User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A gang of vampire cowboys led by Billy the Kid (Zack Ward) attacks the inhabitants of Deliverance, kidnapping their children. When the Dhampir Rhayne (Natassia Malthe) arrives in the homestead of her friends to pay a visit, she finds them dead and their children missing. The lonely cowboy Pat Garrett (Michael Paré) tells that Billy the Kid is the responsible for the slaughter and offers to team-up with Rayne. However she refuses his offer and heads alone to the town. She is defeated by the vampires and rescued by Pat Garrett that saves her life. Together they team-up with the dishonest The Preacher (Michael Eklund) and with the scum Slime Bag Franson (Michael Teigen) and return to Deliverance to face Billy the Kid and his vampire gang.

"Bloodrayne II: Deliverance" has a promising premise and beginning, with the saga of the Dhampir (child of a vampire father and a human mother in Balkan folklore that has vampire powers and none of the weaknesses) Rayne in the Wild West that unfortunately is not well executed and turns in a boring adventure. The stylish cinematography is very beautiful but the pace is totally inadequate to an action movie, with excessive use of slow motion, long and dull dialogs and annoying music score. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Bloodrayne 2: Libertação" ("Bloodrayne 2: Liberation")

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).

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.

BLOODRAYNE was bad enough as it was, but BLOODRAYNE 2: DELIVERANCE is something else. Another godawful horror flick directed by German 'auteur' Uwe Boll, this singularly fails as a film thanks to the absolutely excruciating production values, or rather lack of them.

There isn't much link to the first film aside from the titular character; even Kristanna Loken doesn't return, replaced instead by the instantly forgettable Natassia Malthe. The story has been removed from its medieval origins and instead takes place in a western town and the whole film is full of western clichés. There's some very small novelty from seeing Michael Pare playing Pat Garrett but the rest of the film is dull of long, dull dialogues and very little in the way of horror or action.

Even worse, for some reason Boll decides to shoot 95% of this film at night, in almost pitch black scenes with very little lighting. Thus much of the action (and the characters) remain almost invisible for long stretches of time. Needless to say that the script is a mess relying on clichés to get by, and the use of a 10 second piece of music over and over and OVER again is exceptionally annoying!

Natassia Malthe was the main reason i saw this; she was as good as she always is. She brought a passion ans intensity that made the movie actually seem like a movie (as opposed to a poorly funded student film, or high school play.) The sets looked like they were recycled from a long dead stereotypical western (hence why i compare it to a high school play.) And the acting from most, if not all the minor characters, left allot to be desired.

But i am giving it a 5/10 because of the rare moments where I was pleasantly surprised; rare moments when the characters go beyond what is expected.

After defeating the evil vampire in "Bloodrayne", we are taken to the Old West in 1800s America. Now, Rayne must face off against Billy the Kid, a vampire cowboy, who has killed or captured many of her friends and taken a town hostage. With her blades and a new sidekick, she just might be able to do it.

A lot of people this this is a horrible movie. And they're probably right. It's got cheesy acting, poor scenery, amateur camera work. But the difference between this and the first one is clear: here, the idea was to have fun and they succeed. In the first one, the goal seemed to be making a wonderful movie, which just wasn't possible with Uwe Boll in charge. A bad movie isn't always bad when the people involved know they're making something bad and have fun doing it.

I had a bit of difficulty adjusting to Natassia Malthe as Rayne. I guess she's supposed to be one of Maxim's hottest girls or something, but the original Rayne was far sexier (and had a better outfit). Luckily, we had Boll regular Zack Ward for Billy the Kid, who was simply amazing. He put his heart and soul into the character and the accent every aspect. The character may be stupid (in what universe was BTK a vampire?) but Ward did the best to make him a good villain.

I really enjoyed the new characters of the preacher and that other guy (not sure what he was supposed to be). The preacher's sermon was a highlight of the film, surpassed only by the children in nooses scene. I really think that was clever and was impressed that something like that was thrown in.

