SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - What's with cheap-ass movies getting theatrical releases?

Posted: Jan 09 2008 02:04 am

With all the ads for Dragon Wars on DVD and for that Dungeon Siege movie, I was thinking how movies like these that look like they should be just going straight to DVD end up actually getting into theaters?

Posted: Jan 09 2008 02:38 am

Black Zarak wrote:

With all the ads for Dragon Wars on DVD and for that Dungeon Siege movie, I was thinking how movies like these that look like they should be just going straight to DVD end up actually getting into theaters?

You haven't seen it yet, stop whining.

Posted: Jan 09 2008 02:59 am

I got some free movie passes from something at work awhile back and decided to take my mom out to a movie since she works so much. The only thing that looked interesting was D-Wars. We were like the only people in the theater. Honestly it wasn't that bad for a mindless entertainment. It did its job of entertaining me.

Posted: Jan 09 2008 03:23 am

DarknessDeku wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

With all the ads for Dragon Wars on DVD and for that Dungeon Siege movie, I was thinking how movies like these that look like they should be just going straight to DVD end up actually getting into theaters?

You haven't seen it yet, stop whining.

I have the amazing ability to tell when a movie sucks just by watching the preview and yes, Dungeon Siege sucks.

Posted: Jan 09 2008 07:04 am

I hate to say it, but Dungeon Siege actually doesn't look that bad from the trailer. It probably WILL suck because it's a Uwe Boll film, but the trailer doesn't look bad. And it does have a great cast:

Jason Statham
Leelee Sobieski
John Rhys-Davies
Ray Liotta
Ron Perlman
Claire Forlani
Burt Reynolds
Kristanna Loken

And Matthew Lillard too, but he sucks.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Trailers for Uwe Boll movies usually look pretty good. And his movies have managed to get consistently bigger name actors. But they still blow.

Damned if I can remember where it was, but I did read a trustworthy review of Dungeon Siege, and apparently it is indeed godawful.

Joined: Dec 18 2007 Location: Face 2 Face Posts: 155

Black Zarak wrote:

I have the amazing ability to tell when a movie sucks just by watching the preview

I kinda do too, although at least in my case, it's relative to whatever sucks to me, not what the general consensus of reviews would be.

Posted: Jan 09 2008 09:10 pm

Hey, do any of you know if Until Death (jean claude VD) was released at all near you? I happened to work on it and was definitely going to theatres in some places. Probably Belguim and Yemen. Laughing

Posted: Jan 09 2008 10:30 pm

Burt Reynolds is in Dungeon Siege? Ha!

I like Statham for pretty much any action role, the ad just looks like a bunch LARPers running around in the woods. It actually looks a lot like that god-awful Dungeons & Dragons movie, at least it doesn't have the Waynes brothers curse upon it.

Posted: Jan 09 2008 11:05 pm

Alas, I have to see Dungeon Siege simply because Jason Statham is in it...

We all might remember that movie Hatchet that came out back in 2007. That probably should've gone straight to DVD, but the director was very passionate about getting it a theatrical release. Usually when the filmmakers fight for it to get a theatrical release (or contractually the studio has to) that's when we get DVD quality films in the theater. Wide releases? You got me.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Black Zarak wrote:

DarknessDeku wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

With all the ads for Dragon Wars on DVD and for that Dungeon Siege movie, I was thinking how movies like these that look like they should be just going straight to DVD end up actually getting into theaters?

You haven't seen it yet, stop whining.

I have the amazing ability to tell when a movie sucks just by watching the preview and yes, Dungeon Siege sucks.

I am afflicted with the oppose instinct. Every time i see a preview, i think it's bad ass but lately the badass-ery of the trailers often beats the snot out of the movie itself. I think what's been killing my movie experience lately is those god offal commercials before the movie begins (not for other movies but for soft drinks and mukus remover). If i want to watch commercials theater style, i'll sit five intches from my TV and crank my volume to max. I'm going to say it now, fuck Regal's First Look, most of the time it's shit nobody will watch anyway and it just prolongs the damn half-an-hour of movie previews anyway.

