Own the rights?
49 out of 60 people found the following review useful: BloodRayne? BloodPain!, 12 September 2007 Author: tatsu2050 from Germany
1/10If I would drink heavily for two days in one run and then wake up to the mother of all hangovers I could still come up with a better story than this one. Bye the way, the camera movement looks like the camera man DID drink for two days in a row.If I would close my eyes and blindly pick 20 people while walking through town I'd probably pick a better acting crew than the one in this movie. Even if I ran into a lamp post because of the closed eyes. Rayne is looking sexy, though, if Boll would have included a sex scene like in the first movie I might have thought about giving it 2 stars. Naw, just kidding.The thing that bothers me the most is how weak Rayne is. If she was mankind's last hope against vampires... kiss this world goodbye. Hell, if she was mankind's last hope against a gang of kindergarden babies she might get overpowered. She gets beaten up more than she is beating up the bad guys. Half human, half vampire? In one scene you see her show canine teeth. In this scene she is almost dying and then is given blood from the arm of a friend. Very powerful hero she is...The action is slow paced, badly executed and boring. I can't remember the last time I saw such a bad fight choreography.The one thing that was actually REALLY good was the sound effects and the score. Guess that's where all the money went.You liked the first BloodRayne movie? This one will deeply disappoint you. You didn't like the first one? Well, then you probably think what I thought, it can't possibly get worse. If you want to broaden your horizon watch this one - it CAN get worse.
37 out of 50 people found the following review useful: Good old Uwe stays true to form, 12 September 2007 Author: weemonk from United Kingdom
I was feeling down in the dumps so decided to watch one of Uwe's latest offerings. Not the greatest idea I know but it was my thinking that nothing could make me feel worse.....should have known better.We all love to hate Uwe. Let's face it, he makes pretty awful films but manages to get funding for more and half decent well known actors. Even though he makes awful films we all still watch them. Why? Well I for one keep watching them in the hope that one day that just one of his films will be good. I mean how long can you go without learning from your mistakes? How long can studios go before they figure out they are just wasting money? Only time will tell.I've seen all his films bar some of the recent stuff (that one with Jason Statham and Postal). I have seen the first Bloodrayne. I don't follow the games nor understand some of the characters.....even if I did, it wouldn't make the film any better.You don't need to know the story....it's a Uwe Boll film....which says it all. Needless to say it's pretty crap. The thing that struck me though was how cheap this film looked. Never have I seen a Uwe film looking so low grade (did I say that!). At least his other films had fairly good production values. Everything in this screamed indie or low budget. The costumes, sound effects, camera shots, make up, props, actors....the whole lot.As a previous poster has mentioned, the camera was all over the show. It wasn't even NYPD Blue good, it was like the cameraman was holding the camera with one hand whilst god knows what with the other.If you can take the pain that is Uwe and have that twisted, perverted NEED to see anther of his films....like me....then go for it. You know deep down though what to expect.
32 out of 42 people found the following review useful: Geez.... vampire cowboys!, 11 September 2007 Author: ajira99 from United States
At first, I didn't realize that Uwe Boll had any involvement with this production. I can't begin to describe the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when his name flashed on the screen. But still, I figured that I would see what the film had to offer. And that was -- vampire cowboys! From the shaky camera-work (mount the camera on a stick if you don't have a tripod), to the unconvincing wardrobe that doesn't show any frontier wear and tear and finally, a vampire Billy the Kid with a bad Euro-trash accent.I truly wish that I could rate this lower than one star -- the first film was worth one star and this "sequel" falls so far beneath it.
