Is There Continuity in the Blood Rayne Movies
Confirms the worst of what people think of Boll...
When I heard that Uwe Boll had challenged several of his critics to a boxing match, I thought it was an example of the man failing to understand reactions. Rather than come out looking like a misunderstood hero, he comes off as a spoiled child. So when I hear people calling Uwe the new Ed Wood, I just want to point out that this demonstrates ignorance regarding Wood. It is insulting to the poor guy. You see, Wood made one of the most daring (if staggeringly inept) films that challenged people's perceptions of transvestism and gender roles, long before this became a common theme in Hollywood. His major feature was that he lived only to make films, and did so because of motives other than cash. Boll, on the other hand, says absolutely nothing in his films that is of any value, and has shown himself in the media to be the most cynical, thoughtless idiot that ever drew breath. Another classic example of the difference between Boll and Wood, perfectly illustrated by BloodRayne, is that Wood's films made narrative sense.
If you have not played any of the video games upon which BloodRayne is based, then it will make very little sense to you. The parts about Rayne being the child of a vampire and a human, I get, but the film is loaded with references to artifacts that the villain needs in order to gain power, which Rayne must obviously stop him from acquiring. This reminds me of the sequence from Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings in which the explanation of what the One Ring is and what it does was meant to be delivered. By failing to deliver this critical information in a manner that makes sense to the viewer, both films end up disjointed and pointless. Only BloodRayne makes it much, much worse by jumping around from location to location, showing confrontations between Rayne and various enemies without a pause for explanation as to why this is significant. Ten bucks to anyone who can figure out exactly why Boll chose to end the film with a bunch of flashbacks to disjointed events that have no connection to the film's "present time", when the climactic slaying would have done just fine.
Another of Boll's few talents is to classically miscast. Kristanna Loken is surprisingly good as the titular character, and puts in a far better performance than I would have credited her with after that abysmal Terminator rip-off. It is certainly far better than the film deserves. Michelle Rodriguez looks extremely angry to be there. Matthew Davis has this stupid expression on his face all the time that appears to be him begging for some direction. Michael Madsen, Billy Zane, and Udo Kier literally are on autopilot. But Meat Loaf, the poor guy, seems to be trying to take his role seriously, and never have I see an actor look so uncomfortable in his work. He almost looks as if he is going to have a stroke from all the "what the hell am I doing here?" instructions his brain is trying to process. But the real gem here is Ben Kingsley, winner of one Academy Award and nominee for three others. He seriously looks as if he is going to burst out in laughter at any second during his scenes with Loken. And who can honestly blame him?
A mention must be made of the abysmal special effects here, too. Boll at least knows that the audience for a film based on this video game expects to see blood, and a lot of it. However, like every other aspect of his films, the delivery is so staggeringly inept that it makes one wonder how Boll can be so blind to this. Not only does the head of one opponent look despicably fake, the looks on the faces of the extras when they are shown chopping things up with their swords is utterly hilarious. Someone had to direct them to assume that expression, as swinging an actual sword hard enough to sever a limb involves enough exertion that one at least pulls some kind of face in the process. They said it best in Showdown In Little Tokyo - beheadings are not as easy as they look. Yet Boll seems to think he can silence individuals who feel he is utterly inept as a director by hitting them. If I could say one thing to his face right now, it would be that keeping silent and working on making a genuinely good film would have worked a lot more.
So I mean it when I say this film is not as bad as many others have said - it is even worse. A competent director like Wolfgang Petersen would have connected the story together properly, and at least shot the violence in a convincing fashion. A brilliant director such as Paul Verhoeven would have found a way to satirise the social mores of the eighteenth century, and delivered enough convincing violence to give the MPAA fits at the same time. As much as Boll would like to pretend otherwise on the basis of sales figures in countries where they would probably not understand the abysmal dialogue anyway, he is nowhere near the league of Petersen or Verhoeven. And that is a big part of what makes his films so insulting to the general public. Boll would like us to believe that he is some kind of misunderstood genius who keeps striking out with critics because they do not understand his message. Well, Boll, the disjointed plot aside, I understand you just fine. The thing is, when I do understand your films, I do not want them anymore.
So I gave BloodRayne a two out of ten. A one would only further its position on the bottom one hundred, and it is deserving of infamy in neither sense of the word. Avoid.
113 out of 147 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Must See!!!
Just kidding...just kidding!! Why, after wasting nearly 2 hours of my life watching this trash, should I waste another hour or so dissing this movie, when everything about it has already been killed stone dead by previous reviewers? Because, dear friends, I am so excited I just had to share with you my delight at finding the "worst cameo of all time", so magnificent in its awfulness that it could (with sheer effort of will) only be equalled, but never beaten.
It was Sunday. Raining. What the hell, "Bloodrayne" sounded good. Hmmm, Masden, Kingsley, Zane...can't be so bad.
After around 20 minutes or so of this "crowning turd" of a movie my "intellectual defence mechanism" automatically kicked-in and took my mind away to my next vacation, what to have for dinner, and the contents of my Partner's trousers. Sailing away on a sea of serenity(did I actually fall asleep?)I thought myself immune and totally protected from the train wreck of a movie unfolding on the other side of my eyelids. But then....wait! What's this? Snippets of dialogue totally unconnected with the Tequilla Sunrise I was drinking began to pervade my mind. Slowly at first, but growing in intensity. Warily, fearful that I may inadvertently catch another glimpse of Ben Kingsley's excruciating acting/staring, I opened one eye. Was I seeing/hearing things? I pulled myself up in the chair and opened the other eye (after assuring myself that Kingsley was nowhere to be seen). There, in front of me...what can never be described by a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters for a thousand years. The root canal work of movie making, the Xanadu of awfulness....Meatloaf trying to character-act.