The only really bad thing about this film, other than the low quality of everything, was the continuity. We had to adjust to a new lead actress. We never get it explained why Rayne is now in America, centuries in the future. Is this "real" time or an alternate dimension, because using a historical figure like Billy seemed a bad idea. But the biggest question of all is: where is Billy Zane? As I recall, he showed up in the first film for no particular reason and then vanished. So we still likely have a centuries-old vampire on the loose. Played by Billy Zane, I might add (this bears repeating).

Thank you Boll for getting rid of the bad accents and word choices. Thanks for getting rid of the blood that was excessive. Thanks for slowing the action scenes down -- not everything has to be in fast forward. And thank very much for getting rid of unnecessary flashbacks (I thought for sure we'd get at least one). For those who hated the first film (and this includes me), I strongly recommend giving the sequel a chance. If you have low expectations (which you must if you're picking up a straight-to-DVD Boll sequel), you will be sweetly rewarded.

The sequel is an unmitigated disaster. This is definitely worthy of the title of modern Ed Wood picture. Well, maybe not. Wood's films are entertainingly bad. Like all the worst movies ever made, Boll's films are just dreadfully boring. This one actually has a decent premise to start with: set in the Wild West (vampires, even half ones, I guess, are immortal), Rayne (the role taken over by Natassia Malthe) must kill a vampire Billy the Kid (Zack Ward), who has taken over a small town. Now, the idea of a vampire Billy the Kid sold me on the movie immediately. That could be hilarious, right? Sigh. It didn't even feel like there was a director on the set of this one. Almost nothing happens. It feels like they were working off a script written on a cocktail napkin, a script that consisted of only the words "Billy Kid is a vampire". And has an Eastern European accent for some reason. And who prefers to feast on children, which gives the entire movie, as bad as it already is, an even more unlikeable tone. Wonder whose decision that was. This one doesn't even have the good taste to show the audience boobs, and the gore budget was obviously a lot lower. Gun fights are a lot more boring than sword fights, even poorly done sword fights. This is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Part two of a series of straight to DVD Rayne vampire movies, this handsome looking low budget adult Western rides along OK, with all action actress Nataassia Maithe as Rayne the Vampire killer and Zack Ward playing Billy the kid, the Vampire boss who comes to the town Deliverance, waiting for the new railroad to come to town so that he can send his new souls across America. Fun for the late night audience, this gets by on Maithe's charm,looks and fighting abilities and Wards menacing vampire. Don't expect much and you will be pleased. The music score sounds very much like Close Every Door, a song from Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.This series has quite a following here in the UK.There are also some minor cuts for the TV version here in UK.

'Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance' was seen out of curiosity to see if they were as bad as its terrible reputation, like the other two films in the trilogy. As well as seeing whether one of the worst directors of all time Uwe Boll was capable of making a good film. Something was slightly intriguing though about the premise for the film, it did sound cheesy and didn't think to myself "hey maybe this could be a guilty pleasure".

No such luck. The first 'Bloodrayne' was awful and deserving of its reputation. So is 'Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance', both with the same flaws pretty much that deciding which is worse between the two is very difficult. Came to the conclusion watching the first film that Boll is incapable of making a halfway decent film. That feeling has not changed at all here. As someone who is usually very generous rating and reviewing films, 'Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance' is down there with the worst sequels but doesn't have the issue of disgracing the original film with the original film here not being good in the first place. Everything is abysmally executed and there are no redeeming qualities at all, have said that about very few films seen recently.

'Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance' once again couldn't be worse on a visual level. 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 is never dynamic with anything on screen, often working against it and like it belonged in another film entirely, on top of that it is very unpleasant to listen to.

Writing is atrocious beyond belief, it doesn't flow and the cheesines gets far too much, enough to make one want to vomit and again became exhauted by the amount of unintentional camp there was. 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.

Acting is not much better. The lead Natassia Malfe is a little superior, at least there is a little more emotion, but one doesn't remember her very much afterwards. Meanwhile the rest of the cast provide far too much ham that one can bear, Michael Pare especially over-compensating.

