- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
While the new film’s familiar title might conjure images of a certain caped crusader, executive producer Michael Roesch pointed out that “our movie is very different from Chris Nolan’s movie, so there is no danger of confusion.”
ok
Mission to Mars v Red Planet
Ants v Bugs Life
Deep impact v ameageddon
Olympus has fallen v white house down
Yeah, people are really good at not being confused
That’s clearly how things work lol
really, you have to call your vigilante flick “the dark knight”?
Its uwe boll, certified garbage dealer. Idk how this article can call this a come back for armie
It’s fuckin Uwe Boll. Shame has no hold over his genius.
Yeah it’s clearly an attempt to capitalise on people being confused by the title. Coz nobody sees “directed by ewe boll” and rushes to watch it.
Edit: can’t spell
Don’t worry, that’s just the response he conjures up.
This is the guy who made terrible movies of video games and abused loopholes in German(?) tax law to get the money. Our something like that.
Considering how bad his films were, I don’t understand why gaming companies willingly sold him the license for their titles.
Because his abuse of tax credits means that his films are always profitable, and it’s free money for the video game developers. Seriously, who would ever go see a House of the Dead film, regardless of who directed it? It was a Resident Evil knock-off on rails. Or Blood Rayne? Seriously, these were never top-tier games to start, so they lose nothing, and gain $weet, $sweet ca$h.
That mass shooter one he did was actually pretty good… because it felt like a gritty raw student film about a gritty raw subject that didnt need a lot of exposition.
But it wasnt good for an experienced professional film maker.
I was wondered how he got those actors. They weren’t unknowns.
“The Dark Knight: No, Not That Dark Knight - The Other Dark Knight”
