MovieChat Forums > BloodRayne (2006) Discussion > Shees! Give this guy a break.

Shees! Give this guy a break.

posted 16 years ago by LachieD
28 replies | jump to latest

Just saw BloodRayne tonight.

So yes, Uwe Boll did make some horrible movies before (and I assume after), but BloodRayne is so far away from bottom 100 IMDB films that this volume of antagonism toward it puzzles me. I doubt all this is a result of "gaming geeks' rage". I guess a lot of people are being unfair (and seem to enjoy in that very much) toward this below average and flawed vampire slaying action flick because of Boll's "previous sins".

BloodRayne is definitely watchable and mildly entertaining, delivered with respectable skill in most technical aspects. Around 4/10 by my book.

Grow up!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] michaelecanada 16 years ago

Chewbacca defense? elaborate please.

[–] Griever_2112 16 years ago

Watch South Park

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c_lavranos 16 years ago

your right.

a 4 out of 10 should be considered watchable...

Come on man! Respectable skill??

Did you watch the meatloaf scene? Or how about the dude from reservoir dogs holding his sword like he was drunk? I agree with the other post, Uwe should have just made this an adult movie that could have been enjoyed, rather than a terrible "normal" movie

[–] LaraCroftLegacy 16 years ago

nope
Bloodrayne is unwatchable and it is crappy movie

DarkAlessa now the end of day and Iam the Reaper:silent hill

[–] LachieD 16 years ago

Yes. Respectable skill. Costumes, setting, camera work, cinematography. You obviously like to pretend you don't know how movies are made and what kind of effort needs to be invested so one could actually look like something on BloodRayne level.

You also like to pretend you don't know what "unwatchable" means. Go to www.badmovies.org, and look up for few rated with a skull. Now that's something that deserves to be on IMDB bottom 100. Like I said, BloodRayne is below average (and poor if you like), but far from unbearable.

Give it rest.

[–] amon_101 16 years ago

The greatest camerawork, the best designed sets, the most awesome cinematography, the perfect costunes have no value when the direction and the acting have no inspiration. As has been mentioned numerous times, both are present in abundant quantity. The screenplay was also severely lacking. It takes some very bad acting (or very good, but I doubt that was the case here) to make a sex scene look amateurish. And why were the actors so afraid of using contractions? I would be willing to bet one can count the number of contractions in the film without going past one's own ten fingers. The one bright spot, at least for me, was Michelle Rodriguez as Katarin. She looked like she was actually trying, and easily was the best at handling a sword.
Instead of "watching" the film, try ENJOYING the film. After all, that's the bottom line on whether it's a good film or not. Whether you agree or not about that fact is irrelevent. That's the bottom line. If people don't enjoy the film, the things you mentioned don't matter. And when the acting and directing are lacking in passion, it drags everything else down to that level.
I do agree that the sets and costuming were good.
BloodRayne is of very little value. When BloodRayne 2 surpasses it in enjoyability, there has to be something wrong with BloodRayne.
By the way, I rated it at a strong 2.

...Dan

Movies, Captions, Hotties and more: http://www.captiongallery.com

[–] bbsy 16 years ago

This film is only watchable im small doses. Any scene that doesn't involve Kristanna Loken or the walking penis is unbearable to watch.

VOTE FLAIR/RHODES 08!!!!
My name for today is...

[–] ThomasMuf 16 years ago

I agree. All these Boll haters need to get a life!

BloodRayne is average genre fare. It's well photographed, (for the most part) well edited and scored, the acting is as good as you can reasonably expect with half the cast being drunk (Madsen is an alcoholic who is drunk on each and every of his films). It reminds me of the Hammer films. Kind of claustrophobic, with limited sets and costumes, but a good rhythm and enough cheap thrills to make you forget the lulls.

[–] bbsy 16 years ago

For the most part? Like when? The scenary?

VOTE FLAIR/RHODES 08!!!!
My name for today is...

[–] ThomasMuf 16 years ago

Only the action scenes are chaotically edited, and this is basically because not one of the performers is a martial arts specialist - and because Michael Madsen was too drunk, and Kingley too old, to properly hold and wield a sword.

I have seen piles of *beep* genre movies coming from the US, from the 1980s Joseph Merhi/Richard Pepin-produced schlock to the 1990s straight-to-video fodder. BloodRayne is a competent film by comparison!

[–] tramsbottom 16 years ago

I agree. I could only stomach about five minutes of House of the Dead, and AITD was almost as bad, but I actually thought this was (for Boll) pretty damn entertaining. There were continuity mistakes up the wazzoo and the story and dialogue were bad but otherwise this was far from the worst of the worst. Madsen was obviously drunk (no change of expression as he's stabbed gives it away) but Kristanna Loken in tight leather clothes for 90 mins was enough to keep me hooked. At least Boll seems to be improving.

[–] frostbite3789 16 years ago

Maybe if Boll could come up with his own material and not use character developed in games people wouldn't criticize him so much. He takes characters other people have developed and just drives them into the ground. If he wants to drive his own characters into the ground thats fine.

