Uwe Boll vs. Brett Ratner
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Brett Ratner
AWOL_Pileggi — 17 years ago(February 09, 2009 10:18 AM)
So i'm hearing rumours about Brett Ratner wanting to direct all these videogame and comic based movies (guitar hero- what the hell). It seems to me somewhat like the notorious Uwe Boll's career trajectory. Now I won't watch Uwe Boll's films,(though I kind of want to see Postal) but Uwe comes across to me as having good intentions in a half-way retarded light. The movies Uwe Boll is actually able to direct, he buys rights on the cheap, and you know they will be awful, even without his name attached. The guy is directing House of the Dead etc. type of shallow games not meant to have a deep film-worthy story in the first place.
However Ratner seems to have big money behind him and is able to get rights to things which in good hands could potentially be good films, Like X-men 3 which he absolutely destroyed. I remember being so excited seeing the foreshadowing to the phoenix in X2, and then blam Ratner completely ruins the entire movie with some weak sauce garbage plot and script. You could watch five second clips of his movies, and its like ok thats what a movie is supposed to look like. However once you see an entire film of his you can see the wasted potential, and shallowness. Brett Ratner is the anti indie film-maker, he always makes the least with the most. Uwe Boll is not without his charms. Brett Ratner films come of as nothing but a cash grab, where he distracts you with some explosions and then steals your wallet from behind you. -
Squirrowl — 17 years ago(February 11, 2009 01:09 PM)
Actually I came to this board because I love Red Dragon and I cant believe that this guy directed such a great movie.
I think X Men 3 was ok not so good as X2 but ok for me anyway Im not a fan of super heroes movies.
And I didnt see any movie of Rush Hour series, looks very stupid.
Anyway I think its not fair the comparission because I just see one movie of Uwe Boll, Dawn of the Dead wich is by far the worst movie that I EVER SEEN. -
AWOL_Pileggi — 17 years ago(February 12, 2009 02:33 PM)
I assume you mean House of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead (both of them) was much better. My 16d0point though is that you can't possibly go into a movie like that with any expectations, its based on a game thats lineage begins with Duck Hunt, and he actualy included game-play footage in the movie, that in itself is pretty awesome in an Ed Wood so bad its hilarious kinda way. http://353review.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uwe.jpg I see Uwe carving out a nice legacy of terribleness. He's so utterly harmless. Yet Brett Ratner seems like the kind of guy who can do damage, at least to my high expectations for games with quality stories that might actually attract bidding wars like Mass Effect, or Bioshock. Or comic books, which undoubtedly the writers would never let Uwe near.
-
sting58493 — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 12:18 PM)
When it comes to directors, I prefer Ratner. The only movie of his I didn't like was X3. And X3 would have been better if it didn't feel like a last minute made movie. It felt like it was shot so the studio could get a good summer block buster to start with. While the story did have closer, it didn't feel like X Men. Angel didn't really do anything after all the hype. Ice Man went full on Ice Man for a total of 2 seconds. And I didn't really see why the guy with the quills comming out of his face was worthy to be in Magneto's gang. He said in Chess, the pawn go first. It seems he should have been one of those. Anyways, the Rush Hour series was fun and Red Dragon was a spectacular remake of Manhunter. Red Dragon actually made Manhunter more interesting. He deffinately did his homework for Red Dragon. So overall, I think Ratner is a good filmmaker.
Dr. Uwe Boll hasn't made a movie that I enjoyed. In the Name of the King was good for a few laughs. I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously, and I didn't take it seriously. I would like to think if he just teamed up with some writers with whom he can connect a well thought out story, then he could contribute to the idea that videogame movies are marketable and can be good. I agree with one of the other people on this fourm when he said that Dr. Boll only chooses games that don't have actual depth in story. He is a good director when it comes to actually directing his movie, but he seems to have too much creative control on the story. -
KnyghtMirror — 16 years ago(June 15, 2009 08:30 PM)
You saved a lifetime of nightmares by avoiding Rush Hour series. It defines OVER-ACTING. Ratner must be one of those guys who is a great salesman, because his films 75% of the time suck. 2 stars or less. He has a handful of marginally good and thats as far up the ladder as he gets. I should have walked out on Rush Hour 3 which besides The Happening is the worst film I've paid for in the last 8 years.
-
noahtenzin — 15 years ago(May 11, 2010 01:21 PM)
Boll FAILS.
->
http://shareddarkness.com/2008/05/24/uwe-boll-future-projects.aspx -
necrosage2005 — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 09:51 AM)
Read what he just said about comic book movie fans, and I think that you'll like that hack, Boll, better.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/BrentSprecher/news/?a=9902
For those of you that don't want to know, just look at the title.
"Brett Ratner Doesn't Care What 'Comic Book Geeks' Think; In a candid interview, the director of X-Men: The Last Stand discusses how comic book fans have 'nothing else going on' in their lives." What a great guy! So glad I don't watch his movies. Most I haven't even heard of before. -
TheLastDragonNRY — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 12:26 PM)
I read it and it appears that he was talking about the complainers, the people who constantly nitpick and bitch because it's not exactly like the comics when Bryan Singer hardly stuck to them at all. IMO, it's not the best X-Men film, but it certainly had the action that the other 2 installments kind of needed (the Nightcrawler scene was tee-rrific as was Wolverine's rampage through the mansion). I still wish that Singer would've finished his trilogy though.
