BloodRayne (2005)

OK, I am locking my doors as I write this but really people! Look I know the movie bombed, I know the director is a dumb nut but by sitting here and writing for two hours about how watching the movie was such a waste of time - you are only wasting more time! I am so sick of how reviews pick what you watch, play, and buy now-days! I thought it was a neat little movie!, A bit cheap and heavy on the phony blood but not that bad all around. What does make the movie look bad is when you jump online and read a huge amount of errors in the movie so you can be looking for them.I think that if I had just watched the movie it would have been good. Bottom line, watch something if you want to know what you think of it, don't let others witch and moan and keep you from getting your own opinion.

Fmovies: So women sometime before the XIX, but after the XVI century traveled alone on horseback, half-naked, always cold, carrying swords in their backs, and the cities were a model of pulchritude. Yeah, right. It does not even work as a metaphor. When the director wants to show us an evil character, there is a Ben Kinsgley with an over-sized wig remembering in black and white his cruel dialog: "Tell me where is my damphir" "No" says the mother. "Tell me" "No" Pum! Pow! The scariest thing of this movie is to see such potentially good actors in such lame dialogs. You will experience anguish as an spectator, as you feel other people's shame (the actors). Even if you like awful movies (sometimes I do), please do not waste your money in this one. The director might be encouraged to punish us again. I wish IMDb had negative stars.

Okay, I actually kind of liked this movie. Why? Well, as far as pure entertainment goes, I was actually entertained. I laughed at a lot of the acting and dialog, and the fight editing was a nightmare, but in the end, I still had a decent time with the movie. It gave me what I expected, but with some decent (and some really bad) acting.

Let's start with the Ed Wood pluses, also known as the "so bad it's good" material. For starters, Ben Kingsley. I have never seen such an accomplished actor do such a terrible job in my life! I couldn't stop laughing whenever he was on screen. I mean, it really seemed as if it was just a wax dummy of him set on a chair. His dialog was uber flat, and I honestly think they just got a sample of his voice and had a computer read his lines. But... he made the entire movie uber campy. It just felt right. Also, there is the clunky dialog. Some of the dialog does work, namely when the characters speak in more modern dialects, but when they try to get all old English or whatever the words become clunkier than a cart with square wheels being pulled by a man with no arms and legs. Michael Madsen also phoned in his performance, but it was ten times better than the "acting" he did in Sin City. And by the end of the movie I had very few problems with him. He did what he had to, nothing more. So, there are the bad parts. They seem minor, but oh are they major. Namely because they are all constantly apparent. One bad part that wasn't funny was the constant shots of people riding on horses. It got old very fast.

The actual good parts come in the form of a few things. For one is Michelle Rodrigez. She really, honestly tried with this movie, and came off as very credible. Her accent, her movements, everything... it just worked. She made this movie watchable. Also, the lead was very well played by Kristina Lochen (sp?). Her dialog is junk, but she can fight, and she plays the tough girl very well. And she looked the part. And Billy Zane, in a small role, is a blast to watch. He eats the cheesy dialog up, and you can tell he is enjoying himself. They should have given him more screen time! A big plus for this movie is the fact that there is actually a coherent story this time. Yes, actually story in a Bolle video game movie! It's not a great story, but it's a fleshed out, coherent story. Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead both were messes in the story department, basically moving from action scene to action scene. Here there is more time for characters to talk, interact. For any other director this movie would be a total disaster, but looking at Bolle's past video game adaptations I would have to say that he is improving in leaps and bounds. He's still not a great director, but he's getting better.

The usual problems come up though. The fight scenes are horribly edited, with some very bad film speed affects being thrown in. He needs to stop doing that, because he actually gets the fight angles right. He shoots from more of a distance, allowing the audience to see the action. Sadly the editing is so off, and some of the effects so distracting, that some decent action seems incoherent and choppy.

Over all, well, this movie is far from being good, but it does what it set out to do. It's actually about on par with the first Mortal Kombat movie. I am not a fan of the director by any means, but I have to say, I had no problem with this movie. I got a kick out of it. It has it's cheese value, and I knew that it would. If you go

BloodRayne fmovies. 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.

I almost forgot that I had seen this a month ago. I remember being excited more for the fact that Uwe Boll was in attendance so I could hear what he had to say about film-making.

Well, let's say his comments before and after the movie are revelations as to why he makes such crappy films. First off, he can't grasp why people savage his movies so much. He feels that the internet community gives him a hard time because he's German and he makes his movies with Nazi money (his quote, not mine. Of course, he was joking, right?) Secondly, he couldn't care less if the actors he has are right for the roles. In fact, finding actors is his last thing he does to secure financing for his films. Apparently, he thinks the story is strong enough to carry the film. So, this is why we end up with actors like Ben Kinglsey working alongside Michael Madsen. Really, the only thing they had was the time to do the movie and the earning of a paycheck. So, if this doesn't strike you as soulless film-making, I don't know what does. In essence, by waiting until the last possible moment to hire actors, he can make his movies with a secured budget.

Th reason why I write this is because I heard his new "epic" In the Name of the King will be a four hour film split in half like Kill Bill. This depressed me to no end. Uwe Boll really is the next Ed Wood, even though Ed Wood cared about his actors and films.

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.