BloodRayne (2005) User Reviews

why?!

[mysticwit · 2/10 · 27 October 2005]

This is singularly one of the worst films I've ever seen. After seeing a wide selection of decent horror at Fantastic Fest a few weeks ago, I expected this to have some substance because it was picked to screen at the Austin Film Festival. All I can think of is that someone must have blackmailed the programmers because it's terrible.

The dailogue is either very cliché, or very stilted (and often both). There are serious continuity issues. The gratuitous sex scene was so completely sudden it seemed like an excerpt from a porn movie. The wigs are terrible, and the costuming as bad. There is no character development, and the motivations shown on screen seem more like red herrings than anything else.

I can't think of anything redeeming about this film other than I didn't pay money just to see it.

Some of it really cracked me up

[vk-11 · 4/10 · 28 June 2006]

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.

Confirms the worst of what people think of Boll...

[mentalcritic · 2/10 · 3 October 2006]

When I heard that Uwe Boll had challenged several of his critics to a boxing match, I thought it was an example of the man failing to understand reactions. Rather than come out looking like a misunderstood hero, he comes off as a spoiled child. So when I hear people calling Uwe the new Ed Wood, I just want to point out that this demonstrates ignorance regarding Wood. It is insulting to the poor guy. You see, Wood made one of the most daring (if staggeringly inept) films that challenged people's perceptions of transvestism and gender roles, long before this became a common theme in Hollywood. His major feature was that he lived only to make films, and did so because of motives other than cash. Boll, on the other hand, says absolutely nothing in his films that is of any value, and has shown himself in the media to be the most cynical, thoughtless idiot that ever drew breath. Another classic example of the difference between Boll and Wood, perfectly illustrated by BloodRayne, is that Wood's films made narrative sense.

If you have not played any of the video games upon which BloodRayne is based, then it will make very little sense to you. The parts about Rayne being the child of a vampire and a human, I get, but the film is loaded with references to artifacts that the villain needs in order to gain power, which Rayne must obviously stop him from acquiring. This reminds me of the sequence from Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings in which the explanation of what the One Ring is and what it does was meant to be delivered. By failing to deliver this critical information in a manner that makes sense to the viewer, both films end up disjointed and pointless. Only BloodRayne makes it much, much worse by jumping around from location to location, showing confrontations between Rayne and various enemies without a pause for explanation as to why this is significant. Ten bucks to anyone who can figure out exactly why Boll chose to end the film with a bunch of flashbacks to disjointed events that have no connection to the film's "present time", when the climactic slaying would have done just fine.

Another of Boll's few talents is to classically miscast. Kristanna Loken is surprisingly good as the titular character, and puts in a far better performance than I would have credited her with after that abysmal Terminator rip-off. It is certainly far better than the film deserves. Michelle Rodriguez looks extremely angry to be there. Matthew Davis has this stupid expression on his face all the time that appears to be him begging for some direction. Michael Madsen, Billy Zane, and Udo Kier literally are on autopilot. But Meat Loaf, the poor guy, seems to be trying to take his role seriously, and never have I see an actor look so uncomfortable in his work. He almost looks as if he is going to have a stroke from all the "what the hell am I doing here?" instructions his brain is trying to process. But the real gem here is Ben Kingsley, winner of one Academy Award and nominee for three others. He seriously looks as if he is going to burst out in laughter at any second during his scenes with Loken. And who can honestly blame him?

A mention must be made of the abysmal special effects here, too. Boll at least knows that the audience for a film based on this video game expects to see blood, and a lot of it. However, like every other aspect of his films, the delivery is so staggeringly inept that it makes one wonder how Boll can be so blind to this. Not only does the head of one opponent look despicably fake, the looks on the faces of the extras when they are shown chopping things up with their swords is utterly hilarious. Someone had to direct them to assume that expression, as swinging an actual sword hard enough to sever a limb involves enough exertion that one at least pulls some kind of face in the process. They said it best in Showdown In Little Tokyo - beheadings are not as easy as they look. Yet Boll seems to think he can silence individuals who feel he is utterly inept as a director by hitting them. If I could say one thing to his face right now, it would be that keeping silent and working on making a genuinely good film would have worked a lot more.

So I mean it when I say this film is not as bad as many others have said - it is even worse. A competent director like Wolfgang Petersen would have connected the story together properly, and at least shot the violence in a convincing fashion. A brilliant director such as Paul Verhoeven would have found a way to satirise the social mores of the eighteenth century, and delivered enough convincing violence to give the MPAA fits at the same time. As much as Boll would like to pretend otherwise on the basis of sales figures in countries where they would probably not understand the abysmal dialogue anyway, he is nowhere near the league of Petersen or Verhoeven. And that is a big part of what makes his films so insulting to the general public. Boll would like us to believe that he is some kind of misunderstood genius who keeps striking out with critics because they do not understand his message. Well, Boll, the disjointed plot aside, I understand you just fine. The thing is, when I do understand your films, I do not want them anymore.