Overall, awful first sequel and certainly does not stop the heart. 1/10 Bethany Cox

For a lot of bad movies, you can simply say to yourself that the person making them is probably a wonderful person in real life. Not with Boll. He actually physically attacks his critics and once backed out from a fight because the critic was a good boxer. I know little about boxing, but could try my hand at him. This is another one of his awful movies. They say there's no good direct to video movies, especially when the original film was terrible to begin with. This manages to even worse than the original as it repeats the mistakes and actually adds some new ones.

So this movie takes place in the Old West and it's pretty easy to say that this is the worst Western I've seen in my entire life. Was this something from the BloodRayne games? I don't know and I don't care. It's awful no matter how you look at. We get to see the same idiotic slow motion scenes over and over. After the first ten times, it really becomes aggravating. He does this same thing again when a woman has sex with a guy after meeting him for a minute or so. A lot of this movie is filmed in the dark and it's just ugly to look at. This isn't your "Alone In The Dark" movie, Uwe.

This film is also just plain mean spirited. There are actually scenes where children are being bitten and have their blood sucked out. There's a scene where half a dozen of them are about to be hanged at the same time. The scene where the guy cuts himself so Rayne can drink his blood isn't very pleasant either. There's one character who's a priest that talks about how God is sending people to Hell and hates gays. Guess what? He's actually a good guy! There's this obnoxious fat reporter who keeps appearing too. It looks like he's going to die a few times, but he unfortunately lives. 1/2*

Following the original Bloodrayne, this follow up was released two years later and is possibly worst than the original. It is essentially more of the same with not much improvement, if any at all. Replacing Kristanna Loken is Natassia Malthe as the title character and she may because slightly better showing more emotion. Although one doesn't remember her very much afterwards. Meanwhile the rest of the cast provide far too much ham that one can revolve to. The story takes place in the West and is simply more boring with less thrills, suspense or anything really exciting or engaging. Overall it was hard to stay fully focused until the end. A lot of the film could have been trimmed down.

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!

while not the worst movie i have seen,this one ranks right up(or down)there.it's a wild west/vampire movie,but it pretty much fails on both counts.there's very little action,and what little action there is is,is unexciting.the story isn't very good,although it could have been.i haven't heard dialogue this bad in a while,and it's delivered just as bad.this movie also tries to take itself seriously,which doesn't work here.there is no campiness,like there was in the first BloodRayne movie.the acting leaves a lot to be desired,and that may be because the actors realized how bad the movie was.Natassia Malthe plays the title character Rayne,and she looks pretty hot,but is given little to do,so it's hard to say if she is a good actress or not.she is given some horrendous dialogue,and doesn't come across very well,but again that could just be the material.i don't think i would base anyone's acting ability on this movie.just my opinion,of course.for me,BloodRayne II:Deliverance is a 2/10

Bad. Pretty bad. Awfully bad. Horrendously bad. Spectacularly bad. Uwe Boll bad.

This is only the second Uwe Boll movie I've seen all the way through. The first one was "BloodRayne", which I actually thought wasn't as bad as its reputation. This one, however, is in a class by itself. Actually, it's more like a species by itself. Everything about this movie is lousy. You name it, this movie sucks at it. The "acting" is either comatose or so over the top it belongs in a 1912 melodrama. Boll, for some reason, suddenly changes "direction" and goes for a spaghetti western feel--all twanging guitar background music, long (long, long, long . . . ) takes, extreme close-ups of squinting eyes, twitching lips and bad teeth, and slow-motion "action" scenes, and it doesn't work at all. Also working against it is an absolutely idiotic "script"--for lack of a better word--and a shaky camera (another poster rightly noted that steadicams were invented for a reason, which has apparently escaped Boll's notice).

The actress who replaced the blonde in the first "BloodRayne", who wasn't particularly good to begin with, isn't even up to her standards. But this is a Uwe Boll film, which means it isn't up to ANYBODY'S standards. Like I said, this is the second Uwe Boll film I actually sat through. It's almost certain to be the last. Avoid this stinker at all costs.