31 out of 42 people found the following review useful: S10 Review's Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (2007), 11 September 2007 Author: suspiria10 from The Void
Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (2007) 2 of 5 Dir: Uwe Boll Stars: Natassia Malthe, Michael Pare, Brendon FletcherBilly the Kid and his vampire posse (yeah you heard me right) invade the sleepy little old west town of Deliverance, Montana. Rayne the vampire Orkin man sachets into town with her cheap looking weaponry looking to take him out. Rayne partners up with Pat Garret and a 'priest' to send Billy's suck squad back to the earth from whence they came.I do my best to be fair-handed with all the films I see so with that in mind I tackle the new Uwe Boll magnum opus. Boll is one of the most hated people working in the horror genre today. You can't blame the fans from virtually crucifying him with each new release. Such turkeys as 'Alone in the Dark', the god-awful first 'Bloodrayne' and the nearly universally despised 'House of the Dead' (which I actually liked…lord help me) along with his boxing with the naysayers publicity stunt don't make it easy to say anything nice about him or his productions. I'll give him credit as a shrewd business man since he manages to come out smelling like a rose no matter how much a production costs. That in mind I step forth into his newest release, 'Bloodrayne 2'. Somewhere during the supposed 100 years between the original and now our half-vampire, half-human hero morphed from Kristanna Loken to Natassia Malthe. Not to bad of an effect I thought but with dialogue this bad I'd be tempted to phone in my performance too. As has been mentioned before the camera-work is quite a bit shaky at times. The sound design is so-so. It has a decent but basic surround mix. The production design is pretty much what you would expect from someone calling their self 'Tink'. It wasn't an absolute waste of time IMO some of the photography was nice and for better or worse this turned out better than the original but it won't convert the haters and most likely won't win any new fans.
23 out of 28 people found the following review useful: Only marginally better than the prequel..., 11 September 2007 Author: Tastentier from Germany
...but still a catastrophe. I tried to watch this movie without any prejudice, despite the horrible first part. Wild West meets vampire story, curvaceous female Blade imitator battles bloodthirsty Billy the Kid and his gang of undead outlaws - what could possibly go wrong with such a genre mix? Every director with an ounce of talent should be able to turn this idea into an entertaining movie experience. But not Uwe Boll.Boll understands the true meaning of horror: BloodRayne II is simply a horrible movie. The first entrance of heroine Rayne is staged like a fashion show, underlayed with tacky country music. Boll films her belly shirt and leather coat from every angle, in real time and slow motion, occasionally crossfading to the legs of her horse. Then he decides that country music doesn't add the right ambiance to a vampire flick, switches to a murkily menacing soundtrack and sticks with it.And oh boy, does he stick with it, until the audience can't hear it anymore. Can you imagine the suspenseful music of a scene right before the monster jumps from behind a corner? Good. Now imagine the same music while our heroine walks down the thoroughfare of a Western town. An utterly harmless scene. The menacing music plays on while she's being hit on by some riff-raff, still plays as she enters the saloon, gets into a short brawl, sits down for a round of poker... after 20 minutes, the climactic sounds become entirely meaningless. And annoying, since it's almost loud enough to drown out the featherbrained dialog.The acting rivals the awfulness of camera work and soundtrack. Natassia Malthe manages to get through the movie with only three basic facial expressions: poker face, slightly bewildered poker face and mildly belligerent poker face. Zack Ward, a.k.a. Billy the 38-year-old-looking Kid, alternates between an absurd Transylvanian accent and accent-free English. Chris Coppola, in the role of an easily intimidated news writer, acts dead calm in the face of danger and almost hysterical in harmless situations.How does Boll do it? How does he get away with a camera work that a 12 year old with a hand-cam could do better? How does he get halfway decent actors to perform worse than amateurs in a highschool play? And how the heck does he always get new movie contracts, when everything he produces turns out to be an utter mess? There must be some fans out there who like his sorry efforts. Odd that they never comment on IMDb.
