BloodRayne II: Deliverance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.