BloodRayne 2: Libertação

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.