16 out of 22 people found the following review useful: See it with a sense of humor, and a lot of patience..., 11 September 2007 Author: wiseguyro from Romania
Recently I've been going on a Boll spree, seeing whatever I can find.Not because I enjoy his films that much, but rather because I wanted to see if he really is THAT bad as I've heard.Haven't yet seen the, as I'm lead to believe, abysmal "House of the Dead".But I've seen Bloodrayne, and a certain review of Bloodrayne:Deliverance I read, made me want to see the second.You see, the review, while stating that the film isn't that great, it also stated that it was better than the first.I find that statement flawed.While the second sees some improvement, it pretends to be something it's not:a Bloodrayne movie.The first one revolved around her, and though the plot was terrible, you could still see some potential underneath.The second, is just an excuse for Boll to do a "vampire-western".Let's start off by saying the idea isn't bad, and given the proper director it would've been more than watchable.And in some cases, Boll displays some sort of talent for angles and shooting a scene.Then again, many of these cases are "borrowed" from the western lore.I would've expected some stylizing, given the subject of the film, but I'm pretty sure the up-coming "3:10 to Yuma" is more stylized than this, while mostly sticking to classical western(I should be ashamed for bringing Mangold's film into this comment).No, instead Boll gives us a shaky camera(not that upsetting, but would've been good in a lot of close-ups), bad editing, and less than usual make-up for a vampire-flick.Vampires now just have fangs, no more face deformity when in a rage.Not that much blood either(which could be a good thing, the first one was terrible at gore-delivery).All in a day's work for keeping the budget down.The actors in this one do a slightly better job than the big names in the first one.Not commenting on Malthe, since she didn't really have anything at all to work with(few of the others did).But all in all, some less-known, or even unknown actors do what they're paid for:act.The script is awful, right down to the very core of it.We have the city-slicker, the gun-slinging con-pulling priest, the western cynic, the showdowns on the main street, the Gatling, and the well-dressed villain.Now, to make that villain Billy the Kid(and to somehow bring the whole vampire thing to Wyatt Earp also), a trigger challenged vampire, with a foreign accent, was just outrageous.The direction:all I can say is Boll.He gets right what he did wrong with the first, but fails in other departments.You could say he's learning as he goes.But it's a really long learning process.There were a few scenes at the climax where the tension was supposed to be high, yet he dissipates it by stretching them to an unbearable length.So, to conclude...the movie is awful, but still has some enjoyable scenes.If he had made a western with vampires, and not a Bloodrayne movie, he could've passed this as a "worth a check" DVD, but, as it stands it's just an awful example of movie-making.One last word:I still consider there are worse directors out there than Boll, but I'm sure he will continue trying to prove me wrong with every new movie.Though I am expecting "Postal", he just might pull-off violent comedy, he did it involuntarily so far.
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful: BloodRayne 2, 11 April 2008 Author: true-sense-craftsman from Israel
This movie is on of the most boring movies I have ever allowed myself to view, I kept watching it hoping it will peak at a certain point. I know the title Is BloodRayne 2 or BloodRaybe deliverance, but seriously, does this movie have anything to do with BloodRayne 1???It doesn't matter in what kind of situation you are mentally or physically, there is on point of viewing this one.I state out much more, but I don't think profanity would be welcome as a comment by whoever is in charge of maintaining the comments section. My vote -666 (not worth mentioning unless warning people who are going to be subjected to viewing this movie).
