Head Of Distribution
Sony Pictures Europe
25, Golden Square
London
W1F 9LU

27.06.2006

Re: Ultraviolet’

Dear Sir/Madam,

I yesterday attended a screening of ‘Ultraviolet’ at my local UGC cinema. To put this in context, I have been attending the cinema for the past 20 years (I’m now 29). I have probably seen 30 + films a year in the cinema so for the past 20 years that equates to over 600 films on the big screen.

I have never walked out of the cinema no matter how bad the film, out of respect for the people involved. This meant I have endured ‘Alexander’, cringed through ‘Batman & Robin’ and even managed to not fall asleep through ‘Island Of Dr Moreau’, ‘House Of The Dead’ and ‘Evita’.

But out of all the films I have ever watched in my life, ‘Ultraviolet’ tested my will the most. Honestly I feel you should be sued for false promotion with this film. Now having read the reviews I knew it would be a pretty bad film (not one positive review across the internet or worlds press that I have found so far), but nothing quite prepared me for the steaming pile of excrement that faced me that day.

As a UK based film maker it shocks and appals me that whilst many good films languish out there without distribution, this travesty gets released on the big screen. Nationwide.

Trust me when I say the fact I didn’t walk out was simply due to the wish to see how bad the film would get. I guess on that fact I wasn’t disappointed.

So with this in mind I have enclosed a copy of my cinema receipt and would request that you find it in your heart to refund me the admission price (£5). Personally I would be embarrassed to have my name attached to a film of this ‘quality’. I certainly am that I took the time to watch it. This is everything that cinema shouldn’t be, even at a base level this film fails at every turn. And for all the poor films I have ever seen I have never, until now, felt compelled to write for a refund.

I implore you… please do the decent thing and refund my admission.

Yours Sincerely,


Phil Hobden, BA (Hons)

Wow, you've peaked my interest. I gotta see this movie... but I'll wait for Netflix. Could it really be worse than Superman 4?

Dire! THE worst film I have EVER seen and I ran a film review site for a while dealing with bad films!!!

BTW you Avatar... is it Bruce Campbell?

Yeah, what he said....

...well, okay, I didn't see Ultraviolet, but I DID see Aeon Flux, M.M.Life, can I use your letter to complain about that terrible movie as well? :grumpy:

...and it was such a good idea for a film, too. Loved the animated versions...


-- spinner :cool:

I loved Aeon Flux, but probably because I am a costumer and I loved the look. Could Ultraviolet surpass Altman's travesty of "Ready To Wear" though? I doubt it. :)

BTW you Avatar... is it Bruce Campbell?

Yes, he's my hero.

I don't recall ever having such a hostile reaction to a movie. Sure, some are better than others, but in the end...like Sonnyboo says -- they're just movies.

I agree.... bad movie.... but I am curious.... what exactly about this movie has prompted such a strong response? Go on, rant. It might make you feel better. Plus it might just be fun. ;)

I loved Aeon Flux, but probably because I am a costumer and I loved the look. Could Ultraviolet surpass Altman's travesty of "Ready To Wear" though? I doubt it. :)


...oh, man, I remember that one! Bad.....

Mikey D:
It looks like we are talking about two movies kinda. Aeon Flux was a really cool anime on MTV's Liquid Television. The movie didn't follow the idea of the anime, it changed the characters, added unnecessary characters, when the original story would have supported the film if they had allowed it to.

This seems to be a running theme in comic book movies. I read a wikipedia page on 'V for Vendetta'. The movie was really good-at least I thought so-but the idea of the comic was so cool, that if they had just kept closer to the idea of it, they would have lots of opportunity for sequels.

...if a comic hero has a good idea and a strong fan base of people who will run out to see it, why is it necessary to change the story's foundation? I've never been able to figure that out....

-- spinner :cool:

The film was just the pits. And for once I thought rather than sit down and moan to myself I would do something about it!

Lets face it in any other walk of life if we aqre unhappy with what we buy we ask for a refund. If I eat a meal that is rubbish I ask for a discount or refuse to pay. If a pair of pants fall appart after a day, I will take them back.

WHY SHOULD FILM BE ANY DIFFERENT?

Spinner - feel free to use the letter. I want to see MORE people stand up against the studios, let them see we are not going to acept any old shite.

Lets face it in any other walk of life if we aqre unhappy with what we buy we ask for a refund. If I eat a meal that is rubbish I ask for a discount or refuse to pay. If a pair of pants fall appart after a day, I will take them back.

WHY SHOULD FILM BE ANY DIFFERENT?


I see your point, however there are good reasons why creative, artistic endeavors such as film, theatre, music should be judged differently. And they're well worth discussing.

