that would go see Independence Day over and over again. Not to us were we watch someone take off a helmet in a potential zero atmosphere environment "to test it out"; that is UTTER NONSENSE, no one does this in reality! This is the stuff that makes us hate those movies (and create the myriad of jokes for it as well). But, not the entertainment crowd who can enjoy a movie for what it is and suspend their connection with reality for awhile.

Granted if I were to use my "full-on" reviewing analysis of what I would include as good movies--the count of "alright" movies would plummet (for Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis). I can think of atleast 3-4 shows that Bruce has been in that I would consider failures in this light, but I know that many people beyond me DO like these movies--that is why I don't count them as failures as there remains an audience--a decently sized one--for those movies. I have to admit I have my own "cult" movie favorites that no-one likes, really, except for me and maybe a few other people I know. I also have been able to like movies for their entertainment value although I know if I treat them with reality they fall completely apart, quickly. Sometimes it's best to let your imagination rule your heart.

Same thing here. I'm just not on the end of the spectrum that enjoys those movies, if you get my drift. So, trust me, I know Bruce has his bad movies (same with Harrison Ford)--but his bad movies, so far, are better than the real dregs and bottom scraped-up leftovers that are out there. That is what I was trying to say in a lot less context--I hope this clears it up. We most likely see things fairly close or the same; I'm just giving credit to the people that DO like Hudson Hawk, Armageddon, and Air Force One.

L. Ron Hubbard as a master of language? Sheesh, that should be enough right there to get an involuntary commitment. It's like claiming that Uwe Boll is a some sort of cinematic genius...maybe worse.

>> ^littledragon_79:

>> ^kceaton1:
>> ^dag:
Not a Batman fan. I do not like that Chris No-lan. I do not like it Sam I am.

You didn't like Inception? Or anything ever done? Even I end up liking hated directors in at least a few movies, because they do make so many movies. To each their own.

What about Uwe Boll?


OK, maybe not everyone.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^dag:
Not a Batman fan. I do not like that Chris No-lan. I do not like it Sam I am.

You didn't like Inception? Or anything ever done? Even I end up liking hated directors in at least a few movies, because they do make so many movies. To each their own.


What about Uwe Boll?

>> ^CreamK:

>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^gwiz665:
They should make Magic the fucking Gathering. I'd watch that!
>> ^EMPIRE:
Actually, do you know they are actually doing other movies based on Hasbro games? (i shit you not).
Monopoly is going to be made into a movie as well.


hell's ya!

Hell yeah + a million
Directed and produced by Uwe Boll

This HAS to be fake, HAS TO BE

My brain cannot accept that people actually created this. Unless Uwe Boll was directing it.

@xxovercastxx

I'm perhaps less of a hater than others posting, but really I only feel that Shammy has two good movies and maybe not in the order that everyone else seems to think:

I thought Unbreakable was a bit meh. Everyone seemed to love it, but I have a real hard time with movies that end with text (with the possible exception of historical movies and even then I'm never a huge fan of text as a way to tie up a film). In Unbreakable's case though, I found it even worse because they were glossing over really important stuff. I feel like that movie could have worked amazingly for me if they tacked on another 45 min where Sam Jackson actively became the bad guy. To me he ended that movie right at the point where it got interesting.

Then came Six Sense. It was good, but the major problem I have with it is that it is a two view movie. I never want to see it again. You see it once to get "fooled" by the twist and then you watch it again to catch all the little things... oh look, he's wearing the same set of clothes the whole time, oh look, nobody except the little boy talks back to him, oh look, he's dead. Don't get me wrong, this is one of his two good movies, but I feel like the dependency on the twist is the movie, you remove that and there is nothing really to it.

Which brings me to Signs. I actually think this is his best movie specifically BECAUSE it would have worked great without the twist. The buildup is masterful. The fear of what you DON'T see if perfect in this film. The sound editing and music were fantastic. Mind you, I'm a sucker for aliens, but this movie really pushed my buttons in a good way right up until the end. There was a review I read around the time that came out that really summarized it: this is like Jaws with aliens. You don't see them much for most of the movie and then the last third they are trapped on a boat (house) with the baddies circling outside ready to pick them off. As for the twist, I actually didn't mind it, and I didn't care about the water thing. The only thing that heavily concerned me was that Shammy was suddenly showing an almost cartoon-like dependency on this whole "twist" thing.

And there is where I fall in line with everyone else: it seems like he can't make a movie (aside from Airbender to which he didn't write the fundamental plot) without some sort of hidden twist. The Village, the Happening... again it would have been really interesting to see what he could have done with these movies if he had just played them straight.

It is kind of sad to watch him in this video though. To say that someone "didn't get" The Last Airbender is kinda ludicrous. It was painful on so many levels that I strongly feel he can't hide behind the whole "its for kids" thing. All I have to say to that is: Pixar. Anyone who panders to kids and doesn't challenge them with a movie good enough for adults to enjoy just shouldn't be making movies.

Then again, if Uwe Boll can keep making movies, I'm not surprised Shammy keeps getting bank rolled for his films. I just hope one day he can realize that he has the talent for a good buildup without the need to turn it all Twilight Zone at the end. I feel like the whole world is yelling that at him but he isn't listening...

>> ^shinyblurry:

God loves everyone, you included, and He does want you around. He doesn't create people He doesn't love. This video completely misses the point on both sides of the issue. The issue that God has with homosexuals is the same issue that He has with any human being. Every single one of us has sinned and have fallen short..and there is no one good, not one. I myself am personally disgusted by all of the prejudice that Christians show homosexuals. It is not what Christ taught, at all. Christ taught us to love one another, and to show that love always. If a Christian treats you like that, they are not following what He said.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
As a gay atheist, it doesn't matter a jot to me whether or not the desert god Yahweh "wants me around" or not.
I don't believe we were created by a god in the first place, and since it also supposedly created HIV, snakes, ebola, Uwe Boll, river blindness, periods, earthquakes and asbestos, I don't think an argument based on that god's idea of "good" and "bad" is built on solid ground. So while I appreciate what this guy's trying to do, this argument doesn't move me much.


I don't want to be impolite, because like the fellow in the video I think you mean well, so I'll just say "thanks, but no thanks".