20 out of 32 people found the following review useful: Realllllly baaaaaaddddd!, 19 September 2007 Author: siderite from Romania
Some other comment of mine was deleted because some user got offended by what I had to say about this movie. And I didn't even use curse words. I wanted to, but I didn't.This film is a complete waste of time. Nothing in it, starting with Natassia who looks worse than in any other movie I've seen her and ending with the plot, which is a black hole of scripts. The deeper you look in it, the more darkness you see. To sum it up: Bill the Kid is a vampire, Bloodrayne comes to town and is defeated a few times by vampirish hillbillies, then saves town. She uses guns now, although she carries her cheap looking and useless blades.The game BloodRayne was nice. Play it if you find it. You just slash and shoot and kill and if your health is down you suck some poor Nazi blood and get the health back. Really good for anger management. The first BloodRayne movie had Kristanna Loken in it and it made sense a little. This one is probably the transition to a version of the movie that is closer to the game, set in Nazi Germany, but is so utterly useless!Bottom line: avoid at all costs. Waste of time.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: worst movie ever!, 27 April 2008 Author: yeh ger from Israel
Rayne is back to fight a powerful "child kidnapper" vampire in the wild west. I didn't knew someone could spoil a movie like that... It is the worst movie I have ever seen! Doesn't worth a minute: the effects are cheap, no good fights, the plot is... gone... it seems you get glances to the main idea, but there isn't any. Actors? looks like they are not sure what they're suppose to do. The whole act is so unnatural and you're getting the feeling that only 40 to 50 people participated in that whole 90 or so minutes of filming. It's like the director didn't knew if he wants a western or a vampire movie, so he spoiled them both. Awful, just awful, please do me a favor, if there is any reason or good thing I can take out from this movie is to warn you: don't waste your time!
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: A very entertaining vampire western, 17 February 2009 Author: misbegotten from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Bloodrayne: Deliverance actually received worse reviews than the first film (even those few who wrote positively about Bloodrayne disliked the sequel), but I actually prefer it to the initial movie.The entries in the Bloodrayne series are some of the few vampire films that acknowledge the passage of time from the perspective of an immortal being. The first film is set in 18th century Eastern Europe, and the opening titles depict paintings and illustrations from that period, and also medieval woodcuts. Deliverance takes place in the American West of the late 19th century, and accordingly - after a picture of the castle that was the setting of the climax of the previous film - the opening titles consist of sepia-toned photographs of ships setting sail for the New World, towns being founded, and railroad tracks being laid down. In Bloodrayne, the title character relied on her swords. In Deliverance, time and technology have moved on, and a pair of six-shooters (loaded with silver bullets dipped in holy water and smeared with garlic) are her weapons of choice.There's an admirable amount of period grittiness in Deliverance. Instead of the wide open, dusty plains of most westerns, the movie is set in the depths of winter, and the ground is either covered in snow or been reduced to filthy, churned-up mud. And despite the fact that in the Old West the only sources of indoor illumination were often limited to candles, simple oil lamps and the occasional open fireplace, have you ever noticed in the westerns of the 1930s - 1960s how suspiciously well lit all those saloons and ranch interiors were? This was simply because the lighting technicians lit those sets the same way they did for all other movies - for maximum visibility. Deliverance corrects this discrepancy: building interiors are dim and murky, with deep pools of black shadow. It all creates a wonderful scene of authenticity.Kristanna Loken played Rayne in the first movie, but she was unable to reprise the role due to filming the TV series Painkiller Jane, so Nastasha Malthe steps into her shoes. Loken gave a driven and forceful but somewhat one-note performance. In contrast, portraying the same character a hundred years older and wiser, Malthe's Rayne is sullen and cynical, and altogether more fleshed-out and well rounded than Loken's take. And I must say that Malthe looks stunning in her all-black outfit, consisting of a duster (the name given to an ankle-length coat common to the period), flapping leather chaps and wide-brimmed hat. The only returning actor from the initial film is Michael Pare, who had a brief cameo in Bloodrayne and here plays a different character - real life Western legend Pat Garrett, no less.Garrett appearing as Rayne's sidekick is due to a plot element that earns the film it's only minus mark - having Billy the Kid as the main villain. The Kid is bizarrely reinterpreted as an ancient East European vampire, instead of the young, all-American sociopath that he actually was. His inclusion is a gimmick, and it's an unnecessary one. Ironically, as played by Zack Ward (a regular in Uwe Boll's movies) the Kid is an impressive bad guy, but he would have worked better as an original character.Uwe Boll (director and producer of both Bloodrayne films) has promised a third instalment, set in Nazi Germany during World War 2. I'm looking forward to it.
Add another review