Because we live in a free society (or we believe we do - that's another discussion entirely), our opinions, thoughts, ideas are the coin of the realm, so to speak. It's how we exercise our freedom - by trading and sharing our ideas and by freely rejecting the ideas of others, without (supposedly) repercussions. When other people have the power to censor our thoughts and keep us from speaking and sharing, there lies danger.

We've all seen, experienced art that we personally think is hideously horrible (The Star Wars pre=quels? Puh-leez! God awful waste of a lot of time and talent and an insult to anyone living on this planet.) Mr. ML is doing the right thing - sending a letter of complaint (registering his opinion on netflix, etc) - effectively exercising his freedom of speech.

Think of 'bad art' as the price we pay to each be able to express our opinions and thought in a creative manner, sans censorship (for the most part), in a 'free' society. I'm sure we all realize this, but sometimes it's good to sit back and reflect - as painful as it can be.

Next time you see a flim that just grinds your teeth, try to figure out what's making it so bad. If find, for the most part, it's usually - mostly - the script; an vague protagonist with a vague goal running off on tangents that have nothing to do with the story.

Thing is I have the highest tollerance of shite films. As I said I have sat through some of the worst. But this film broke my resolve. Even bad films can have merits but this, this one had NONE.

Action, FX, acting, cast, production design, script, direction, music, editing - EVERYTHING was poor. The film has NO redeaming features at ALL.

And that my friends that was the straw that broke the camels back.

I was pretty pissed off after I saw "The Pest". Lucky for me, I happened to be watching it so I could write a review for my college paper. So, I didn't have to pay for the movie and I got to tell everyone, at least on campus, how horrible it was. It feels good to let people know when you really love a movie as well as when you really hate one. You'll inevitably find someone who disagrees. I, however, have yet to find someone who liked "The Pest." Hopefully I saved some college kids their beer money by helping them avoid that monstrosity. I think mr-modern-life can do that same service for us now.

Yeah, the thing that can be so irritating is when the folks behind the piece of crap have even more money to toss around, so they create a sexy ad campaign to entice the unaware to pay for a ticket. That's why there are critics - love em or hate em. But even they can get it wrong. What films have you gone to see because of an interesting review in the paper, only to find out that the thing is a steaming piece of crap? How do filmmakers who make these rotten tomatoes get more work? I suppose, if you're George Lucas, nobody wants to tell you that you're not wearing any clothes. Have the makers of 'The Pest' made anything else?

I find this amusing.

Movies are like a crap shoot. Some are good, some are bad. We gamble with the film companies when we buy a ticket to go see someone's 'entertainment.'

Really, would you be complaining so much if you saw the movie for free?

I see this as a learning experience. If you hated this film THAT BAD, then learn from it. Don't see films released by that director/producer/writer/actor/blah blah blah. So you paid a few bucks, big deal, consider it an 'educational tax' and learn from it. :D

Oh yeah, Bruce Campbell: Best. Actor. Ever.

If I had seen it for free I would have left. The fact I paid good money (£5 for a crappy seat in a poor cinema with crud sound) was the ONLY reason I didnt leave.

BUT WHY SHOULD we accept poor films and poor quality movies? We dont accept poor meals or broken DVD's so why are we so happy to say 'Yeah that was crap' and leave it as that?

surely if people write and ask for refunds everythime they see a dreadful film studios may actually do something about it.

As for Bruce... have you read his book, If Chins Could Kill? AMAZING read...

Spinner - feel free to use the letter. I want to see MORE people stand up against the studios, let them see we are not going to acept any old shite.

...hey! I was kidding 'cuz I thought you were kidding!

Okay, all jokes aside, I agree to a point. I guess if you pay for a film, you expect to be entertained and you take your chances. For example, I tend not to go to many horror films because they are so hit and miss that I don't get a kick out of them as much as I used to. The plots are often thin or have monsters. I personally think monsters are a cheap scare, you get the same scare from a cat in the cupboard.

The point is, and we have discussed this some before, that maybe the big studios ought to have a little more respect for the film viewing audience. We're not stupid, we know a bad film when we see one.

Maybe the studios should be made to recognize that and put out something worthy of spending your money on. And movies can be an expensive evening sometimes...

-- spinner :cool:

Damn right. £6 to get in, £2 for a drink, £2 for an ice cram or popcorn... that's almost a £10 per person!

Maybe the studios should be made to recognize that and put out something worthy of spending your money on. And movies can be an expensive evening sometimes...


Or maybe we can all follow Clive & Filmy's undying advice on improving the quality of our scripts/concepts, and make the indie scene more lucrative to consumers. Then, instead of selling out to Hollywood and having them remake our films with name actors, we promote, cross-promote, advertise (etc) ourselves through a vast intercontinental network of deferred payment contacts and liasons. :D

Let's revive the ol' distribution thread, combine it with the screenwriting tips from the gurus, and then apply it to the Indietalk the movie thing (or whatever). The stuff is all here- just yearning to be used. For all the talk about crappy Hollywood films, we could make the films we want to see and then WE'LL be the big money-grubbing bastards churning out quality craps like a bean-diet on laxitives. :weird: Oh my. I've gone too far.