I miss the good old days of coming to a theater with radio music in the background and trivia on the silver screen. I mean, are the theater's not getting enough money? Because that old set up was awesome.

Lately when i go to the theater, I leave disappointed in both the movie and the theater. The last good movie experience i had was when i saw the first national treasure.

BTW, i saw Shrek 2 recently on TV and it as so bad that I was amazed that anyone would risk making a third. The first one was awesome. But this second one should not have been shown in theaters (Direct video at best). . . oh man . . . have i become sinical? Have i truly adopted the way's of the Spoony Experiment Shocked

Posted: Jan 09 2008 11:17 pm

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

I am afflicted with the oppose instinct. Every time i see a preview, i think it's bad ass but lately the badass-ery of the trailers often beats the snot out of the movie itself. I think what's been killing my movie experience lately is those god offal commercials before the movie begins (not for other movies but for soft drinks and mukus remover). If i want to watch commercials theater style, i'll sit five intches from my TV and crank my volume to max. I'm going to say it now, fuck Regal's First Look, most of the time it's shit nobody will watch anyway and it just prolongs the damn half-an-hour of movie previews anyway.

I miss the good old days of coming to a theater with radio music in the background and trivia on the silver screen. I mean, are the theater's not getting enough money? Because that old set up was awesome.

Lately when i go to the theater, I leave disappointed in both the movie and the theater. The last good movie experience i had was when i saw the first national treasure.

BTW, i saw Shrek 2 recently on TV and it as so bad that I was amazed that anyone would risk making a third. The first one was awesome. But this second one should not have been shown in theaters (Direct video at best). . . oh man . . . have i become sinical? Have i truly adopted the way's of the Spoony Experiment Shocked

What's been wrong with service for you?

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

DarknessDeku wrote:

What's been wrong with service for you?

Hey I believe in the Spoony's cause. Movies lately deserve nothing less then his mercifulness thrashing. I would like to know what his 10 best movies of all time list is.

Posted: Jan 10 2008 04:13 pm

Dungeon Siege looks like it'll be a pretty bad movie just because the actual storyline of Dungeon Siege struck me as kind of shallow. A farmhand must travel across the country killing bad guys and taking their money and meeting people along the way. Finally he'll come to whoever the bad guy was because I've forgotten at this point and I never actually finished this game. A story like that is just fine for a dungeon crawler because it's all about the killing and the loot you get, but as for a movie, I'd like a little bit more depth than that.

And if the movie is going for the "you'll feel like you're playing the game" feel, then that's silly. If I wanted to feel like I was playing the game for two hours, I'd play the game for two hours. Except that way I'd also get a sense of self-satisfaction and a bunch of new magic swords.

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

. . . oh man . . . have i become sinical? Have i truly adopted the way's of the Spoony Experiment Shocked

I think I might be the same way. Neither games nor movies interest me these days. To think, I've gone cold, distant, and bitter before I was even twenty. Siiiigh...

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

erock462 wrote:

I got some free movie passes from something at work awhile back and decided to take my mom out to a movie since she works so much. The only thing that looked interesting was D-Wars. We were like the only people in the theater. Honestly it wasn't that bad for a mindless entertainment. It did its job of entertaining me.

I ended up seeing it by accident when I was drinking. I hated it. it wasnt' even "so bad it's funy" bad. it was jsut "bad" bad.

a flashback inside of a flashback inside of a flashback? seriously now!

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Here's a review of Dungeon Siege, albeit not the one I was referring to before.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35237

Posted: Jan 11 2008 08:25 pm

Why Uwe Boll wants you to watch Dungeon Siege:

1up.com wrote:

After sitting on the shelf for a while now, Uwe Boll's epic In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale will finally hit US theaters tomorrow. Perhaps sensing his movie may not appeal to many theater-goers on the basis of "entertainment," Boll has resorted to appealing to theater-goers with a populist message of revolution.

