I love it when a very bad film is released, because it gives critics the chance to really let go. ‘Bloodrayne’ is no exception; no surprise since it’s a video game adaption from Uwe Boll. His “film” 'House Of The Dead" may truly be least entertaining movie I have ever seen. Sounds like Bloodrayne is no exception to his body of work.
critics 6%: users:0%
Yes, ZERO percent from users.
I’m usually tempted to see movies with ratings this bad, because of the “so bad their good” concept, but after “House Of The Dead” I may have been cured of that habit.
Forgot to mention, I thought the Bloodrayne game on the PC was quite fun. Bloodrayne 2 made me give up in frustration, though. They screwed up a good thing, both with the movie and the game sequel, IMHO.
It’s a shame, really; both this and Alone in the Dark could’ve been acceptable movies if they’d been given to a competent director.
I’m not going to search for it right now, but I remember seeing a piece on SomethingAwful by one of the original scriptwriters for Alone in the Dark. Boll is apparently completely sincere in his belief that he’s making good movies.
BloodRayne fails as mindless entertainment and as eye candy, violating the basic laws of both vampire films and cheesy videogame adaptations: It can’t even suck right."
Wait, now I’m confused with the tomato rating system. Of the two “positive” reviews listed with tomatoes, reading into them gets me quotes like this:
“BLOODRAYNE isn’t as bad as you would expect it to be if you’ve seen his other films. But saying one of his films is better than the other is like saying that getting punched in the kidneys isn’t as bad as getting kicked in the balls. Both still hurt and you don’t want either.”
When I first saw an advertisement for Bloodrayne I thought it was going to be a made for TV type of thing or a Hercules/Xena type of series. Talk about crappy production values.
Ever since I found out that thanks to a loophole in the German Boll basically is doing a tax dodge for his creditors all became clear about where his budgets come from. We’re basically seeing a modern day Producers in action.
What I don’t understand is how he gets the casts he does. Seriously, Ben Kingsly? No amount of money can be worth the reputation hit. It certainly didn’t do Jurgen Prochnow, Christain Slater, and Tara Reid any favours.
Ben Kingsley also was in Species, a schlocky (but fun) sci-fi thriller in the mid-'90s. Michael Madsen was in that as well! It was a B-movie by anyone’s standards, but I’m sure a paycheck is a paycheck. Christopher Walken is a tremendous actor, but he seems to take any role, no matter how small or stupid, and no matter how bad the movies are.
Funny you should say that; my wife and I were talking about this last night. It doesn’t even look like it was filmed professionally; the images look as if they were shot with a personal camcorder.
As to this… Kingsley, I suspect, is simply following the tradition of professional British actors; “If it’s a starring role and a paycheck, take it.”
As Michael Caine said when asked why he agreed to be in a movie as horrible as Jaws: The Revenge, “I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”