...I'm with you!

-- spinner :cool:

While visiting Las Vegas, you drop a coin in a slot machine. To your disappointment, you don't win.

Do you...

A) Write a letter to the machine manufacturer and demand your money back for having such a poor experience with their product.

or

B) Accept it, because it's just like paying to see a movie... You don't know if it'll be good or bad.

I'm afraid there are too many people out there that are perfectly willing to give their money to crappy Hollywood movie after crappy Hollywood movie without realizing that the reason they keep making crap is because these people keep buying it. It seems that the best movies released in theaters never get the audience that a movie like "Armageddon" gets. Most people out there really don't care about good movies. They don't distinguish a difference between "Batman Begins" and "Fantastic 4". Tons of people actually liked both and a lot of people actually thought "Fantastic 4" was the better movie! I can't understand that.

So, we just need to support the good ones. Hollywood can make a good movie every once in a while. Good independent films make it to the theater from time to time. Just make sure you see them when they do.

Also, if you like "If Chins Could Kill", you've got to read "Make Love The Bruce Campbell Way."

Hollywood will continue to spew crap as long as they know they can get the male 18-35 segment in the theatres for at least the opening weekend.

Here's the fomula:


Jessica Alba in a bikini
Explosions
At least 100+ iterations of the F-bomb
T & A (Baywatch music-video styled segement)
Car chases
Cool fully-automatic handheld weaponry
Loud, repetitive music from some Metallica wannabe band
Uncountable gallons of blood
Jessica Alba in a bikini
Here's the plan:


Make this crapfest for under $8 million dollars.
Pimp the shit out of it hoping for a strong opening weekend where they can actually break even on it.
DVD sales will guarantee them an acceptable annuity.
Hollywood wins!
Rinse, repeat.

Well, despite how bad the reviews are for "Ultraviolet" it still managed to gross over $18 million at the box office in one month. This reinforces dylan61's point. Hollywood keeps making formula movies because the majority of the public keeps buying them. At the moment, it seems that the majority of the movie-going public is not interested in the types of movies we're talking about.

Hollywood will continue to spew crap as long as they know they can get the male 18-35 segment in the theatres for at least the opening weekend.

Here's the fomula:


Jessica Alba in a bikini
Explosions
At least 100+ iterations of the F-bomb
T & A (Baywatch music-video styled segement)
Car chases
Cool fully-automatic handheld weaponry
Loud, repetitive music from some Metallica wannabe band
Uncountable gallons of blood
Jessica Alba in a bikini
Here's the plan:


Make this crapfest for under $8 million dollars.
Pimp the shit out of it hoping for a strong opening weekend where they can actually break even on it.
DVD sales will guarantee them an acceptable annuity.
Hollywood wins!
Rinse, repeat.


Rob,

I think you are dead-on here, except for one thing...the demographic has dropped to more like a 12-24 age range. Therefore, cut back the F-Bombs to only one, ease off a little on the blood and get a PG-13 rating.

You're right. The 13+ demographic has much more freedom and money these days than any previous generation.

Yet another excuse to release even crappier crap.

But isn't "good" subjective? Look how many argument we get in here on the boards about what movie is high quality or "good".

If theaters, prodCo's, distributors, studios and investors were forced to refund money because someone didn't like the movie.... Yikes! Could you have afforded to even make "Left for Dead" if you knew every person who didn't like it would get their money back? Would a distributor ever pick up a film made by filmmakers like us if they new they would have to refund money to each person who didn't like it?

Has anyone ever seen the IMDB Bottom 100 (http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom) list?

Has anyone ever seen the IMDB Bottom 100 (http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom) list?

Man! Uwe Boll OWNS that section! What a crock!

But seriously, Captain America ('91) rocked some serious sock! I remember a particularly hilarious sequence where the Captain is strapped to a ICBM Nuke headed for the white house. He pretty much gives up for no reason, until he sees a young photographer boy standing on the street in front of the presidental palace (good vision to see a kid on the street from an ICBM, but even funnier is that the kid manages to snap a clear headshot from his vantage). In any case, he sees the kid, hope is renewed, and he diverts the missile to the north pole by kicking it with his foot, only to be cryogenically frozen by the weather for like 50 years. Classic. SO classic.

Man! Uwe Boll OWNS that section!Just for giggles, I on purposely rented Uwe Boll's latest crapfest 'Bloodrayne' because I heard it was the WORST film of the year. I need a good laugh.

And there were lots of laughs: It was HORRIBLE.