So I gave BloodRayne a two out of ten. A one would only further its position on the bottom one hundred, and it is deserving of infamy in neither sense of the word. Avoid.

A Must See!!!

[glennsouthall · 1/10 · 1 May 2006]

Just kidding...just kidding!! Why, after wasting nearly 2 hours of my life watching this trash, should I waste another hour or so dissing this movie, when everything about it has already been killed stone dead by previous reviewers? Because, dear friends, I am so excited I just had to share with you my delight at finding the "worst cameo of all time", so magnificent in its awfulness that it could (with sheer effort of will) only be equalled, but never beaten.

It was Sunday. Raining. What the hell, "Bloodrayne" sounded good. Hmmm, Masden, Kingsley, Zane...can't be so bad.

After around 20 minutes or so of this "crowning turd" of a movie my "intellectual defence mechanism" automatically kicked-in and took my mind away to my next vacation, what to have for dinner, and the contents of my Partner's trousers. Sailing away on a sea of serenity(did I actually fall asleep?)I thought myself immune and totally protected from the train wreck of a movie unfolding on the other side of my eyelids. But then....wait! What's this? Snippets of dialogue totally unconnected with the Tequilla Sunrise I was drinking began to pervade my mind. Slowly at first, but growing in intensity. Warily, fearful that I may inadvertently catch another glimpse of Ben Kingsley's excruciating acting/staring, I opened one eye. Was I seeing/hearing things? I pulled myself up in the chair and opened the other eye (after assuring myself that Kingsley was nowhere to be seen). There, in front of me...what can never be described by a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters for a thousand years. The root canal work of movie making, the Xanadu of awfulness....Meatloaf trying to character-act.

I checked out the other movie-goers...hmmm, not many left....and they were all, very much like myself, staring wide eyed and open mouthed at witnessing the birth of a legend. Seriously, it was like watching the first moon landing all over again. This is one piece of crap for man...a whole turd for mankind.

I am sorry that I go on a little, but I cannot find words to describe the cameo piece by Meatloaf, in fact probably such words do not exist - they must be invented - "discrapungent" - try that one. I can only try to capture the magnificent awfulness by describing the effect that it had on myself and, I suspect, the other viewers.

If you haven't seen it (and I beg you all to do so) cut along to any cinema brave enough to show it and set your alarm clock for around 50 minutes. If you have trouble sleeping at the beginning, don't worry, Ben Kingsley will stare you into blessed catatonia....trust me.

Horrible!

[atalanta797 · 1/10 · 3 December 2005]

This was, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I knew a little bit about the video game this is based upon going in, and while I can't say I was a fan or knew all that much about the story, I figured I was going to get a kinda Buffy/Medieval Times kinda feel. I was SO wrong. The acting quality that I had expected was not there at all. In fact, even Ben Kingsley, who I thought would be good (I've liked other things of his) was awful. Kristinna Locken was so emotionless that you wanted to cry from frustration. Michelle Rodiguez was the only one with some convincing effort, but even then, she couldn't pull her character out of one-dimension. Although, the actors didn't have much to go on to begin with. The dialouge was laughably cliché in parts and simply pathetic in others. It did NOTHING to help convey the characters emotions or thoughts, nor did it do well with explaining the story, trying for flashy and confusing explanations when simplicity was needed and other times being far too simple. All in all, this movie was horrible.

Man, this movie blows

[bjduncan25 · 1/10 · 30 November 2005]

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.

Clearly not that bad as the haters want it

[pontram · 15 April 2014]

I want to strike a blow for a movie that seems to be one of the worst movies, when you follow the ratings and verdicts here. But it's easy here to rate one star without watching a movie, and also without giving one thought to.

Of course it isn't an artwork, a masterwork, or comparable to high budget productions a la Lord Of The Rings. Instead, it fits right into a solid line of straight-to-video productions, or some bigger TV Adventure movies, but is definitively enjoyable for people who don't expect a lifetime experience from Uwe Boll. But at least, one have to respect the genre outside the Tolkien realm. If not, the movie has no chance at all.

It is a simple story about a girl that wants revenge for the killing of her mother by her father, who is the most powerful Vampire, and also wants to be ruler of the world. Kristanna Loken as Rayne does a good Job being sexy, powerful and filled with hate and blood hunger. The others are OK, and Ben Kingsley does keep a low profile, because he has not very much to do except being old Ben Kingsley.

