BloodRayne

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.