Alone in the Dark.

Review #1924: Alone in the Dark.

Cast: 

Christian Slater (Edward Carnby), Tara Reid (Aline Cedrac), Stephen Dorff (Commander Richard Burke), Frank C. Turner (Agent Fischer), Matthew Walker (Professor Lionel Hudgens), Will Sanderson (Agent Miles), and Mike Dopud (Agent Turner) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King)

Review: 

“You feel the failure already in front of you.” 

You know, there are little things you can dwell on every time you see a film by Uwe Boll. For one, he actually published a dissertation that resulted in him holding a PhD (for narrative structure in TV and literature!). But yes, Dr. Uwe Boll did grow up with a love for film, shooting films on handheld cameras when he was a teen in Germany. Hell, he two whole documentaries dedicated to him and his film "process" (one aptly titled Fuck You All: The Uwe Boll Story), so obviously there is something to look into when it comes to a man who clearly doesn't take criticism siting down (or retire easy, as evidenced by his return to filmmaking after spending six years...in the restaurant industry). Remember that Boll was in the midst of his video game movie phase, one where he resolved to make his movie fast and cheap. This film was no different: seven distinct scripts were in circulation for this film with no consensus for which one would be used. Of course, maybe it would have worked out better if they went with the one done by rookie writer Blair Erickson, who came up with a first draft that aimed for a thriller with horror in the shadows...which Boll decided needed to be done on a different level that turned it into an action film. You have four production companies: Boll KG Entertainment, Herold Productions, Brightlight Pictures, and Infogrames Entertainment, all part of an adaptation of the video game series of the same name that was developed by Infogrames in 1992 all about a private investigator looking at a haunted house with undead creatures. With the movie, here is a detective of the paranormal for our lead...a survivor of evil experiments that make him sense spooky stuff and heighten his abilities (hence why he can do a ridiculous somersault kick from the ground). Yes, a movie about a long-lost Native American tribe that believed there was a door between two worlds and a totally secret Bureau 713. Oh, and an evil scientist is there or something.

Sure, his non-video game films may inspire interest in the idea that they may show some sort of passion from its director. But only misery exists in this film, and God knows misery loves company. Boll may think that his critics were out to get him because of his ways of making films, but...yeah man, making a bunch of crappy movies with the mood of a funeral parlor is not going to do any favors. Putting a text crawl in your movie (read by Boll himself!) because test audiences didn't know what the hell the movie was about only speaks misery. How can you take a movie seriously when the gaffes pile up more than the dead bodies? How do you make a scene where a guy is saying he is showing three pictures to someone but is shown presenting four pictures? How can you make a movie where the visible bullets (light in the dark shots) are shown to miss their targets completely? How do you have an actor play a dead body and then not cut away when they are tilting their head? These fundamental errors compact a movie that maneuvers through 96 minutes of screentime with pacing that can only be described as "constipated". Even B-movies have some sort of charm to carry whatever bullshit they want to peddle in weird horror enjoyment, but all you get here is a movie that has the charm of an Internet hack getting punched in the face. It actually is a contest to see who comes off worse in the acting department: Slater, who looks like he wants to sleepwalk the entire movie on autopilot, or Reid, who says her lines with zero conviction while being hamstrung by the most perplexing lines ever put on film (the one about asking why you would put all the pieces of a puzzle far away from each other is extra primo); go figure, the one thing that Boll talked about with Reid is the fact that he couldn't get her to participate in a scene where she takes her top off - yeah, because that would've totally helped. A broomstick and a bucket have more connection than these two, and the one who ends up with the most "interesting" performance is Dorff, chewing at the scenery whenever he is able to appear on screen in ways that would make a drill sergeant blush. Walker isn't even a real "mad scientist" to make fun of, acting with the urgency of a man taking his sweet time to drink coffee at 6am. The effects are laughable, reminding one that even a man in a trash bag would be more convincing than this CG mess, and it amusing to see monster action in the dark that looks worse than a quick-time event in a video game. The attempt at sequel-baiting with the last shot (after stating that the whole city was evacuated...seemingly in the span of a day) with the most blatant rip-off a better movie in years is the final nail in the bed of rakes that has no redeeming features except for people who want to see crap in the crappiest of ways possible. I just can't see myself giving myself a star for this movie, and I would like to congratulate Uwe Boll for joining the zero-star club that makes him part of such company such as James Nguyen, Rick Sloane, and Coleman Francis. Enjoy the honor and for the rest of us, pick literally any other movie than this.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: On the third day of Turkey Week, Double Down.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

Rollerball (2002).

Review #1270: Rollerball (2002).