Directing is not great, I admit that, it is at max, zealous. Definitevly it is better than in any of the infamous Asylum Movies i've seen, in terms of storytelling, actors leading and so on. The only one bigger mistake is that the short history of Raynes romance with Sebastian is revealed at the end of the movie, so that the short sex scene with him looks quite unfounded.

If there wouldn't be so much blood and gore, it could pass as a movie for youngsters. I remember watching such movies (of course without gore and without nudity), when I was ten or twelve.

Unexceptional, but still a solid vampire movie

[misbegotten · 5/10 · 28 September 2008]

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.

Not that bad

[kevludwig · 5/10 · 30 March 2006]

After seeing the 2.2 IMDb rating and reading a handful of these reviews, I was expecting this movie to be completely unwatchable. I checked it out purely out of curiosity. As I watched, I kept waiting for it to get really, really bad -- to the point where I simply had to turn it off. Well, that never happened. The movie is enjoyable. Lots of Kristanna Loken eye-candy (and she actually puts some heart into her role), cool special effects, and some decent acting. Even Ben Kingsley, though practically motionless throughout the movie (as others have noted) comes alive in the last scene.

I found the 2004 made-for-TV "The Legend of Earthsea" to be worse, and it currently has a 5.3 rating. After 30 minutes I just couldn't take it any more. I had high expectations, having read the wonderful trilogy by Ursula K. LeGuin, whereas I know nothing about the video game that BloodRayne was based on. But honestly, the movie isn't nearly as dreadful as it's being portrayed here. I'm not familiar with Uwe Boll's other work (and hadn't even heard of him before this film), but I get the impression that lots of Boll haters are dragging its rating down.

This movie is an insult

[JuanBGutierrez · 1/10 · 18 January 2006]

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.

Nothing Worth Saving

[spacechannelfive · 1/10 · 14 November 2005]

Walking into a screening of Boll's latest cinematic turd, I tried to keep an open mind. Not an easy task, mind you; after the steaming piles that were "Alone in the Dark" and "House of the Dead", not to mention the trailer for the movie I was about to be subjected to, I had come to associate Uwe Boll's name with everything I hate about Hollywood and the trash they churn out on a weekly basis. Even then, I was unprepared.

Deviating tremendously from the source "material" (which wasn't inspiring in and of itself), Bloodrayne follows cosplay-wannabe Rayne as she hunts down Ben Kingsley's "Kagan", lord of the vampires. Whereas I've been a fan of Kingsley since "Sneakers", but his performance in this film is about as intriguing as watching paint dry. Michael Madsen looks like he's about to yawn in almost every scene (probably bored to tears). Kristanna Loken, besides being grossly miscast, couldn't act her way out of a paper bag...someone save this girl, please! Only Michelle Rodriguez could be considered even tolerable, but her performance is nowhere even close to on par as it was in "Resident Evil".

Awkward dialogue, terrible camera work, poorly choreographed fight scenes (were they even choreographed at all?), sex for the sake of sex, and a plot so simple it seemed possible to screw up (and yet he did), Boll once again proves his directorial ineptitude. This guy couldn't direct traffic if he wanted to, as proved (once again) by this train wreck of a film.

Why 10 star?

[loki_vina · 10/10 · 7 August 2022]

I'm giving this 10 stars to balance out all the atrocious ratings this movie has been getting. 2.9? If you can't rate something objectively, please don't do it. To me a 2.9 movie is a LOT worse than BloodRayne. 2.9 is something you can barely call a movie, this is not the case here.

So, how does it fare? I've played the games, and if you're looking for a perfect adaptation of the dilogy, this is not it. But I must say that they got the vibe of the games right, at least when the violence is concerned. Lots of blood and decaptations.

But that doesn't really matter. This is a movie, and regardless of being an adaptation or not, it should be judged in its own merits.

So how does it fare as a movie? A lot better than all of the people here are making it out to be. This is NOT a great, one in a lifetime experience. This is NOT something that I think you should go out of your way to watch it. This is just a fun little movie, that doesn't take itself too seriously, and provides some good action, and decent acting and effects for what it is. DO watch it if you have some free time and an open mind.

But most of all, do not trust the 2.9 rating.

True rating: 5.9/10.

Don't Let Reviews Keep You From Watching This Film

[chrishabermehleve · 6/10 · 29 November 2010]

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.

Oh, come on, it wasn't that bad at all.

[Galagonya · 5/10 · 7 May 2007]

Such a bad rating for BloodRayne, now, really (this is not a prepaid advertisement), that seems unfair. There are so many really bad movies which would have to be on the 100 worst list.