I checked out the other movie-goers...hmmm, not many left....and they were all, very much like myself, staring wide eyed and open mouthed at witnessing the birth of a legend. Seriously, it was like watching the first moon landing all over again. This is one piece of crap for man...a whole turd for mankind.
I am sorry that I go on a little, but I cannot find words to describe the cameo piece by Meatloaf, in fact probably such words do not exist - they must be invented - "discrapungent" - try that one. I can only try to capture the magnificent awfulness by describing the effect that it had on myself and, I suspect, the other viewers.
If you haven't seen it (and I beg you all to do so) cut along to any cinema brave enough to show it and set your alarm clock for around 50 minutes. If you have trouble sleeping at the beginning, don't worry, Ben Kingsley will stare you into blessed catatonia....trust me.
215 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
why?!
This is singularly one of the worst films I've ever seen. After seeing a wide selection of decent horror at Fantastic Fest a few weeks ago, I expected this to have some substance because it was picked to screen at the Austin Film Festival. All I can think of is that someone must have blackmailed the programmers because it's terrible.
The dailogue is either very cliché, or very stilted (and often both). There are serious continuity issues. The gratuitous sex scene was so completely sudden it seemed like an excerpt from a porn movie. The wigs are terrible, and the costuming as bad. There is no character development, and the motivations shown on screen seem more like red herrings than anything else.
I can't think of anything redeeming about this film other than I didn't pay money just to see it.
356 out of 483 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unexceptional, but still a solid vampire movie
I've never seen the computer game on which this movie is based, so the reported discrepancies between the film's storyline and the game's original mythos (which fans of the game have been very vocal about) didn't bother me, and instead I just viewed the movie as a separate entity. While I can't honestly say that Bloodrayne is anything special, it's certainly not the complete disaster that it's supposed to be. There's no denying that several of the main actors are woefully miscast - Michael Madsen being the prime example - and there are some bizarre and distracting cameos from Michael Pare (whom I swear hasn't aged a day in the twenty five years since Streets of Fire), Billy Zane and Meat Loaf. But I still found Bloodrayne to be considerably more entertaining than Van Helsing (2004), the film it most resembles. In fact it's only slightly inferior to the similarly themed Underworld movies.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not nearly as bad as "groupthink" says it is. I liked it.
People are eager to pile on any movie panned by the critics. While I agree that Uwe Boll should be making low budget videos or used car commercials until he learns how to direct, this movie was not all that bad if you overlook some of its obvious failings.
The fact is, there are hundreds of low budget movies made every year that are much worse than this. Many have laughable effects, are more trite, with worse acting, sets and costumes. You can see them any evening on SciFi or the other basic cable channels.
The biggest problem with Bloodrayne may be that it attempts to be more than it is. Compared to most direct-to-video fare, it's not half bad. I saw it on TV, so I'm not comparing it to other major releases from big studios. I believe people are judging it based on their expectations as much as anything.
I thought Kristanna Lokken was pretty good. Fortunately, she plays the main character. She was a good choice for Rayne. Some of the other actors sounded a little silly trying to affect a vaguely European, old-timey accent, especially Madsen and Rodriguez, neither of whom seemed able to convincingly drop their notable Jersey accents.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well... I'm surprised that I actually kind of liked it (don't kill me!)
Okay, I actually kind of liked this movie. Why? Well, as far as pure entertainment goes, I was actually entertained. I laughed at a lot of the acting and dialog, and the fight editing was a nightmare, but in the end, I still had a decent time with the movie. It gave me what I expected, but with some decent (and some really bad) acting.
Let's start with the Ed Wood pluses, also known as the "so bad it's good" material. For starters, Ben Kingsley. I have never seen such an accomplished actor do such a terrible job in my life! I couldn't stop laughing whenever he was on screen. I mean, it really seemed as if it was just a wax dummy of him set on a chair. His dialog was uber flat, and I honestly think they just got a sample of his voice and had a computer read his lines. But... he made the entire movie uber campy. It just felt right. Also, there is the clunky dialog. Some of the dialog does work, namely when the characters speak in more modern dialects, but when they try to get all old English or whatever the words become clunkier than a cart with square wheels being pulled by a man with no arms and legs. Michael Madsen also phoned in his performance, but it was ten times better than the "acting" he did in Sin City. And by the end of the movie I had very few problems with him. He did what he had to, nothing more. So, there are the bad parts. They seem minor, but oh are they major. Namely because they are all constantly apparent. One bad part that wasn't funny was the constant shots of people riding on horses. It got old very fast.
The actual good parts come in the form of a few things. For one is Michelle Rodrigez. She really, honestly tried with this movie, and came off as very credible. Her accent, her movements, everything... it just worked. She made this movie watchable. Also, the lead was very well played by Kristina Lochen (sp?). Her dialog is junk, but she can fight, and she plays the tough girl very well. And she looked the part. And Billy Zane, in a small role, is a blast to watch. He eats the cheesy dialog up, and you can tell he is enjoying himself. They should have given him more screen time! A big plus for this movie is the fact that there is actually a coherent story this time. Yes, actually story in a Bolle video game movie! It's not a great story, but it's a fleshed out, coherent story. Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead both were messes in the story department, basically moving from action scene to action scene. Here there is more time for characters to talk, interact. For any other director this movie would be a total disaster, but looking at Bolle's past video game adaptations I would have to say that he is improving in leaps and bounds. He's still not a great director, but he's getting better.
