Uwe Boll vs. Brett Ratner
-
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. -
MaximumMadness — 13 years ago(August 03, 2012 01:44 PM)
Ratner is a better filmmaker (Boll is essentially an idiot and a jerk with a camera, so it's fun to watch his stuff ironically).
But I completely agree with your comments about Ratner being an "anti indie-filmmaker." His films are generally prime examples of safe, sanitary, glossy, over-made, under-thought studio fluff. His only great film was
Red Dragon
, which I thought worked well. From there, his films range from passable, mildly entertaining fluff (ex.
Rush Hour 1
) to pretty-darned-crummy (
X-Men 3, Rush Hour 2, Rush Hour 3,
etc.). But everything he does is too clean (from script to direction), too formulaic, etc.
And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point? -
Darwinskid — 13 years ago(September 27, 2012 10:18 PM)
I'm beginning to suspect that people who make comparisons such as these have truly never seen any of the work from the directors they're talking about and are only doing it to score some points with the IMDb community. First off, there is no way you can compare the two, at all. Ratner is by no means the best in the world, but he is a far better director than Boll will ever be. Ratner's worst day is better than Boll's best day, actually it's Oscar caliber by comparison. Ratner's just an okay director, he has his ups and downs like everybody else, Boll's just confused and doesn't really care about anything really, not too mention more immature by comparison. Ratner is serviceable for popcorn entertainment, which is more than what Boll can hope for as a director.
I've got an ignore list longer than a Chinese phone book.