I have to say in the defense of this film that it is at least watchable, and that Ben Kingsley and Geraldine Chaplin are in it (=they must have seen something in the script that we moviegoers did not see in the final version).

It is always so hard to tell where such fantasy movies go wrong, there seems to be such a very thin line between great and disastrous.

The problem here is maybe that the main character, Rayne, is rather a parody of herself. Further, the plot is somewhat a mock as well.

Still, the vampire-evil-good-fighting-horses-night-thing somehow also worked here for me, despite the doubtless flaws depicted above.

It is by far not the worst movie I have ever seen (by the way, who has ever-ever seen a good vampire movie, this one is still miles ahead of Interview with a Vampire or the Blade movies), although I am definitely not encouraging the sequel that is rumored to be in production. Do instead something decent with that money, for a change.

Another baby-step towards mediocrity.

[jaywolfenstien · 3 July 2006]

After watching BloodRayne, I am thoroughly convinced Uwe Boll will eventually make a good and entertaining movie (five years from now at the very very least.) As Alone in the Dark was a step up from House of the Dead, BloodRayne is a step up from Alone in the dark. Unfortunately, before he gets there Boll will have to continue to trek through the vast expanse of mediocrity one baby step at a time, and there is far more entertainment from a shamelessly bad movie than a merely mediocre one.

The opening credits take place over a nice little montage of paintings, then moves to a sunset in the mountains effectively establishing the mood in a surprisingly competent fashion. I found myself entertaining the idea, "You know, maybe … just maybe Boll finally made a good movie." Then just like Alone in the Dark, the first actor opened his mouth and my hopes collapsed. I shook my head, sighed, then braced myself to endure another 80 minutes of performances downplayed to the point that they lack conviction. Vladimir (Michael Madsen), the seasoned vampire hunter and head of Brimstone, delivers his lines with a tone that implies he's been around and seen everything. As a free bonus, Madsen adds an additional quality: unenthusiastic boredom.

Kagun (Ben Kingsley) the old powerful vampire lord, having achieved demi-God status amongst mortals, spends most of his time sitting, standing, or walking. He takes action only in the ceremonial sense. Played to perfection by Kingsley who goes so far as to make his own appearance in the film seem equally ceremonial and equally inconsequential.

(Although one has to wonder if Kingsley and Madsen both went overboard in their performances, or if the editing pushed the performances over the threshold. Dwell on that for a moment, but don't answer.)

Domastir (Will Sanderson), Kaguns' henchman, forever has a crazed wide-eyed stare that lacked any sense of menace. It reminded me of that look pro wrestler gives during their pre-match smack talk rants (which I, try as I might, can't watch with a straight face) ,and from hence forth I saw Domastir as the little wrestler who couldn't.

As for Rayne, herself, Kristanna Loken does an admirable job of wanting to go somewhere with the role despite being trapped by a film that's lost. It knows where it wants to go, but doesn't know how to get there. She does what she can to explore the bloodlust and turmoil of vampirism (or dhampirism) even though the film she's starring in cares only enough to explore blood, blood, and more blood (a point hammered home by the final overly-long montage at the end.)

And then Billy Zane, Elrich, comes to the rescue. Zane salvages his role by going in the exact opposite direction as the rest of the cast. He opts for an approach reminiscent of his role in Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight, and gives two well timed blasts from the defibrillator to counter the rest of the film floating on tharzine.

More interesting, yet, is the scene with Elrich and Domastir face to face. When Domastir has a sword to Elrich's heart, staring as intently as ever like a crazed man obsessed with reading a name tag, Elrich pushes the lil' wrestler wanna-be's sword aside and dismisses the whole encounter like it was part of his Las Vegas illusionist's show where Domastir is hypnotized. Elrich and everyone in the audiences knows it's a joke, but Domastir remains clueless.

Gallons of gratuitous gore splatters the death sequences in direct answer to the growing number of PG13 films that should shoot for a hard R but sadly whore themselves to younger audiences. It's a nice thought, but it comes across as gore for the sole sake of gratuity to the point of goofiness. A direct contrast to BloodRayne's overly grounded ("grounded" as in six-feet under) performances. Yet another indication, that Billy Zane had the right idea.

Budgetary and time constraints show up in the choreography of the fights and battle scenes, and even more so in the editing of said scenes. The fights seem curiously rehearsed like a stage-dance, and the swords (practice weapons aside) have unusually thick edges. Fair game for criticism? Eh, in places, sure. No doubt, though, that Boll bashers will target anything and everything not up to Lord of the Rings standards.