This one really surprised me an blew me away with style, story, humor and sensuality. I expected a vampire movie on the order of Blade and got that, but so much more. Uwe Boll made an absolutely fantastic western in the tradition of Sergio Leone. Take out vampires entirely and this has to be one of the best Western's made in the last 40 years. While many characters are vampires, only Billy the Kid played by Zach Ward seems to be a real vampire with traditional tastes. He has made the rest of the town's thugs into lackey slaves with fangs. If anything Natassia Malthe is even sexier and more effective playing the role of Rayne that Kristina. I loved her high kicks and would like to have seen more of them. Expect more bullets than bites, more gunfights than stakes through the heart and more leather than skin on Rayne. This is absolutely in my top 50 movies of all time and I've seen over 10,000. I prey for Uwe to make Rayne 3 as well as more westerns and I can't wait to see more of Natassia Malthe in anything.

Bloodrayne 2 Deliverance is the sequel to Bloodrayne. I know a lot of people hated the first movie, I actually enjoyed it though. It was a bloody good movie and fun to watch. Bloodrayne 2 is very different from the first movie. First of all, Kristanna Loken isn't in this movie. Rayne is now played by Natassia Malthe, who looks more like Rayne from the video game series in my opinion. Anyway the movie is about Billy The Kid, who is a vampire trying to take over the west. Billy and a bunch of his vampire pals kidnap kids and take over a little town called Deliverance! This movie is no where near as graphic as the first movie. You hardly ever see any vampire fangs. There are no flash backs from the first movie either, nothing is even mentioned about Rayne's fight with her father and how she's a vampire queen and all that. I still enjoyed the movie though; it was a bit slow at times, but got better later on. I liked the Billy The Kid character, he was pretty crazy, mean as heck too. The Preacher had my laughing too. Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance is a good sequel, but no where near as cool as the first movie. I look forward to Uwe Boll's Postal movie, looks like a very crazy movie! I bet it will get banned for sure!

I give Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance a Bloodsucking 7.5/10

P.S. You get a free game once again too with the DVD. This time you get Bloodrayne for PC

I never gave 1 before, my first time, i usually find something positive in everything, but here i can't. The movie was boring, and i could have give it 1 or 2 more stars if it wasen't a total butchery of one of my favourite game ever... I am still to date a huge Bloodrayne Fan, having the comics, the games, the statue(limited, costed 275$...) and even tough i may not be as much as before into it due to the fact that games are done(i have doubt about this DS version i eared) and even the comics seem to be done. But i remain a big fan and when this piece of garbage came... i couldn't believe it... The first one was bad, but it did tried to incorporate some element of the game like Gore, Rayne's costume not too much far from the game, the Brimstone society... But it had lot of things bad(Rayne's hair being wrong, no green eyes, story far from the game) Its pretty much stupid because its not like there is 10 games release like Resident Evil and they have to incorporate stuff of the more recent one to stay up to date, here they had only 2 games to deal with. And the funny thing is neither of the 2 movies are based on the 2 games. I can understand Boll wanting to make a kind of "prequel" to the first game(even tough some things don't fit) but he had no excuses for this cowboy sequel... Worst part is that the third movie is coming out and its based on.... yes the first game... talk about something stupid. Anyway to get back on this movie, it have nothing to do with the game... Rayne's hair are black, no green eyes once again, her blades are barely use(she almost use only guns), the costume is miles away from the game, the gore is almost absent, the villain is crap (and never saw in the game) and the whole story is boring as it can be. I do love Natassia as an actress(she was pretty good as Ayane in DOA), but she IS NO RAYNE at all, and she is returning for the third movie....yeah right... Anyway this Bloodrayne 2 is really the biggest slap in the face ever to a video game franchise... even more than Mortal Kombat Annihilation or Street Fighter that where awful but tried a little to had things of the game.