The usual problems come up though. The fight scenes are horribly edited, with some very bad film speed affects being thrown in. He needs to stop doing that, because he actually gets the fight angles right. He shoots from more of a distance, allowing the audience to see the action. Sadly the editing is so off, and some of the effects so distracting, that some decent action seems incoherent and choppy.
Over all, well, this movie is far from being good, but it does what it set out to do. It's actually about on par with the first Mortal Kombat movie. I am not a fan of the director by any means, but I have to say, I had no problem with this movie. I got a kick out of it. It has it's cheese value, and I knew that it would. If you go in expecting anything but pure cheese then you'll be disappointed. If you go in and plan to have a few laughs, crack a few jokes, and just enjoy the film, then you actually will have a good time with it. I know a lot of people are going to just breeze past this review, but I have to say, I have seen some REALLY bad movies, and this isn't one of them. It's got a decent plot, some good acting (and some REALLY bad acting), and it's got action.
I have a feeling that the Dungeon Siege movie will suck though. It's like... three fricking hours long! TO MUCH!
132 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some of it really cracked me up
Where to start with this one? I'll point out that i watched it only because i heard that Kristanna Loken shows her boobies here. I didn't play the game nor have i known anything about the plot from that point of view. So i'm writing this solely on the movie experience.
I must point out that the movie has its good sides.
Most notably Ben Kingsleys horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE wig. I couldn't stop myself to burst into laughter anytime he was on screen. Its simply hilarious and worth the admission price alone.
Another good thing is the guy with the mullet (Matthew Davis). He looked almost as ridiculous as Ben Kingsley with a wig. By the way, I had no idea that mullets were that popular in 19th century Romania but the filmmakers sure proved me wrong. Maximum respect for the mullet Matthew, wear it proudly.
Of course you do get to see Kristanna Lokens boobs in a raunchy, makes no sense at all, sex scene so that also is a good thing.
I must point out that fight scenes, although they occur pretty rarely, are pretty rich with gore. They really surprised me there and i must say that i wasn't disappointed by that aspect of the movie. And you wont be either. Of course if you aren't into the bloody mess type of stuff the fight scenes will suck. But hey, who isn't into bloodbaths anyway? So some really good stuff there as well.
Now for the not so great aspects of the movie.
First of all the dialogs are completely and utterly, mind numbingly stupid. Its like a 6 year old wrote all the dialogs. The screenplay is very bad too. Think "American Ninja 2" in 19th century Romania when you think about the screenplay and dialogs in the movie. Really, really naive and infantile stuff there. Also they stole one ninja trick from American Ninja 2, you'll see it in one of the final scenes in the movie. I guess you could call it a homage to it though. Come to think of it, no, you couldn't. Its just plane old plagiarism.
Acting sucks too. Ben Kingsley just stares in the camera with his bad wig, Kristanna Loken does a lot of moaning and thats about it. Don't expect wonders from Michael Madsen either. Billy Zane does his thing regardless of anything, so if you like his style he could be acceptable. I like it.
Oh yeah, they have a MeatLoaf cameo. Now thats what i call weak. Then again, the topless babes in his scenes totally make up for his fat ass.
The director Uwe Boll isn't really that bad as people say he is. He gave us blood and tits, yes. And in a pretty good way, i might add. But he delivered nothing more. Blood and tits go without saying for modern day directors anyway. So i'll point out that he sucks as well but not as much as meatloaf.
Although this movie is really bad I'm not sorry i watched it. If you want watch it and if you'll appreciate the trashy aspects in the movie you wont be sorry either.
I'll give this one a 4/10.
35 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vampires and humans confrontation with lots of blood and gore
In eighteenth century Romania, Rayne (Kristanna Loken), a warrior woman, half-human, half-vampire , is the main attraction at a freak-show but she she gets to escape. Afther that, she meets a fortuneteller (Geraldine Chaplin) who tells his father raped and killed her mother. Then she sets out to revenge her mother's rape by her father, Kagan ( Ben Kingsley), King of Vampires. Three vampire hunters, Sebastian (Matthew Davis), Katarin (Michelle Rodriguez) and Vladimir(Michel Madsen), from the Brimstone Society persuade her to join their cause. Meanwhile, Rayne falls in love with Sebastian and prepares her vengeance.
This exciting movie displays unstopped action, thrills ride, spectacular fighting, graphic violence, and brief nudism with mild sex scene. It packs large amount of guts and gore , there's a huge body count, this one actually knocks off an immense amount, several vampires are staked bloodily in the chest, even more bitten with large dents. There's really savage decapitation, plenty of bodies ripped in scraps and half, including some of the most tears ever, that spill lots of blood . Most of vampires and humans victims are relegated to being bitten in the throat and neck. Magnificent special and visual effects as well as excellent make-up department. Bone-chilling and atmospheric musical score and colorful and dark cinematography ; furthermore spectacular production design .The motion picture is regularly directed by Uwe Boll . All four of the films he has realized that were based upon video games, House of the Dead (2003), Alone in the Dark (2005), BloodRayne (2005) and BloodRayne II: Deliverance (2007) were listed on the bottom of barrel by the reviewers. Most of the other films he's directed, including Heart of America (2002), and Blackwoods (2002) are not widely available in America, but have received similarly low ratings among those who have seen them. All technicians and some actors participate in the following : BloodRayne II with Natassia Malthe, Zack Ward and again Michel Pare, Uwe Boll's fetish's actor. Recommended to those who amuse those kind of vampire films or those enjoy in general.Rating : average though some moments is entertaining.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another baby-step towards mediocrity.
