| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (13)

Posted: Nov 9th 2006 10:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Collectively the best news that could be heard about Uwe (Uvey? Ewwe?) ever. Even the C-list won't be near him, perhaps the UN will send in Inspectors to search for his Weapons of Brand Name Destruction. You, Mr. Boll, are vile and I spit in your general direction.

~PEACE
-Icelandman
Reply

Posted: Nov 9th 2006 11:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hrm... based on what little I've heard (from a guy who purportedly knows Uwe Boll), Kristanna Loken did indeed turn down the role because of her prior commitment to that TV show. Of course, it's possible that she had other reasons as well, but given that she said she wanted to do BloodRayne 2 AFTER the first BloodRayne tanked, I kinda get the impression that she doesn't care about his reputation as a film maker.

In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what this new actress can do. I'm an unashamed Uwe Boll fangirl, and as I've said elsewhere on the internet, the mere concept of vampire cowboys traipsing around British Columbia with a scantily clad Norwegian girl in hot pursuit amuses me far more than it should.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 12:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll give Uwe credit for one thing - his movies may be bad, but they're entertainingly bad, which is more than I can say for 90% of the bad movies mainstream Hollywood puts out. Plus he knows enough to at least give us some T&A as reward for sitting through his dreck, something Hollywood has long since abandoned.

That and he makes Paul WS Anderson look like fricking David Lean.
Reply

Posted: Nov 9th 2006 11:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Re:1 it's "oo-vay" i think.

Alone in the Dark 2? the thought of that brings me nightmares D:
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 1:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, what an awesome picture. So subtle yet profound. Whoever made that must be a real artist, and a real killer with the ladies, unlike Uwe Boll, who only kills movies. Bravo!
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 6:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Get a life and leave him alone. Just because your brave enough to diss him in front of the pc doesn't mean your right.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 3:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your dribble was giving me half a chuckle until the Superman Returns comment. Don't be a dumbass, Justin Murray. If the movie's so boring, then why do over 75% of critics think it's hot stuff? Rotten Tomatoes is a pretty tough site to get those types of percentages on. Your pointless and douchebaggy comment has been noted.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 5:19AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry guys, Superman returns still hasn't made a profit (they won't tell you that directly, but the final costs approached 500mil.)
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 7:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
alone in the dark made a profit?? why the hell is he making a sequel!? i writhed in pain watching that stupid film >
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 8:48AM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"alone in the dark made a profit?? why the hell is he making a sequel!? i writhed in pain watching that stupid film"

When I went to see it with friends (before we knew his terrible reputation), the audio cut out right at the part where they explain what the hell is going on, and stayed out for about 10 minutes. Everyone in the theater started adding their own soundtrack, heckling the film at the theater.

It was an infinitely better experience I'm sure than what the director had intended.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 9:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"It was an infinitely better experience I'm sure than what the director had intended."

And think about how much better it would have been if there was a film break and a white screen accompanied the lack of sound.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 11:59AM WatTsu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Sorry guys, Superman returns still hasn't made a profit (they won't tell you that directly, but the final costs approached 500mil.)"

That's true if you consider the costs they spent developing the movie to actually arrive at a script and director combination that resulted in a film getting made. Remember that "Superman 5" went through approximately eight billion different hands before it hit the screen as Superman Returns.

Doesn't make the movie any better, but Warner Brothers has, to the best of my knowledge, eaten all the development costs as a cost of doing business. Superman Returns ITSELF has just become profitable recently, hence the sequel they're doing.

And regarding this actual newspost: Bloodrayne was awful, Bloodrayne 2 will be worse, this Natassa girl is pretty cute but likely not a great actress.
Reply

Posted: Nov 10th 2006 10:35AM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"
"It was an infinitely better experience I'm sure than what the director had intended."

And think about how much better it would have been if there was a film break and a white screen accompanied the lack of sound.
"

Umm... Ininitely +1? :)
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW