Uwe Boll's IN THE NAME OF THE KING came out recently. It sat on a shelf for quite some time, over a year at least. When I say it sat on a shelf, that's a little presumptuous. That means it has remained untouched in all that time. I remember hearing that at one point it was to be a two part epic, the second half released only weeks after the first half played theaters (so quite possibly timed to coincide with its video release). Those two films combined were to clock in at somewhere between three and four hours long. The movie I saw recently was just over two hours long. A lot of work must have been done while it was "on the shelf."
If you really want to understand film, I think it's a good idea to see not only ITNOTK, but other Uwe Boll films such as ALONE IN THE DARK, HOUSE OF THE DEAD, and BLOODRAYNE. These movies are almost universally panned, though the reviews are starting to become cliché. Critics will take their edgiest, easiest, or most venomous turns of phrase and unleash them upon Boll's films with no fear of backlash, save for Dr. Boll possibly challenging them to a fight. He has in fact done this, filmed it, and will include the footage in his upcoming film POSTAL.
The thing a lot of the critics don't do is actually analyze why these movies fail on so many levels. What makes them fall apart? A lot of bad movies are situations where the filming is ruined by production problems, studio interference, budget limitations, star egos, etc. Not so in this case. Generally, from what I can gather, the actual process goes smoothly, as planned, on budget or close to it, and as envisioned. It's just not a very good vision.
The obvious first target, one critics generally take stabs at, is the acting. Often roles are horribly miscast, like Ray Liotta as a powerful sorcerer or Tara Reid as a scientist. Sometimes the actor is clearly bored, showing up for a paycheck and reciting lines with little or no context or input. A few actors seem, either out of boredom or mischievousness, to see how far over the top they can go before they are told to reign it in. I doubt they ever are. Bigger apparently is better, and loud and prancing performances are better performances. Occasionally you'll see a workhorse actor show up, do their thing as a professional, and hope their name stays out of the reviews.
The effects on Boll's movies depend on how the crew gets pulled together. Some of the CGI work isn't bad per se, but when you put CGI creatures into an environment where you can't see them you're just blowing the budget. Helicopter shots of mountain journeys and large sets are impressive, as we learned from the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Recreating those shots every few moments, compositing in backgrounds that make absolutely no sense (like lava behind snow covered peaks), and circling for as long as you can stops impressing very fast. Had Costner cut 20 minutes of sweeping overhead shots from THE POSTMAN, the reviews wouldn't have been as bad.
In some cases, Boll seems to be learning. He now knows that it's a good idea to light an action sequence and pull back enough to see what is happening, not just that something IS happening. Choreographers can be useful in making sure a fight actually follows some sense of logic or continuity. He hasn't quite nailed it, nor picked up that a fight need to serve a story purpose, and that we get the idea after five minutes. Twenty, as we (but not Uwe) learned from THEY LIVE, might be a little much.
The good doctor also knows how to sot successful elements in other films. He can see a movie like THE MATRIX, STAR WARS, or RESIDENT EVIL, get where things in those movies had the desired effect on the audience, and say "I want that." He can't, however, use those elements properly. A grand sweeping score is fine for riding off into battle, not taking two minutes to linger on digging a grave. A real pump-you-up orchestration is likewise good for rallying soldiers, not talking about seaweed farmers on your death bed. Also, nobody talks about seaweed farmers on their death bed. Not even seaweed farmers, except maybe to say "Fuck seaweed, son. Make something of yourself."
If you have $60 million to make your movie, it's not wrong to use it. What is wrong is to use it just to use it. If you wind up with four hours that can be cut down to two without a problem, and still stand to lose, say, 20 minutes of battle or a minute and a half of digging graves, maybe you shot too much.
Watching an Uwe Boll movie is like playing one of those "What's wrong with this picture" games. The more you know about film, the funnier it is to watch with friends, dissecting every decision. If you only sort of find it funny, you need to study the process more. You need to be learned enough to not be that guy, because these are mistakes that others can and do make.
Many, myself included, call Uwe the modern Ed Wood, Jr. He gets financing for projects despite how bad everything he's done has been. In interviews he earnestly defends his work, saying that people just don't get his vision, and that most of the world is wrong. He doesn't seem to think he's made a single bad film. That sort of heart and perseverance shows in his work, much like it did for Wood. Other terrible directors just give up, compromise, or quietly take less noticeable jobs. Not Wood, and not Boll. They have an almost inspiring delusion and work ethic that lets them accomplish more than many far superior craftsmen.
One theory a friend of mine put out there for consideration is that Uwe is a genius. He is the Andy Kaufman of film makers. He knows exactly what is wrong and zags where a sensible director would zig. Every time he puts out a movie and the critics make a huge deal out of how bad it is, it's like he's reading us THE GREAT GATSBY and laughing inside. Maybe someday, when he knows the financing is about to dry up, he will put out an honest-to-goodness masterpiece. The knee-jerk critics will have already trashed it based on the press kit from the studio, only to shamed by not knowing an instant classic when it hits. I don't think it's likely, but I think it would be fantastic if that's the way this goes.
 email this column to a friend
|
| Make Me Proud |
Every other Monday
Exploring everything you should consider as you make your
indie masterpiece.
|
| Patrick Storck |
Patrick hails from Baltimore, MD, where playing by the rules is frowned upon. Only average things come from playing it safe.
|
| Contact |
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to Patrick Storck by clicking here.
|
|