After watching BloodRayne, I am thoroughly convinced Uwe Boll will eventually make a good and entertaining movie (five years from now at the very very least.) As Alone in the Dark was a step up from House of the Dead, BloodRayne is a step up from Alone in the dark. Unfortunately, before he gets there Boll will have to continue to trek through the vast expanse of mediocrity one baby step at a time, and there is far more entertainment from a shamelessly bad movie than a merely mediocre one.
The opening credits take place over a nice little montage of paintings, then moves to a sunset in the mountains effectively establishing the mood in a surprisingly competent fashion. I found myself entertaining the idea, "You know, maybe … just maybe Boll finally made a good movie." Then just like Alone in the Dark, the first actor opened his mouth and my hopes collapsed. I shook my head, sighed, then braced myself to endure another 80 minutes of performances downplayed to the point that they lack conviction. Vladimir (Michael Madsen), the seasoned vampire hunter and head of Brimstone, delivers his lines with a tone that implies he's been around and seen everything. As a free bonus, Madsen adds an additional quality: unenthusiastic boredom.
Kagun (Ben Kingsley) the old powerful vampire lord, having achieved demi-God status amongst mortals, spends most of his time sitting, standing, or walking. He takes action only in the ceremonial sense. Played to perfection by Kingsley who goes so far as to make his own appearance in the film seem equally ceremonial and equally inconsequential.
(Although one has to wonder if Kingsley and Madsen both went overboard in their performances, or if the editing pushed the performances over the threshold. Dwell on that for a moment, but don't answer.)
Domastir (Will Sanderson), Kaguns' henchman, forever has a crazed wide-eyed stare that lacked any sense of menace. It reminded me of that look pro wrestler gives during their pre-match smack talk rants (which I, try as I might, can't watch with a straight face) ,and from hence forth I saw Domastir as the little wrestler who couldn't.
As for Rayne, herself, Kristanna Loken does an admirable job of wanting to go somewhere with the role despite being trapped by a film that's lost. It knows where it wants to go, but doesn't know how to get there. She does what she can to explore the bloodlust and turmoil of vampirism (or dhampirism) even though the film she's starring in cares only enough to explore blood, blood, and more blood (a point hammered home by the final overly-long montage at the end.)
And then Billy Zane, Elrich, comes to the rescue. Zane salvages his role by going in the exact opposite direction as the rest of the cast. He opts for an approach reminiscent of his role in Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight, and gives two well timed blasts from the defibrillator to counter the rest of the film floating on tharzine.
More interesting, yet, is the scene with Elrich and Domastir face to face. When Domastir has a sword to Elrich's heart, staring as intently as ever like a crazed man obsessed with reading a name tag, Elrich pushes the lil' wrestler wanna-be's sword aside and dismisses the whole encounter like it was part of his Las Vegas illusionist's show where Domastir is hypnotized. Elrich and everyone in the audiences knows it's a joke, but Domastir remains clueless.
Gallons of gratuitous gore splatters the death sequences in direct answer to the growing number of PG13 films that should shoot for a hard R but sadly whore themselves to younger audiences. It's a nice thought, but it comes across as gore for the sole sake of gratuity to the point of goofiness. A direct contrast to BloodRayne's overly grounded ("grounded" as in six-feet under) performances. Yet another indication, that Billy Zane had the right idea.
Budgetary and time constraints show up in the choreography of the fights and battle scenes, and even more so in the editing of said scenes. The fights seem curiously rehearsed like a stage-dance, and the swords (practice weapons aside) have unusually thick edges. Fair game for criticism? Eh, in places, sure. No doubt, though, that Boll bashers will target anything and everything not up to Lord of the Rings standards.
In my Alone in the Dark review I mainly focused my criticism on Boll's parasitic dependency on better films for material in his own to the point that Alone in the Dark cannot stand on its own without Equilibrium, Evil Dead, and the Matrix. BloodRayne is like a baby's first step, reluctantly letting go and making an unstable effort to walk – letting go of the blatant rip offs ("homages" on steroids) and finding its own style.
Uwe Boll's not there yet, but he's getting there … one step at a time.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
May not be "fine cinema" but very entertaining!
Warning: Spoilers
I saw some of the comments on here, and yeah okay the acting wasn't the best, but everyone involved seemed to at least try to give it their best. Im a 24 year old woman, and I found myself quite a few times channeling a 13 year old boy saying "sweet!"- some of her moves were awesome. Don't get me wrong, I made plenty of jokes, but overall I thought it was pretty entertaining.
I've seen MUCH worse given way better ratings, so it surprises me a little. I saw the Unrated version- aye yaye yaye, one of the hottest sex scenes I've EVER seen in a movie! Although this movie may have a lot of negatives, it was never really *boring*. Now if you want a movie that sucked AND was boring- try watching DOMINO. That was plain horrific.
Billy Zane really didn't figure in, did he?
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The haters aren't reviewing this movie, but comparing to a game, another movie, or just don't like Uwe Boll.
Ok...first off, is this Ben Hur? Braveheart? Or the Ten Commandments? Nope. This in no way is on par with the greatest period movies of all time. Nor was it intended so.
Second, when reading the reviews it is painfully obvious that people:
- ...don't like Uwe Boll and thus could not judge the movie on its merits, or
- ...are video game fans who had very specific expectations for this movie and again, were unable to look beyond that, or
- ... compare this movie to some of the best and most expensive genre movies, or
- ...just flat out picked it apart for everything it was not without looking at what it is.