In my Alone in the Dark review I mainly focused my criticism on Boll's parasitic dependency on better films for material in his own to the point that Alone in the Dark cannot stand on its own without Equilibrium, Evil Dead, and the Matrix. BloodRayne is like a baby's first step, reluctantly letting go and making an unstable effort to walk – letting go of the blatant rip offs ("homages" on steroids) and finding its own style.

Uwe Boll's not there yet, but he's getting there … one step at a time.

Man, I hate ignorant moviegoers, Bloodrayne sucks

[Bloodzombie77 · 1/10 · 18 December 2005]

I'm already frustrated because the rating system only only goes down to 1 instead of -10....Because Uwe Boll has done it again! He has managed to make a completely god-awful movie, and has caused to me lose respect for the "actors" in this filth. Granted the only one that had my respect was Kingsley...well, not anymore. The non-existent "story" was worthless. There are actually ignorant people that LIKE this crap, and it's sad, because anyone who rates this more than a 1 is probably some 15-year-old kid who got off on that "love scene" that looked like it was straight out of a Ron Jeremy flick. Kristanna Loken's got the personality of used toilet paper, and Michael madsen...well....he just kinda looked like he was drunk..wouldn't put it past him anyway. The only reason why Uwe Boll is still allowed to make movies is because ignorant movie goers and the few fans he has defend him to the death, he is horrible and he should be barred from ever touching a camera again.

Vampires and humans confrontation with lots of blood and gore

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 30 April 2010]

In eighteenth century Romania, Rayne (Kristanna Loken), a warrior woman, half-human, half-vampire , is the main attraction at a freak-show but she she gets to escape. Afther that, she meets a fortuneteller (Geraldine Chaplin) who tells his father raped and killed her mother. Then she sets out to revenge her mother's rape by her father, Kagan ( Ben Kingsley), King of Vampires. Three vampire hunters, Sebastian (Matthew Davis), Katarin (Michelle Rodriguez) and Vladimir(Michel Madsen), from the Brimstone Society persuade her to join their cause. Meanwhile, Rayne falls in love with Sebastian and prepares her vengeance.

This exciting movie displays unstopped action, thrills ride, spectacular fighting, graphic violence, and brief nudism with mild sex scene. It packs large amount of guts and gore , there's a huge body count, this one actually knocks off an immense amount, several vampires are staked bloodily in the chest, even more bitten with large dents. There's really savage decapitation, plenty of bodies ripped in scraps and half, including some of the most tears ever, that spill lots of blood . Most of vampires and humans victims are relegated to being bitten in the throat and neck. Magnificent special and visual effects as well as excellent make-up department. Bone-chilling and atmospheric musical score and colorful and dark cinematography ; furthermore spectacular production design .The motion picture is regularly directed by Uwe Boll . All four of the films he has realized that were based upon video games, House of the Dead (2003), Alone in the Dark (2005), BloodRayne (2005) and BloodRayne II: Deliverance (2007) were listed on the bottom of barrel by the reviewers. Most of the other films he's directed, including Heart of America (2002), and Blackwoods (2002) are not widely available in America, but have received similarly low ratings among those who have seen them. All technicians and some actors participate in the following : BloodRayne II with Natassia Malthe, Zack Ward and again Michel Pare, Uwe Boll's fetish's actor. Recommended to those who amuse those kind of vampire films or those enjoy in general.Rating : average though some moments is entertaining.

C'mon people, it's really not that bad!

[Stevieboy666 · 5/10 · 20 October 2019]

I am not a big fan of Hollywood movies that mash up horror, fantasy and martial arts, I prefer my vampires to be more Lugosi or Lee, but BloodRayne does deliver 90 minutes of non stop action. It has a cast of well known actors, lots of violence, buckets of gore, some nice sets, nudity and stunning Romanian scenery. OK, so Michael Madsen, with his mullet and American accent doesn't really look or sound like a convincing European vampire hunter. OK, so much of the gore effects are CGI, some good, some not so good. And OK, it is hardly taxing on the grey matter. But for a brain in neutral horror/action flick it really isn't a bad ride. Kristianna Locken does make a very sexy vampire (or half human/half vampire, to be precise!), worth seeing for that alone.

Bloodrayne is by far Bolls Best feature...but that isn't saying much.

[tawdry_hepburn · 4/10 · 5 January 2006]

Bloodrayne is a film that is shockingly competent. On almost every level the film is…competent. For the first fifteen minutes my jaw was on the floor. This film had wall-to-wall competence. Then things stopped making sense, the action picked up and the film felt like it had skipped a reel. And I remembered I was watching a film by Dr. Uwe Boll. And whatever his strengths may be…coherence of plot is most assuredly not one of them.

