Uwe Boll vs. Brett Ratner
-
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.