In a short memo sent to Boll fansite (sort of?) Bollbashers.com, the grand auteur and amateur boxer beseeches the American public to send a message to the big film distributors by making In the Name of the King the number one movie this weekend. "Now a few days before IN THE NAME OF THE KING gets out in USA I have to tell whats going on in the filmindustry," Boll writes, and we should point out now that English is not his native language. "If you dont get out with a MAJOR company the exhibitors and the tv and radio stations are not supporting you. This is the reason that independent movies are like self fullfilling prophecies and they almost bomb all."

Boll goes on to identify Ice Cube's First Sunday as his primary competition this weekend, and he doesn't exactly hide his opinions of it.

"Our competitor in USA FIRST SUNDAY with Ice Cube is a piece of [s***] and for NOBODY nearly so interesting as IN THE NAME OF THE KING. We have a better movie and a bigger movie with a better script, better cast and we proved in europe that our movie has the power to stay 3 weeks in the TOP TEN and that we can get at least 50% good reviews. FIRST SUNDAY is a direct to DVD title in europe but in USA Sony puts 40 mill. $ in advertising to win that weekend. And this is completly absurd. Sony will not even recoup the advertising costs with that movie."
Ultimately, Boll writes, "The biggest problems in todays market is that nobody believes anymore in word of mouth or gives a film a chance without seeing upfront all 5 seconds in TV a spot." He then ends by pleading that everyone should go watch his movie, "and show that its not only advertising."

It is a legitimate issue: big, conglomerated studios drowning out small independent movies with marketing blitzes that cost more than what most independent movies cost themselves. Moreover, even what might be considered a more "mainstream" film will get dumped if a studio doesn't think it's particularly "marketable" (Mike Judge's Idiocracy being a famous recent example).

But really, In the Name of the King will save independent movies? Really? The movie that could probably be titled "Epic Movie" and be a better satire of epic movies than Epic Movie? Okay, fine. Having not seen it and without reviews to consult (the movie wasn't screened for critics, which you'd think would only have helped spread word-of-mouth...right?), we'll just leave that up to the film-going public to decide.

Think Boll's Dungeon Siege Tale deserved a fairer shake? Vote with your dollars, folks.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165374

Posted: Jan 11 2008 11:45 pm

At some point Uwe Boll is going to do a tetris movie.

Posted: Jan 12 2008 12:37 am

I can already see the trailer for Uwe Boll's next movie in my head, and it won't be Tetris. It will go like this:

(fade in on a crime scene. a warehouse.)

Chief Inspector Huxley: All right, Parker, what do we have here?
Detective Parker: A dead drug dealer, sir. Local gangbangers have identified him as a Mr. Clyde.
Chief Inspector Huxley: Is that his first name or his last?
Detective Parker: We don't know, sir. We're looking into it.
Chief Inspector Huxley: All right then, where's the body?
Detective Parker: We're standing right in front of it, sir.
Chief Inspector Huxley: You messing with me, son? There ain't no damn body here.
Detective Parker: Right there, sir.

(Parker gestures to a pair of eyes lying on the ground.)

Detective Parker: That's all that's left.
Chief Inspector Huxley: Jesus Christ, what could have done this?

(the lights begin to flicker)

Chief Inspector Huxley: Do you hear that, Parker?
Detective Parker: Hear what, sir?
Chief Inspector Huxley: Listen.

(a faint sound is heard in the distance. It begins to get louder. It sounds like a siren, but not quite. Some sort of machine perhaps? No. What could it be?)

Detective Parker: What... what IS that?
Chief Inspector Huxley: Heh, it sounds like...
Detective Parker: ...
Chief Inspector Huxley: Like chomping.

(the lights go and screaming is heard, then some quick cuts of horrified reaction shots.)

IT HAS A HUNGER THAT CANNOT BE FILLED

AND IT WILL

NOT

BE

DENIED

PAC-MAN

AUGUST 2008

Posted: Jan 15 2008 09:05 pm

Your probably right. I'll bet that the Pac-Man movie will probably have some gratuitous sex scene with Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man featuring thumping techno music in the background.
By the way I find it funny Dungeon Siege got beat out by an old guy buddy film. Man Uwe Boll is a douche.