The film tells the story…er…tries to tell the story of Rayne, a half vampire who isn't like Blade, because she has big breasts, and her battles with Ben Kingsley, who might be her father. He apparently made regular house calls to rape Rayne's mother, probably to punish her for naming her daughter something stupid like Rayne.

Ben Kingsley, playing a bored guy in it for the paycheck/vampire overlord, is afraid of Rayne because of some prophecy that is never revealed to the audience. Rayne hates him because he raped her mother and…well, the plot's mechanics call for her to hate him. Everyone hates Kingsley's character because he's some evil guy, but I didn't see him do anything even remotely mean to anyone except Rayne. He just looked like some sad old guy with a huge nose, which isn't exactly what I think of when I picture evil.

The story starts with Rayne as a circus freak, drinking the blood of goats. One night, someone sneaks into her cage to rape her in her sleep. (Rape is apparently Dr. Boll's second favorite plot device next to prophecies.) Luckily, she has an empty bottle of liquor to kill the guy with. After killing the would be rapist and sucking his blood Rayne goes crazy, killing everyone in sight, including her best friend, and all of this is told completely out or order, Tarantino style for no discernible reason. Wisely, the temporal shift gimmick is completely abandoned after the 20 minute mark.

Meanwhile, Michael Madsen, Michelle Rodriguez and Matthew Davis are stalking the countryside looking for Rayne…because…well, I guess that prophecy. Billy Zane, playing a guy wearing a dead skunk as a toupee, is Rodriquez's father (which is beyond absurd as they couldn't look more dissimilar) who works for Kingsley or, maybe not. It doesn't really matter because he is only in the movie as a plot device to play Judas and speed up the action in the third act anyway.

Rayne and the three musketeers meet up and form a quartet before joining an army and going on a Rocky style training bend. (Everything is imminent until Rayne has to have training scenes, and then they have weeks to dawdle away). Rodriguez hates Rayne for some reason and Davis arbitrarily gives her some loving after revealing that his parents were vampires. Then they all go on a quest.

Much of this movie relies on characters following psychic premonitions which they have no foreshadowing or basis for or following prophecies that are never clearly explained to the viewer. In that sense it is very much like a video game where, during the loading screen, you are told your level objectives. Rayne feels like the outline to a video game itself rather than an expansion of one. A psychic tells Rayne of three oracles (the aforementioned quest) taken from an ultimate vampire, that for some reason give the owner of said objects magical powers. So, Rayne goes on a mini-game style quest to find each one of the three oracles. but…she only finds two, and they don't seem to actually do anything for her. More confounding is that these oracles are parts of an ancient vampire's body and could, according to yet another prophecy, allow their bearer to control the world. But for some reason, no one questions that this original vampire was killed and dismembered, making these pieces not that intimidating.

There are even scenes that feel like boss fights. In a monks' temple there is an ogre underground that Rayne must fight and kill to get the key to open a door that reveals…a jump puzzle that Rayne must complete in order to get to one of the mystical objects.

The acting is all pretty bad. Aside from a hilarious 10 minute scene where Meat Loaf Aday shows up and throws some much needed enthusiasm into the film with a character that looks like Beethoven and acts like Syd Barrett sadly, he is quickly dispatched. Michelle Rodriguez is hilariously awful as the brooding angry chick who's in it for the money, while Michael Madsen plays the older, wiser, drunker warrior with a cool voice, who is in it for the money. Billy Zane over acts enough to make it physically painful for me to watch him, and Ben Kingsley's performance made me feel like he had taken a few Quaaludes before each take.

Kristanna Loken is passable as Rayne. Her accent comes and goes, but so does everyone else's, and she looks very pretty. She also does a nude scene, which aside from its obvious interest piquing also doubles as the funniest bit of soft-core porn this side of the Toxic Avenger.

the movie has some above average gore and CGI effects. There is nothing here as awful as the monsters in Alone in the Dark and the effect shots are pretty well integrated. It's not amazing, but it is impressive considering the film's pedigree. Annoyingly, these gore shots are inserted with no context in the middle of fight scenes where you have absolutely no idea what is going on. The angles were so overly close that most action scenes were just disorienting. And when there were wide angles, they were poorly framed, or worse yet, shot at 16 frames a second during the finale.

It's leaps and bounds better than his past work, but it's just depressingly average in its best moments.

Completely bloodless

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 12 January 2019]

Saw 'Bloodrayne' and its two sequels out of curiosity to see if they were as bad as their terrible reputation. As well as seeing whether one of the worst directors of all time Uwe Boll was capable of making a good film. On top of that, like Ben Kingsley a lot as an actor and he is reason enough to see anything he's involved in. Did not have my hopes up, because even looking at the advertising and trailers 'Bloodrayne' looked awful.