Cast: 
Chris Klein (Jonathan Cross), Jean Reno (Alexi Petrovich), LL Cool J (Marcus Ridley), Rebecca Romijn (Aurora), Naveen Andrews (Sanjay), Mike Dopud (Michael), Kata Dobó (Katya Dobolakova), Lucia Rijker (Lucia Ryjker), Oleg Taktarov (Oleg Denekin), Paul Heyman (Sports Announcer), and Janet Wright (Coach Olga) Directed by John McTiernan (#014 - Die Hard, #018 - Die Hard with a Vengeance, #080 - The Hunt for Red October, #325 - Predator, and #576 - Last Action Hero)

Review: 
1000 word score!

It should only figure that someone made a remake of Rollerball (1975). After all, one can only take so many things from the 1960s or 1980s to shamelessly make again without doing anything new or different (unless you decide to make a nostalgia cashgrab sequel, of course) before thinking about something as ridiculous yet memorable like that particular film and think you can do better. The original film, written by William Harrison from his short story with direction by Norman Jewison, was a film about one man fighting against a corporation's decision to force him out of the senseless (yet capably watchable) sport in the not too distant future. A sport that looked like a mix of hockey, football and roller derby looked pretty violent, but at least you could get the idea that the film had some sort of interest in actually saying something meaningful besides being a sci-fi sports flick. The remake, directed by McTiernan with a script from Larry Ferguson and John Pogue that was modified to emphasize the action and nothing else. Is this a joke? Did someone with such a distinguished career as McTiernan (at least until he got into legal trouble, which occurred due to hiring someone to wiretap one of the other producers of this film and then lying about it) really make a film with so many mind-boggling bad decisions? When the best presence in the film is professional wrestling advocate Paul Heyman, you really messed things up. Watching a hour of wrestling entertainment (take your pick) would likely be more convincing, since at least you can mostly tell what is going on, as opposed to slovenly films like this. You could just write a long screed of things wrong with this film and probably do it in less time than this 98 minute jumble, complete with one less editor than this film had (two, Robert K. Lambert and John Wright) and with less money and effort ($70 million, for which this made less than half back).

This is the kind of film where its friends are Gymkata and Stealth, where one laughs at it hard until they just can't do it anymore. It's the only way to try and make sense of a film that has jumbled action sequences and characters that don't even merit one sentence descriptions on the Internet. It isn't like the original was really great or anything, but at least one could actually say something nice about the lead played by James Caan and not have to immediately roll onto the ground laughing like with this film. Seriously, how could you not laugh at how ridiculous this film is with its main lead? Supposedly, MGM wanted Keanu Reeves to be the star, which is completely believable and also completely hilarious in hindsight with Klein, who looks completely out of his depth here. He isn't the individual fighting against the system here, he just happens to be the latest action figure (namebrand hockey player) being played with in a massive toybox, where things are being thrown around in an attempt at a story like a kid making the rules up as he goes, playing to a crowd of one that is in danger of losing its own audience. Reno seems completely vacant, which one could also say for Andrews, with neither inspiring any sort of adversarial presence that this desperately needs. LL Cool J (who apparently admitted to this film's suckage) is equally not spared from such lameness, and Romijn (with accent and scar in tow) is just as silly to be around. These characters really have as much energy and personality as play figures, where one can look at them and see some sort of expression try to come out. For the toymaster here, all that we can see is a mess that will have to be cleaned up later.

To point all of the severe flaws of this film may be an exercise in verbal spewage, but it is fairly appropriate for a film as sloppy as this one. How does one make a sport as ridiculous as this one (which we see played in Kazakhstan) struggle to get a cable deal in North America? If other sillier (but fairly competent) sports like soccer, e-sports, and cornhole have at least some sort of deal, how does this one fail? Maybe its in the rules, since it's barely comprehensible as a sport at all. The "Instant Global Rating" (one of the "neat" creations of this film's future of 2005, where nothing is different at all, the perfect hipster future) is just as silly, as if one really needs to tell us that "more violence = more curious viewers". Perhaps this sport thinks its biggest competitor is professional wrestling. The icing on the cake is the night vision sequence. It actually was a re-shot scene that was too dark the first time around. Imagine delaying a movie for months (from summer to February) because you couldn't do a chase sequence in the dark properly, then having it be in the film in night-vision for no apparent reason. Geez, the street sequence in the beginning looked more convincing than this. This is just a horrendous experience, through and through, where the unrewarding climax is just the cherry on top on the punch to the face that this movie gives you. This even was at one point slated to be an R-rated film, but bad test screenings led to the digital removal of blood (for sweat) and a romance sequence. I shudder to wonder how worse it was before cuts were made. You would think a film could be made that had some sort of commentary about an audience and their curiosity for violence that didn't turn into an excessive joke on the viewer. It may not be the worst experience one could have with a film, but it surely ranks up there as an insultingly stupid movie that deservedly languishes at pawn shops on the film stack, for good reason.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.