It's stunning to read such bad reviews on a movie that simply was not bad. As mentioned, this is not a huge mega budget period film, nor is it a faithful and true recreation of the game. It was not intended to be either, yet people continue watching and reviewing it as if it were. The fact is, not many directors would take on such a film with the budget it had and a) do any better, b) leave it as bloody and violent, or c) get the names that this film has. I don't know about you, but I love medieval (or earlier) period films and they are not made nearly as much as I would like. Why? Because they're extremely expensive to do properly. Now maybe you would rather not have one at all, opposed to getting something that is above average in nearly every regard compared to the majority of similar films released in recent years. Sure, there's always going to be (the rare) exceptions, but for the most part they are simply nowhere near as good as this. That's not to say this deserves awards, but if people insist on comparing (falsely I might add) then this is all worth noting.
So...the movie. I cannot speak to its affinity toward the game, as I couldn't care less, but as a story, it's fine. It's rather cookie cutter, straight out of the earlier sword and sandal films or other medieval supernatural films, or for that matter, any period vampire movie or even newer vamp movie. Surprisingly, I haven't heard a single comparison to the Resident Evil or Underworld franchises, which surprises me. But I digress.
The production is on par with the budget it was given. Period. There are some high points and some not so high points, but the pace is swift and keeps the characters moving toward their ultimate goals. The acting is average, at best, and could be better, especially considering the number of "seasoned" actors in the cast. It certainly wasn't as "piss poor and awful" as others suggest. Good? Maybe not quite, but awful? Nope.
Special fx are decent, though done in a manner that leaves little to linger on screen for more than a brief flash. Costumes and sets were enjoyable to look at. Some beautiful camerawork on the large-scale sweeping panoramas, and the lighting is equally as well done.
All in all, this is a very avaerage flick, with some above average sequences and a few below average sequences. Anybody who reviews it as poorly as many have, are hating purely for reasons outside the boundaries of the movie itself.
Notes on parental content:
- not much in the way of profanity. Mild at best.
- there are a couple scenes of a sexual nature, including one with full frontal female nudity and multiple with topless female nudity. The protagonist wears an outfit with bare midriff and cleavafe, as do a couple other female characters. Nudity and sexual content is not over the top or a large part of the movie, but there are incidents of both.
- intense and/or frightening scenes...I dunno. This terribly subjective. To me, nothing about this movie was intense or scary, but there is certainly a dark overtone which purveys throughout, and there are scenes of vampire attacks and/or fighting.
- violence and/or gore is fairly prominent from start to finish. Many reviews, including remarks in the Parental Content section state that this is an "extremely gory film." This too is subjective, as I would not consider this anywhere near an "extremely gory film." There is a large amount of bloodshed whether by combat or vampire bite, but only a couple quick shots that would be considered gory. Regardless, it is a violent film, with a fair amount of blood, so all potential first time viewers should be aware of that.
I dunno folks...Bloodrayne is certainly not going to win any awards, but I felt it very entertaining, honestly...from start to finish. Not sure that I would buy the film either, but I could easily watch it again down the road a piece.
My advice is to watch it for what it is - a loosely based interpretation on a video game franchise; and I do mean loosely. Enjoy the costumes, the action (of which some is actually good), and the general storyline that involves castles & vampires. There just aren't that many watchable flicks with this byline.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh, come on, it wasn't that bad at all.
Warning: Spoilers
Such a bad rating for BloodRayne, now, really (this is not a prepaid advertisement), that seems unfair. There are so many really bad movies which would have to be on the 100 worst list.
I have to say in the defense of this film that it is at least watchable, and that Ben Kingsley and Geraldine Chaplin are in it (=they must have seen something in the script that we moviegoers did not see in the final version).
It is always so hard to tell where such fantasy movies go wrong, there seems to be such a very thin line between great and disastrous.
The problem here is maybe that the main character, Rayne, is rather a parody of herself. Further, the plot is somewhat a mock as well.
Still, the vampire-evil-good-fighting-horses-night-thing somehow also worked here for me, despite the doubtless flaws depicted above.
It is by far not the worst movie I have ever seen (by the way, who has ever-ever seen a good vampire movie, this one is still miles ahead of Interview with a Vampire or the Blade movies), although I am definitely not encouraging the sequel that is rumored to be in production. Do instead something decent with that money, for a change.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clearly not that bad as the haters want it
I want to strike a blow for a movie that seems to be one of the worst movies, when you follow the ratings and verdicts here. But it's easy here to rate one star without watching a movie, and also without giving one thought to.
Of course it isn't an artwork, a masterwork, or comparable to high budget productions a la Lord Of The Rings. Instead, it fits right into a solid line of straight-to-video productions, or some bigger TV Adventure movies, but is definitively enjoyable for people who don't expect a lifetime experience from Uwe Boll. But at least, one have to respect the genre outside the Tolkien realm. If not, the movie has no chance at all.
It is a simple story about a girl that wants revenge for the killing of her mother by her father, who is the most powerful Vampire, and also wants to be ruler of the world. Kristanna Loken as Rayne does a good Job being sexy, powerful and filled with hate and blood hunger. The others are OK, and Ben Kingsley does keep a low profile, because he has not very much to do except being old Ben Kingsley.
Directing is not great, I admit that, it is at max, zealous. Definitevly it is better than in any of the infamous Asylum Movies i've seen, in terms of storytelling, actors leading and so on. The only one bigger mistake is that the short history of Raynes romance with Sebastian is revealed at the end of the movie, so that the short sex scene with him looks quite unfounded.
