BloodRayne II: Deliverance

Although I enjoy a good movie immensely, I don't follow the industry press too closely, so imagine my surprise when I fell upon a sequel to BloodRayne as I thumbed through the DVD's at my local. I had to read every word of the cover to convince me this wasn't some sick practical joke, and sure enough there was the name...Uwe Boll. With the kind of trepidation one would normally reserve for a trip to an Albanian dentist, I handed over the case for purchase and the knowledgeable shop girl sympathetically paused slightly giving me the opportunity to change my mind. No...I gotta do it...bring it on!!

This is not a good movie. But it it isn't the silo of crap that the first one was either. I may be wrong, but like a vulture circling around a carcass, is Uwe Boll homing in on a style? As I say, this is not a good movie, but it was entertaining with a very small "e". The acting (aided and abetted by a poor script) was awful, the camera-work was dire, the story was way beyond my powers of disbelief suspension...but...there were some redeeming qualities that give us a glimmer of hope that Uwe Boll MAY get it right one day.

I think that despite an ego the size of Brazil, Boll DID listen to his critics of BloodRayne. The schlock was tamer (and much, much better for it) the continuity was slicker (not good, but slicker) and the cinematography, in parts, was almost approaching average.

So....continuing the analogy, should Boll's beneficent backers suspend their own disbelief up to, say, BloodRayne 20, the vulture may indeed feast on its carcass and Boll may yet deliver a film that forces us to pen a comment free of the word "crap".

Is this movie Uwe Boll's own Deliverance?.....No, but like Billy the Kid, at least he has incredibly risen from the dead.

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.

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.

1/10

If 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.

Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (2007) 2 of 5 Dir: Uwe Boll Stars: Natassia Malthe, Michael Pare, Brendon Fletcher

Billy 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.