The terrible reputation and dubious advertising do not lie. 'Bloodrayne' to me and many others really is that bad, bad actually is an understatement. Have come to the conclusion that Boll is incapable of making a halfway decent film, have not seen everything of his but all that has been seen has been terrible and as bad as their reputation. As someone who is usually very generous rating and reviewing films, 'Bloodrayne' does stand out as one of the worst films seen recently and actually full stop. Everything is abysmally executed and there are no redeeming qualities at all, have said that about very few films seen recently.

'Bloodrayne' couldn't be more inept visually. 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 sounds cheap and is never dynamic with anything on screen, often working against it and like it belonged in another film entirely.

Writing is horrendously stilted and cheesy, enough to make one want to vomit and the unintentional camp later on becomes exhausting. 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.

You know something is wrong when the best performance comes from an angry-looking Michelle Rodriguez. Elsewhere there is an emotionless lead, Meat Loaf's uncomfortable cameo and Michael Madsen and Billy Zane going through the motions. Worst of it is Kingsley in his worst ever performance, taking hamminess and chewing-scenery-to-pieces to mind-boggling extremes.

Summarising, completely bloodless and appallingly awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Not great but also underrated

[Kritorian · 3/10 · 14 November 2010]

I actually watched this movie because i had to find out if the movie was as bad as many reviews claim. And i have to say i don't think it is.

Sure it's average to below average in most ways. Much of the dialogue is dull and uninspired. The script and screenplay mostly doesn't allow for the actors to unfold, to display their skills. The battle sequences are boring. And who the h... put that silly wig on Ben Kingsley, the guy is seriously a joke in this movie.

But there are also stuff that works - or works well enough for it to be a decent B-movie i should say. Kristanna Loken pulls it off the best she can with this script and manages to portray a slightly more vulnerable and down to earth type vampire hero. I think she also does well in her fight scenes. Michael Madsen although having nothing to work with looks good as a vampire hunter. Michelle Rodriguez is doing a good job as well.

The sound and score of the movie is also good and here and there actually manages to help build a little tension or suspense. Something that the movie often lacks.

I'll admit any day that it's a flawed movie. Still there have been many big Hollywood production movies that are less worth watching than this.

Plain insulting in its stupidity

[TheNabOwnzz · 2/10 · 24 August 2018]

During my tour through 'Garbage cinema', i stumbled upon BloodRayne, which is apparently a video game adaptation, and it is common knowledge that those are generally horrific failures. There is no exception in this case, as this is a laughable piece of work that seems to have an obsession with insulting the viewers intelligence.

The cast features some acclaimed actors in the form of Ben Kingsley, Billy Zane & Michael Madsen, which is an unfortunate stain on their careers. Kingsley was the epitome of the dead eyed emotionless underperformer, and much of the same is true with Madsen, who seems to hate being in this film for the entire duration. Zane tries his best to surpass the abysmal script with his acting, but alas, he does not succeed. None of the actors are able to use even the slightliest of emotional ranges, as all of them are incapable of showing a different facial expression. Since some of the actors cast in the movie are indeed incredible, it is obvious they too had little motivation and ambition for such a ridiculous project as this. Every single actor & actress's line delivery in BloodRayne seems like a literal cue card reading session, and the dialogue is insultingly bad. My favorite has to be: 'My companion has gone missing, i do not know what has become of him!!!' which results in one of the most insultingly stupid prison breaks ever filmed.

There is no character development. There is not a sequence in which the characters are set up. There is nothing that is told about the characters, and there is simply absolutely nothing that drives them. Rayne's mother was raped by Kegan and seeks revenge, which is the most insulting & cliché of motivations there is. It tries so hard to get the viewer to feel sympathy for Rayne because of this, but this cliché victim classification is in reality just horrid writing. It is a common feminist delusion that they always classify themselves as the 'Common victim' in every circumstance and this film is basically a propaganda show of political correctness in that way. However, when a film is this bad, its ridiculous PC themes don't even really matter, as nobody could ever take anything about this film seriously.

There are a couple of scenes where we witness the aftermath of some event, and director Uwe Boll thinks it is necessary to throw in a couple of disjointed, horribly edited flashbacks in which the viewer learns absolutely nothing else than what they already knew before the flashback. Something simplistic is spoken, and Boll deems it necessary to throw in a flashback because it seems like he doesn't think audience can understand it without it. It is a slap in the face of the audience's intelligence, and also a slap in the face of this film's already nearly non existent intellectuality.