If there wouldn't be so much blood and gore, it could pass as a movie for youngsters. I remember watching such movies (of course without gore and without nudity), when I was ten or twelve.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't Let Reviews Keep You From Watching This Film
OK, I am locking my doors as I write this but really people! Look I know the movie bombed, I know the director is a dumb nut but by sitting here and writing for two hours about how watching the movie was such a waste of time - you are only wasting more time! I am so sick of how reviews pick what you watch, play, and buy now-days! I thought it was a neat little movie!, A bit cheap and heavy on the phony blood but not that bad all around. What does make the movie look bad is when you jump online and read a huge amount of errors in the movie so you can be looking for them.I think that if I had just watched the movie it would have been good. Bottom line, watch something if you want to know what you think of it, don't let others witch and moan and keep you from getting your own opinion.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely Underrated
In the Eighteenth Century, the half-human half-vampire damphir Rayne (Kristranna Loken) is the lead attraction in a carnival's freak-show in Romania. When she escapes, she meets a fortuneteller (Geraldine Chaplin) that tells that her mother was raped by the king of the vampires Kagan (Ben Kingsley) and she decides to destroy her father. In her journey for revenge, she meets Vladimir (Michael Madsen) and Sebastian (Matthew Davis), the leaders of the fortress of vampire hunters Brimstone, and she joins their society. She seeks for powerful talismans to defeat Kagan, while the skilled warriors Vladimir and Sebastian train her to face the forces of Kagan and her human side falls in love for Sebastian.
"Bloodrayne" is a great vampire movie and absolutely underrated in IMDb. The locations and cinematography in Romania are magnificent and I believe it would be impossible to build sets so spectaculars in another country; the cast is excellent, with Sir Ben Kingsley, Geraldine Chaplin, Michael Madsen, Michelle Rodriguez, Matthew Davis and the gorgeous Kristanna Loken; the story is full of action and the characters are very well developed. I have glanced many silly comments, but the winner is one that states that "Kristanna Loken looks like a child instead of a woman". Wow, this athletic actress is one of the most beautiful women of the cinema industry. Definitely this movie be included in Bottom 100 is one of the greatest absurd I have ever seen in IMDb. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Bloodrayne"
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man, this movie blows
I almost forgot that I had seen this a month ago. I remember being excited more for the fact that Uwe Boll was in attendance so I could hear what he had to say about film-making.
Well, let's say his comments before and after the movie are revelations as to why he makes such crappy films. First off, he can't grasp why people savage his movies so much. He feels that the internet community gives him a hard time because he's German and he makes his movies with Nazi money (his quote, not mine. Of course, he was joking, right?) Secondly, he couldn't care less if the actors he has are right for the roles. In fact, finding actors is his last thing he does to secure financing for his films. Apparently, he thinks the story is strong enough to carry the film. So, this is why we end up with actors like Ben Kinglsey working alongside Michael Madsen. Really, the only thing they had was the time to do the movie and the earning of a paycheck. So, if this doesn't strike you as soulless film-making, I don't know what does. In essence, by waiting until the last possible moment to hire actors, he can make his movies with a secured budget.
Th reason why I write this is because I heard his new "epic" In the Name of the King will be a four hour film split in half like Kill Bill. This depressed me to no end. Uwe Boll really is the next Ed Wood, even though Ed Wood cared about his actors and films.
303 out of 458 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is an insult
So women sometime before the XIX, but after the XVI century traveled alone on horseback, half-naked, always cold, carrying swords in their backs, and the cities were a model of pulchritude. Yeah, right. It does not even work as a metaphor. When the director wants to show us an evil character, there is a Ben Kinsgley with an over-sized wig remembering in black and white his cruel dialog: "Tell me where is my damphir" "No" says the mother. "Tell me" "No" Pum! Pow! The scariest thing of this movie is to see such potentially good actors in such lame dialogs. You will experience anguish as an spectator, as you feel other people's shame (the actors). Even if you like awful movies (sometimes I do), please do not waste your money in this one. The director might be encouraged to punish us again. I wish IMDb had negative stars.
141 out of 223 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Apparently just about the worst film ever made.
Warning: Spoilers
BloodRayne is set in 18th Century Romania where a half Vampire & half human known as a Dhampir named Rayne (Kristanna Locken) is an exhibit in a side-show carnival as a freak, she remembers how a powerful Vampire called Kagan (Ben Kingsley) raped her human mother to create her & then murdered her when she was still a young girl. Rayne wants revenge & after escaping the carnival sets about finding an eye, an eye that belonged to a Vampire who had all the strengths of a Vampire but none of the weaknesses. If the eye along with his heart & rib which are also hidden were to be assimilated it could create a new super race of near invincible Vampires that would take over the world. Along the way Rayne teams up with some Vampire hunters from a secret society known as Brimstone who also want to stop Kagan & see him dead...
This German American co-production was co-produced & directed by Uwe Boll who has already gained an unwanted reputation as a bad filmmaker so it's no real surprise that BloodRayne seems just about one of the most hated films ever. I have read many comments here on the IMDb about BloodRayne & the one thing that they almost all have in common is they're attacks on Boll as a director, I see very little in these comments as to suggest why BloodRayne is a bad film other than Uwe Boll directed it. I sometimes wonder what people's criteria is for judging a film & BloodRayne is such a case in point, I'm sorry but I actually thought it was a fairly enjoyable if ultimately forgettable fantasy/action/horror film & for that I apologise to no-one. I just can't see what it is about BloodRayne that people hate so much, I just can't. The script by Guinevere Turner was based on the Atari video game BloodRayne (2002) which I freely admit I haven't played & have absolutely no idea what it is about, as far as video game adaptations go I actually thought BloodRayne is one of the better attempts & I certainly enjoyed it more than Street Fighter (1994) & Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001). At a little over 90 minutes the film moves along at a reasonable pace, there's plenty of gory action set-pieces & on a dumb sort of level I was entertained by it. However the character's are really poor, they are given silly sounding names & as such it's sometimes hard to relate to people & the dialogue could have been better but then again maybe this is how people spoke in 18th Century Romania, you never know. The story is functional & your typical Dungeons & Dragons fare with some evil guy needing some artifact or item which will allow him to have all sorts of evil unlimited powers, the narrative isn't the best as the film awkwardly & sometimes seemingly randomly goes from one fight to another with little reason.
