Uwe Boll, F you guys I like him. Sorta.

Hey, I enjoy bad stuff, but I also know I have no taste. The worse the better, I guess thats why I ended up with Night of the Living Dead 3d, huh?

Bad stuff is one thing, but when you keep making bad stuff its just terrible. I laughed at House of the Dead for how bad it was, then when I saw Alone in the Dark (which seemed to have more money thrown at it) I just couldn't believe how terrible that was. House of the Dead at least made sense along the way, Alone in the Dark was just random scenes thrown together that made sense to the slightest.

Some of his movies before yea I can see just being bad partly because of the budget, but there have been movies that have been good/great and shot with very little money. Dazed and Confused, Swingers, Blair Witch come to mind. Shit I think Blair Witch cost what $73,000 to make and how much money did it pull in? Granted they might not fit some people's taste but they did a hell of a lot better than his. Why? Because the man has no vision. I saw part of Bloodrayne on cable and the lighting looked like a blind man did it. I don't know if he doesn't know what to do, is just lazy or what. Its not like his movies are good, and don't have an auidence to watch them. Something like Boondock Saints, a great movie, has a cult following, but never shined in the theaters, or was never released on a mass scale. If you can't direct Ray Liota and get a good performance out of him something is very wrong with you, see Goodfellas for reference.

His movies are just bad, probably bad for the sake of being bad, and that wears real thin very fast. If you are given this many chances to make a good film, and you fail each and every time move the hell on to something else. Try porn where you don't need a plot, or story, or good lighting, should be right up his to his skill set.

You know, according to aborto, I can legally kill you now.