While most of the cinematography in BloodRayne is sub par, it does have a couple of nice sweeping outdoor shots when characters ride through the country. However, it also features a lot of brightly lit forest scenes even though it is in the middle of the night & an obvious lack in color variation, as most of the film is grey and dark green. The original score, however, was very good, and these seem to be the only slightly redeeming factors of this snoozefest.

The many action sequences feature horrid slow & clunky choreography ( Especially Madsen, no idea how he managed to kill so many guys during this film when he is barely able to swing a sword ), and terrible editing. All of the actors in the film seem to be severely limited in athletics & choreography, and so this is hidden a bit by the fact that there are numerous amount of cuts and edits throughout the fights. The viewer can never see what is going on, or how the fight is turning out. Boll is only interested in showing protagonists kill people and trying to hide their clunky swordplay with his horrid quick editing which will probably damage your eyesight beyond repair. In the end, the film is a basic lesson in how NOT to film action sequences, as its choreography, editing & overview of the fights is just horrible.

BloodRayne has terrible acting, writing, choreography, editing, & characters. While some decent shots in its cinematography and an excellent original score make sure it doesn't wind up in the category with some of the actual worst of all time, it is still a sure contender for the places a little bit behind them.

Boll Fan Club

[actinate · 10/10 · 28 December 2005]

That's right I said it. I'm starting the first official Uwe Boll fan club. I will be lined up (in a line consisting of 2 people)in front of our local theatre to buy tickets for the first show. I think the mistake that some of the posters have made is either not seeing the crap-tastic "House of the Dead" or the most unwatchable of his films "Alone in the Dark", or thinking his films will get better as he learns his "craft".

I was once like you, tricked into seeing House of the Dead only to be shat on for an hour and 35 minutes. But after Alone in the Dark came out, I discovered the blinding and wonderful truth of his films. Uwe Boll is a throw back to the great "USA Up ALL Night", staring Shannon Tweed and or Shannon Whirry, & generic slasher films of the early and mid - eighties. These films have a special place in heart for whatever reason. It might be because the represent a special part of movie making, the bad formula film.

He makes movies based on a formula, a proved formula. Get a known brand with a built in fan base. (in this case, video games that are past their shelf life.)Put this brand into a profitable movie genre such as teen sex comedy (I'm looking at you National Lampoon) or horror film. Wait to cast the film until the last possible minute in order to get as many "name" stars as you can for as cheap as you can. (suprise- many stars take rolls just for a paycheck or because the can squeeze it in between projects and collect a paycheck)Throw in gore/mind-numbing action and or nudity and you have yourself a film that will make back it's budget (between 10 to 20 million) worldwide before it ever sees DVD. Roger Corman made himself a name and a fortune doing this type of film making.

I'm not saying that his films are any good or even watchable at times. What I'm saying is that I crack the hell up every time I watch one. Enjoy them for what they are, Huge wastes of someone's hard warned money. I swear that I laugh more at these films than I laugh at films like "Meet the Fockers".

Do yourself a favor and rent Alone in the Dark and see if you can keep from laughing when the Tara Reid says New-found-land. It's like angels singing.

Roscoe P. Coltrane

Well... I'm surprised that I actually kind of liked it (don't kill me!)

[Moviguy · 6/10 · 6 January 2006]

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 in expecting anything but pure cheese then you'll be disappointed. If you go in and plan to have a few laughs, crack a few jokes, and just enjoy the film, then you actually will have a good time with it. I know a lot of people are going to just breeze past this review, but I have to say, I have seen some REALLY bad movies, and this isn't one of them. It's got a decent plot, some good acting (and some REALLY bad acting), and it's got action.

I have a feeling that the Dungeon Siege movie will suck though. It's like... three fricking hours long! TO MUCH!

One of the worst made films ever

[bjorn-89 · 1/10 · 14 March 2006]

I'm coming up on ten thousand seen movies, and I'll usually endure any piece of crap for the sake of film itself, which I love. To study the craftsmanship - sometimes breathtaking, sometimes laughable. To see what hidden levels of narration lies beneath the glossy crust. You know. Bloodrayne is so far one of two movies I could not endure to watch to the end. It was excruciating. I understand fully the critique against Dr Uwe Boll, how that person can even call himself a director is a farce at best. I must shamefully admit that I would have endured the movie if there had been the same protagonists as in the original video game - occult Nazis. (Since Raiders of the lost Ark, they're my favorites as bad guys go.) Now, we're treated to the same level of excellence as your average Buffy TV episode. Or, in the form of continuity, better. If you're considering watching this movie, take a long hard look inside and come to the conclusion it's not worth it. Please? I might even stretch to defending piracy for this one movie. :)

Oh, and the other film I could not endure? Battlefield: Earth with John Travolta.