Its just like I dislike the RE movies, because they take the source material and use it as toilet paper. I'm sure if I weren't a fan of the RE games, those movies would be fine.

---------
Thanks ants, thants.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blazin_Angel 16 years ago

Wow, it's fascinating that there are people out there that are actually defending this movie. Believe me it's on a rare occasion that I actually waste time going onto a board of a film I dislike to say something derogatory about it. But this movie is shockingly bad. They didn't even try to capture the essence of the game at all, which obviously the supporters have never played.

Such comments insinuating that the fight scenes where terrible because none of the cast where martial arts experts is ludicrous. Guess what, most actors aren't! That’s why stunt doubles are hired! Oh yes and I can’t forget the reason why the acting is so poor is nothing to do with what the actors are working with or how they are being directed. It’s because they are all drunks! Well answer me this if Madsen is drunk for everyone of his movies then how come a decent director can get a good performance out of him? Hint: the answer is in the question.

Basically what it comes down to is if you can appreciate this substandard garbage as a good work of art then maybe watching films isn’t a good use of your time. Maybe you could try janitorial work, seeing as s*** obviously amuses you.

Bored Now

[–] fritzlang 16 years ago

Well, I just watched this and I thought it was fair. A little slow paced, but this is NOT the work of an untalented hack. At least I could sit through this - which is more than I can say for the Hulk (1st one), Matrix reloaded, or any of the Star Wars sequels.

The biggest faults I saw were Michael Madsen and Ben Kingsley. I know some people say 'well, look at what they had to work with!". Sorry - that's a lame excuse. These folks didn't even put in any effort at all. I have seen high school students auditioning for a part - never having read or acted before- who delivered lines better than Madsen. even if an actor thinks the script and movie is crap, I feel they should give it their best shot. Look at Geraldine Page's cameo - she was great! She put her soul in that little scene. I also think Billy Zane did a great job - he approached this as a B part in a B-movie (which it was) and tried to have some fun with it. So don't blame Boll for Masden's performace. Check him out on Sin City - he sucked there too. It just ain't just the director folks!

As for Kingsley. Again, there was no excuse for his poor acting.. He spoke like Madsen on Quaaludes. Ugh. He is supposed to be a great actor - couldn't he have put at least SOME emotion in his delivery? Who was his teacher - Nick Cage?

This is an early effort from Dr. Boll, and while the movie is not a terribly good one, I have seen much much much worse over my 40 years of watching film.

Even if you think this movie is bad - it does not deserve an imdb rating of 2. That is just plain nuts, and I wonder how many people trashed this film with a 1 or 2 BEFORE even seeing it?

Me- I would give this a 5...

On a related note: I recently have seen "Dungeon Siege" which both my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed. It was nice to see Dr. Boll improving himself as a director - there is definite improvements in camera work, editing, cinematography, etc. from BloodRayne to Dungeon Siege..count me in the minority that is looking forward to Dr. Boll increasing his skills and providing more entertaining films in the future.

btw. if someone thinks I have no taste in movies- I studied film in school, have made independent shorts, and have films by Fritz Lang, Sergei Eisenstein and Jean Renoir in my DVD collection. No of course this film doesn't even compare to any of the lessor works of these great directors. But that doesn't mean this man deserves to be trashed as the worse director who has ever lived.

Just my opinion, which I understand may not be shared by many.

[–] Crazyfatcat_2000 16 years ago

Okay, you obviously don't know why people don't like this movies. He screwed up the story. Bloodrayne takes place in World War II. The movie takes place in the 1700's, um wtf. Also, the third movie takes place in the wild west, there wasn't even a third game.

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 16 years ago

Most directors and screenwriters exercise some "creative license" over a story, no matter how well-known the director or the story. Boll appears to be among the worst of those who abuse that. The general consensus seems to be that he should have his creative license revoked.

They said this was supposed to be the 1700's. Boll must think Romania was about 300 to 500 years behind the rest of Europe from the look of the costumes and the villages. (Exception to that must be made for Rayne and what's-her-name. Not many women in that era were running around showing so much bare skin, let alone tan lines from a thong. Nor were they wearing skin-tight leather trousers, they wore voluminous wool skirts. Not to mention wielding weapons, no matter how obviously blunt. — Look what happened to Joan of Arc.)

Regarding those weapons, did anyone else notice that they looked like modern stainless steel?

Also: The rest of Europe had been using black powder since the 1400's. That's how England and Spain were able to take over the "New World" so easily.

Have you noticed that, in Shakespeare's day, soothsayers said the sooth, the whole sooth, and nothing but the sooth?

[–] wolverine566 16 years ago

The biggest pile S_H_I_T i've ever seen. Can't believe I sat through this movie. Only thing worth seeing was probably Kristanna Loken's tits in the sex scene

[–] fireyhope 16 years ago

LOL @ people comparing this to other worst movies, Ed Wood was considered the worst director of his time because his movies were considered mainstream!

so is Uwe Boll. His movies somehow make it onto mainstream media and movie theathres.

Uwe Boll IS the worst mainstream director of our time just like Uwe Boll.