Rotten Tomatoes critic who gave Uwe Boll's 2005 stinker a fresh rating says "let it go"

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      When people, knowing I'm a horror freak, ask me what my fave scary movie is, the answer never comes that easily.

      The obvious choice, The Exorcist, comes to mind, but more recently I was totally blown away by The Cabin in the Woods. And I never tire of watching Bruce Campbell do his Elvis thing in Don Coscarelli's Bubba Ho Tep.

      But when people ask me what the worst horror flick I've ever seen is, there's little hesitation. Uwe Boll's cataclysmic stinker, Alone in the Dark, immediately rears its butt-ugly head. (It's not to be confused with Jack Sholder's awesome 1982 movie of the same name, an overlooked horror gem to be sure).

      That's why I always find it fascinating to rediscover the fact that, of the 117 Rotten Tomatoes critics who reviewed Alone in the Dark when it came out in 2005, only 116 ranked it as "rotten". One person, namely Eclipse Magazine editorial director Michelle Alexandria, gave it a "fresh" review.

      Clearly, she only did that to shock people. Sure shocked the hell outta me.

      So today—with way too much time on my hands, apparently—I sent out a tweet drawing attention to Alexandria's eight-year-old misstep.

      And she responded 14 minutes later:

      "How old is this movie?", she Twittered. "Let it go. How about forming your own opinion than just saying everyone else hates it."

      Ignoring her less-than-spectacular grammar, I took the high road, Colbert-style, with "apology accepted...begrudgingly"

      But that wasn't the end of it. A few minutes later Alexandria got the last shot in:

      "Honestly though, haven't watched it again since that review," she tweeted, "so who knows maybe my opinion has changed. Could go from like to Love"

      Okay, Michelle. I give up. You win.

      And when Uwe finally gets that Academy Award—maybe for his next work of art, In the Name of the King 3—your status as a visionary film critic will be irrefutable.




      Doug S.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:15pm

      Dr. Boll, if you're reading this, please note that you still haven't paid my original 2008 invoice for the four hours of my life you stole from me. Up until now, I haven't been adding interest but your lack of response now requires that I do.


      To: Dr. Uwe Boll
      2 Hours - House of the Dead $110.00
      2 Hours - Alone in the Dark $110.00
      Compensatory damages $2700.00
      Subtotal $2920.00
      GST $ 146.00
      Interest: $3504.00
      Amount payable $6570.00

      Please pay within 30 days. Overdue accounts
      accrue interest at 2%/month (24%/annum)

      0 0Rating: 0

      Steve Newton

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:45pm

      that comment totally blew away the blog itself. Way to show me up, pal

      0 0Rating: 0

      A. MacInnis

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:03pm

      If you disregard Uwe's sequel-factory, he's actually put out a couple of startlingly watchable, even, um, pretty GOOD films in recent years - best of which has been Rampage, with Canadian actor Brendan Fletcher (of Tideland) as a pissed-off young elitist, dressed in homemade body armor, wandering about Maple Ridge on a shooting spree. Oddly, Boll's next best film in recent years (of those I've seen, anyhow), Bailout - yet to play theatrically - also deals with a man on a shooting spree, though it has more of a political edge to it (it's sort of The Punisher meets Inside Job). Speaking of which... wasn't the half-good Postal also about a guy on a shooting spree? Should we be worrying, here?

      0 0Rating: 0

      Ron Yamauchi

      Jun 6, 2013 at 9:39am

      Rating a movie by the reputation of its director or by the director's past work leaves the critic looking like a bully.

      The only movie by Dr. Boll that I have ever seen had to do with Darfur. The movie was hard to watch because of the use of extremely jiggly handheld camera, and because I was sitting far too close to the screen, but was intense, well-paced, dramatic, at times gripping. I would not say he is without talent or unable to make a good movie.

      Rating a movie by reputation leads to such risible statements as saying that Hugo is a superb movie (it must be, it is Scorsese) or that After Earth is worthless (it must be, it is Shyamalan and Will Smith is not dropping his gs and clowning).

      0 0Rating: 0

      Steve Newton

      Jun 6, 2013 at 10:10am

      Hugo WAS superb and, from what I hear, After Earth IS worthless. So there. Now hang on while I go find a dictionary and look up the meaning of risible.

      0 0Rating: 0


      Jun 6, 2013 at 11:57am

      A more interesting point is that Uwe Boll's oeuvre is entirely the result of taking advantage of the German tax breaks designed to...WAIT FOR IT...promote homegrown production and stimulate JOBS! in the industry.

      Oops... ;-)

      Thankfully places like Canada haven't succumb to such temptation and continues to produce the high quality film this country is known for throughout the world.

      <iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

      0 0Rating: 0

      Eric H

      Jun 6, 2013 at 12:23pm

      Rampage and Tunnel Rats are Uwe's only good movies I have seen, and I am a sucker for video game movies. I will check out Darfur since it has decent ratings. He has ruined Video Game movies and I keep hearing rumors he does it on purpose. I would punch him in the face if I ever saw him. Why do people still produce movies as him as the director is beyond reasoning. He consistently gets low ratings on his movies. He really should just invest his money and retire.

      0 0Rating: 0

      A. MacInnis

      Jun 6, 2013 at 4:58pm

      Darfur is pretty good too, it just lacked the shooting spree angle, so I didn't mention it above. Some very sincere and well-aimed moral indignation there. I think Boll's rep/ body of work seriously needs to be updated & reevaluated; I'm with Mr. Yamauchi...

      Seriously, though, Steve: see Rampage. It is not, by the way, based on the video game...

      0 0Rating: 0

      Tim Eliot

      Jun 7, 2013 at 4:38am

      I found Hugo had periodic, regular false notes in the way the characters reacted in situations; it wanted to be hyper-real and fantastique but didn't make it because of this emotional unevenness. My disbelief did not remain suspended...up to the George Melies part, which was a welcome relief.

      0 0Rating: 0


      Jun 7, 2013 at 8:43am

      Your reviews usually suck rotten tomatoes.

      0 0Rating: 0