And Rush Hour 1 & 2 were great. -
necrosage2005 — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 11:28 AM)
How many non-comic book fans do you know that go to see a comic book movie? They complain because they all want a good movie to do justice to the heroes that they have loved for years. Look at Dark Knight. It wasn't a direct comic book translastion, but it was done so well that it is on many people's best ever movies. In all honesty, Singer's were kind of horrible, too. I mean, just look at his take on Superman, and putting super heroes in black pleather. The spandex DOES work, you just have to know HOW to make it work. Nightcrawler's self-mutilation was horrible. Wolverine's origins was just crap and boring.
The end. Comming soon! -
Thetruthisinhere — 13 years ago(March 17, 2013 09:04 PM)
you dont get it, Singer made the superhero genre possible again,it was considered dead and buried by the late 90s. Back in 2000,to do a superhero movie at all,a serious one,was a risky undertaking,on such a level. The costume OVERKILL is what Batman and Robin was,with the nipples and overdone cheese costumes, so to go black is logical, you dont wear yellow spandex when you want to be unnoticed in the night. It made perfect sense,ESPECIALLY for the early 2000s when there was nothing except cheesy batman in peoples memories. Many owe Singer much,cause he revitalized superhero movies for the 21st century.
Origins was fantastic, Nightcrawler was terrific, and if you claim to know HOW to make it, then DO IT,instead of just moaning,and once youve done it,I will see how just as many folk bash your version of it. -
dmfaust — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 03:25 AM)
Both make bad movies, though Ratner can at least claim one or two decent films(the first Rush Hour was fine, Red Dragon not anyworse than Hannibal) so he can certainly claim more passable movies than Boll. However in terms of who I'd want to punch in the face more, definitely Ratner. Boll makes terrible movie after terrible movie, though with a hint(the slightest, slightest hint) of Ed Woodieness. (That's right, I said Woodieness, don't question my amazing linguistical skilling.) Ratner on the otherhand well, he's pretty much the classic definition of a hack, and I don't use the word lightly(I've gotten in many a lengthy debate defending Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay even against the label). He's given massive budgets, major franchises, and amazing casts. Then he proceeds to purposefully drag the film to the lowest denominator in a transparent bid for mass market appeal(nevermind that even the most casual of movie goers find it appaling), and then proceeds to basically insult directors who actually manage to make commercial and artistic successes simultaneously(Scorsese by name). It's one thing for him to say he doesn't care about any potential artistic merits and he's just making a movie for the money, but to then go on to lambast others who do care about the artistic aspects(yet are most certainly not stuck up indy art film maker types) is just crossing a line.
In short, Ratner is not without technical skill, but his treatment of film as a purely mechanical process severely diminishes even his movies that are supposed to be pure pop corn munchers(Rush Hour 3, X3 being the obvious worst offenders). -
tronfunkinblow — 15 years ago(June 21, 2010 02:27 PM)
Ratner absolutely defines the popcorn movie. And I'm not endorsing that trash at all.
Over-acting, cliche catchphrases, explosions, no plot, cool stuff to appeal to the hormone driven teenager chuckling like a retard in the audience. It's all wrapped up in this shiny, glossed over Hollywood beep package.
The students run the class now. We're just witnessing the generation who grew up watching movies, but not learning what skill, talent or quality is, so they make garbage like Rush Hour when it's their time to squat out a movie.
And now all we're doing is poisoning a generation of movie goer's minds with piles of beep failing to really teach them what quality is. If you think Rush Hour is bad, just wait until the kid who thinks it's amazing grows up and makes his own. And people will like it, because humans are dumber than a second coat of paint. -
Radalan — 15 years ago(July 12, 2010 08:26 AM)
I was actually surprised to notice that Brett Ratner directed Red Dragon.
Mainly because it's so much what most of Brett Ratner's movies are not.
Of course it's a remake, but it still whole a lot different to the mainsream popcorn stuff he usually pulls out of the hat.
What clichs? Thats a word the wannabe critics use when they want to whinge. -
FZ-FX — 14 years ago(November 09, 2011 05:08 AM)
"Like X-men 3 which he absolutely destroyed"
I'm by no means a Ratner apologist (he's as mediocre as mediocre gets; even his "good" movies are meh) but blaming him for X-men 3 shows that you have no clue how Hollywood works. First off, directors on blockbusters rarely have much creative control unless they are also producers and/or writers. More often than not the5b4y decide how to shoot a scene, instruct the actors and maybe have some input into the final cut but that's it. All major creative decisions are made by the producers and (more importantly) the studio heads. In the case of X3, Ratner was brought in at the last minute to replace Matthew Vaughn. This means he had zero impact on the development of the story. If you want to blame someone, blame Tom Rothman, the head of Fox who is notorious for making awful creative decisions. If you want to rag on Ratner, compain about why you think his direction is lacking but don't pull the "His films have stupid writing" like that every other 14-year-old who has no idea what a director actually does uses, because he has never written a script in his life.