Credit where credit is due & one has to say that BloodRayne looks really nice & very polished, in fact I'd say BloodRayne looks splendid. There is some wonderful looking scenery & plenty of sweeping aerial shots across the vast landscapes which give the film real scope & a certain expansive feel. The production design is top notch as well with some magnificent Gothic style castles, dungeons, caves & villages which all add to the atmosphere. I thought BloodRayne was a very visually impressive film & that has to be in part down to Boll who is regarded by many it seems as the worst director ever. I sat down & watched BloodRayne knowing it's bad reputation & I specifically looked out for anything that would support that reputation but I really couldn't see anything, apart from a slightly underdeveloped & forgettable story I thought it was pretty good. There's some good special effects here as well with plenty of well choreographed fights & battles which contain pleasing amounts of spurting blood & slashed throats.
With a supposed budget of about $25,000,000 one has to say BloodRayne looks very nice with quite an epic feel to it, the production design, music, cinematography & special effects are also well above average. Shot in Bucharest & Transylvania in Romania. There's a pretty impressive cast here including Kristanna Locken (looking sexy in tight leather), Michael Madsen, Udo Kier, Meat Loaf in a wig surrounded by naked Romanian prostitutes (hey, it's nice work if you can get it... right Mr. Loaf?), Michael Pare, Billy Zane, Michelle Rodriguez & the Oscar winning Sir Ben Kingsley no less. Unfortunately most of them seem to be there for the money & the performances aren't great.
BloodRayne by all accounts is the worst film ever if you believe what you read, well I can assure you now it's nowhere near the worst film ever made. I must say the flimsy story & poor character's meant my interest did start to wain but the action, the gore & the nice visuals kept me watching until the end. A lot of people say it's the worst film ever, with no good reason to back it up I might add, so maybe I'm in the minority for liking it. Followed by BloodRayne II: Deliverance (2007) & BloodRayne 3 (2009).
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Horrible!
This was, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I knew a little bit about the video game this is based upon going in, and while I can't say I was a fan or knew all that much about the story, I figured I was going to get a kinda Buffy/Medieval Times kinda feel. I was SO wrong. The acting quality that I had expected was not there at all. In fact, even Ben Kingsley, who I thought would be good (I've liked other things of his) was awful. Kristinna Locken was so emotionless that you wanted to cry from frustration. Michelle Rodiguez was the only one with some convincing effort, but even then, she couldn't pull her character out of one-dimension. Although, the actors didn't have much to go on to begin with. The dialouge was laughably cliché in parts and simply pathetic in others. It did NOTHING to help convey the characters emotions or thoughts, nor did it do well with explaining the story, trying for flashy and confusing explanations when simplicity was needed and other times being far too simple. All in all, this movie was horrible.
270 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man, I hate ignorant moviegoers, Bloodrayne sucks
I'm already frustrated because the rating system only only goes down to 1 instead of -10....Because Uwe Boll has done it again! He has managed to make a completely god-awful movie, and has caused to me lose respect for the "actors" in this filth. Granted the only one that had my respect was Kingsley...well, not anymore. The non-existent "story" was worthless. There are actually ignorant people that LIKE this crap, and it's sad, because anyone who rates this more than a 1 is probably some 15-year-old kid who got off on that "love scene" that looked like it was straight out of a Ron Jeremy flick. Kristanna Loken's got the personality of used toilet paper, and Michael madsen...well....he just kinda looked like he was drunk..wouldn't put it past him anyway. The only reason why Uwe Boll is still allowed to make movies is because ignorant movie goers and the few fans he has defend him to the death, he is horrible and he should be barred from ever touching a camera again.
232 out of 409 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
the bloody version of underworld
There is Hollywood and there are the independents. The storyline is always the same, some vampire has to be killed. In Underworld it's the same, but that one contained a lot of CGI and had a lot of money. But the fact that CGI doesn't work makes it sometimes boring although it is a good movie. Bloodrayne also has some real 'declined' good actors. The storyline is as always the same but what makes this movie hateful or adorable is the amount of gore in it. And as I watched closely I noticed that Olaf Ittenbach was involved. The master of gore himself. Some killings or slaughterings are not for the squeamish and that's the main reason that people are hating this flick. But if you love vampires and gore than your in for a good flick, I just can't believe that it has a 2,4 on the scale. That was also one of the reasons that I never watched it earlier but it was one of those days that you feel you have to give it a try. I was not disappointed. It has an open end, and there is now Bloodrayne 2 available. Let's hope the gore stays intact. It's a one of his kind to see really good and well known (Ben Kingsley, Udo Kier) actors in this nice flick. So be it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
C'mon people, it's really not that bad!
