Compared to the first movie, at least. Not that that is saying much. But at least it was mildly more entertaining than the first one.
...Dan
Movies, Captions, Hotties and more: http://www.captiongallery.com
Compared to the first movie, yeah it's an improvement.
Had a nicer supporting cast.
--
Bonecrusher hates you. Yeah. You. Don't pretend you don't know. Bonecrusher hates ignorance.
[deleted]
Quite bad but nowhere near as bad as people say i think as soon as people see a Boll movie they give it a 1. I agree he is not a good director but all his movies ive seen are entertaining in a brain dead sort of way.
shareWasn't awful like some of the people lambasting it around here. I mean, it wasn't From Dusk Till Dawn, but it had an ounce of charm. I'll even give it a 4. I liked it WAY more than it's predecessor, I'll tell you that!
People just can't see past the director is all. I guess Boll's given them good reason, but I always pull for the underdog.
c'monn.. first is a decent 6/10 movie, with good actors and acceptable acting.. second is a 3/10 garbage with awful script and acting, felt more like a comedy or parody...
"It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is progress!"
this first movie was okay. I find it hilariously bad in a good way. the second movie is so boring and horrible. the third movie gave the second actress picked to play blood rayne a chance to redeem herself after a terrible introduction in the sequel.
shareI would say part one was better. Im so bored with part 2 im typing this as im watching it...and this is the first time i've watched this. Kristanna was better..in my opinion..no connection to the original...not enough action. I like michael pare but how is he in the second one playing a cowboy? Maybe its a tribute to return of the living dead 2. Zack ward was funny on titus but sucks as a vampire.
shareI was bored by part two in fact just finished watching. this needed more blood a 4\10
Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today