Posted: Jan 15 2008 09:43 pm

I'm not gonna lie, that Bucket List movie does seem more enticing than Dungeon Siege. But, I am biased as I am a fan of both Freeman + Nicholson.

Posted: Apr 25 2008 09:59 pm

Gentlemen, I have just watched Dungeon Siege as I shamefully bought it the day it came out on DVD. Tonight was the night I was drunk enough (or dumb enough?) to watch it.

As per usual, Uwe Boll's incoherent film making continues to improve with every film he makes (sans Bloodrayne 2). The film looks good thanks to a competent cinematographer. Jason Statham and Ron Perlman kick much ass; even Boll can't film those two badly.

The same can not be said for the supporting actors. The problems with most of the other cast is that they all have their own acting styles and they don't mesh. For the most part everyone's acting in different movies. But Matthew Lillard takes hammy acting up a notch and I kinda liked his super flamboyant acting decisions. I laughed a lot at Ray Liotta's trench coat wearing evil villain character. And who can hate John Rhys-Davies?

However, the script is HORRENDOUS! The worst thing about the movie is the structure and a total lack of transitions and narrative. To top it off, the film for the most part is boring. I know the film was originally 4 hours long, but even this 127 minute version could've been 90 minutes. Uwe Boll does not understand story as been said by numerous people who've worked with him and it shows the most in this film. He also shamelessly rips off entire scenes from Lord of the Rings, but there is enough original touches scattered across that I can't quite call the film plagiarized but more likely improvised.

I've never played the games, I don't know what they're about. I don't know if there's tree nymphs and ninjas in the game but whatever.

There's also no resolution to the film... Or rather there is one, but then the movie ENDS. No falling action. It just ends. What happened to Shaggy? I don't know... Do I really care? Not really. There's not much compelling in the film, but Jason Statham RULES in it. It doesn't hurt his career any, because truthfully, he's made worse.

Posted: Apr 26 2008 03:03 pm

Tebor wrote:

Gentlemen, I have just watched Dungeon Siege as I shamefully bought it the day it came out on DVD. Tonight was the night I was drunk enough (or dumb enough?) to watch it.

As per usual, Uwe Boll's incoherent film making continues to improve with every film he makes (sans Bloodrayne 2). The film looks good thanks to a competent cinematographer. Jason Statham and Ron Perlman kick much ass; even Boll can't film those two badly.

The same can not be said for the supporting actors. The problems with most of the other cast is that they all have their own acting styles and they don't mesh. For the most part everyone's acting in different movies. But Matthew Lillard takes hammy acting up a notch and I kinda liked his super flamboyant acting decisions. I laughed a lot at Ray Liotta's trench coat wearing evil villain character. And who can hate John Rhys-Davies?

However, the script is HORRENDOUS! The worst thing about the movie is the structure and a total lack of transitions and narrative. To top it off, the film for the most part is boring. I know the film was originally 4 hours long, but even this 127 minute version could've been 90 minutes. Uwe Boll does not understand story as been said by numerous people who've worked with him and it shows the most in this film. He also shamelessly rips off entire scenes from Lord of the Rings, but there is enough original touches scattered across that I can't quite call the film plagiarized but more likely improvised.

I've never played the games, I don't know what they're about. I don't know if there's tree nymphs and ninjas in the game but whatever.

There's also no resolution to the film... Or rather there is one, but then the movie ENDS. No falling action. It just ends. What happened to Shaggy? I don't know... Do I really care? Not really. There's not much compelling in the film, but Jason Statham RULES in it. It doesn't hurt his career any, because truthfully, he's made worse.

thanks for the review. and thanks for putting yourself thru that torture for the sake of the forum

Posted: Apr 26 2008 05:19 pm

erock462 wrote:

At some point Uwe Boll is going to do a tetris movie.