I am not a big fan of Hollywood movies that mash up horror, fantasy and martial arts, I prefer my vampires to be more Lugosi or Lee, but BloodRayne does deliver 90 minutes of non stop action. It has a cast of well known actors, lots of violence, buckets of gore, some nice sets, nudity and stunning Romanian scenery. OK, so Michael Madsen, with his mullet and American accent doesn't really look or sound like a convincing European vampire hunter. OK, so much of the gore effects are CGI, some good, some not so good. And OK, it is hardly taxing on the grey matter. But for a brain in neutral horror/action flick it really isn't a bad ride. Kristianna Locken does make a very sexy vampire (or half human/half vampire, to be precise!), worth seeing for that alone.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Surprisingly good
Perhaps this is because I expected NOTHING from this movie. This has been nothing but trash talked since it's first screenings. Personally, I was surprised. I found it to be entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it is not without its faults. Still, overall, I found it to be very enjoyable. Much of what I found disappointing in the movie did not have to do with the director, but with things that may have been "out of their hands." Ben Kingsley's performance felt completely uninspired. He may as well have been reading a cue card without punctuation marks. Michael Madsen felt somewhat out of place, but his portrayal as Vladimir was acceptable. Michelle Rodriguez, well, I just love her work. And Kristanna Loken did a very good job as Rayne. She seemed to actually care about the character. It may not have been an Oscar-winning performance, but she still played the killer with a heart believably (which, unfortunately, is not really who Bloodrayne is in the video games, but is acceptable for the sake of the script.) The script did seem weak at some points, and could have tied up a couple of loose ends, but overall it served it's purpose. For being a video game movie, it may not have been as good as "Doom," but it greatly surpassed what had become the norm with movies like "Street Fighter" and "Double Dragon." Finally, I must speak about the director. I did sit through part of "House of the Dead" and simply could not bear it, though I really didn't give it half a chance. I expected a similar experience with Bloodrayne. Well, Uwe Boll, you have surprised me. His choice of camera angles and shots were interesting and had dramatic effect. He really does want to make a good movie. His efforts show through. I left the theater feeling pleased. There was some heart underneath this film. I am actually looking forward to his Dungeon Siege film, which was in the trailers.
So to recap, was it a great movie? No. Will it win awards? No. Was it enjoyable? Definitely. Would I watch it again? I don't doubt it. Perhaps in the end, it felt like a really good B-movie. If you watch this with the mindset the Uwe Boll is not a Hollywood director, but he does have a lot of heart, you very well may enjoy this film.
30 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Completely bloodless
Saw 'Bloodrayne' and its two sequels out of curiosity to see if they were as bad as their terrible reputation. As well as seeing whether one of the worst directors of all time Uwe Boll was capable of making a good film. On top of that, like Ben Kingsley a lot as an actor and he is reason enough to see anything he's involved in. Did not have my hopes up, because even looking at the advertising and trailers 'Bloodrayne' looked awful.
The terrible reputation and dubious advertising do not lie. 'Bloodrayne' to me and many others really is that bad, bad actually is an understatement. Have come to the conclusion that Boll is incapable of making a halfway decent film, have not seen everything of his but all that has been seen has been terrible and as bad as their reputation. As someone who is usually very generous rating and reviewing films, 'Bloodrayne' does stand out as one of the worst films seen recently and actually full stop. Everything is abysmally executed and there are no redeeming qualities at all, have said that about very few films seen recently.
'Bloodrayne' couldn't be more inept visually. Photography that is both chaotic and static, bacon-slicer-like editing, drab costumes that don't fit the setting, continuity errors galore (more than anybody can count), afterthought-like visual effects, lighting completely lacking in atmosphere, those can all be found. The music sounds cheap and is never dynamic with anything on screen, often working against it and like it belonged in another film entirely.
Writing is horrendously stilted and cheesy, enough to make one want to vomit and the unintentional camp later on becomes exhausting. The action has no momentum or excitement whatsoever, is chaotically edited, under-rehearsed choreographically and a lot of it is incomprehensible. It really takes ineptitude to a whole new level. As is the story, it never comes to life and is not easy to follow often. Boll's direction is typically non-existent and cold, comparing him to Ed Wood is rather insulting when although Wood's films were the complete opposite of fine heart one could see that he had his heart in the right place (something that has never been the case with Boll). The characters are walking cliches that are neither interesting or worth rooting for, instead bland and irritating.
You know something is wrong when the best performance comes from an angry-looking Michelle Rodriguez. Elsewhere there is an emotionless lead, Meat Loaf's uncomfortable cameo and Michael Madsen and Billy Zane going through the motions. Worst of it is Kingsley in his worst ever performance, taking hamminess and chewing-scenery-to-pieces to mind-boggling extremes.
Summarising, completely bloodless and appallingly awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I vegetated to this very well
This is another video game made to movie, if I'm not mistaken. The movie is under rated, in no point I got a feeling that I couldn't watch this. part of this low rating could be disappointed fans of the game, don't know.
The plot and everything in this movie is so unremarkable, that I cant remember almost anything of this movie anymore. The car chase scene was good, or was that in Underworld? Nevertheless there was one sex scene.
This movie has very good cast, take Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen and Kristanna Loken. Acting alone is worth 7 or 8 out of 10. Visual effects are worth 9 to 10. Plot and everything else doesn't matter. In no point of this movie did I feel any mental pain or thought "I can't watch this." I give this movie 6 purely on it's merits of not giving me any thoughts or feelings. Looking back on my comment it could seem as a negative statement about the movie, it's not. If you are tired after work, but don't want to go sleep yet because there is lot of sh't on you mind this could movie be the perfect solution.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
blackwellwhost1993.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383222/reviews
0 Response to "Is There Continuity in the Blood Rayne Movies"
Post a Comment