Year Released: 2005
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 95 minutes
Click to Expand Credits:
It’s safe to say there are directors just as horrible as Boll, and probably worse who are able to get studio backing, huge stars, and their films are hits. Michael Bay, Eli Roth, McG, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Larry Clark, take your pick; but the simple fact that in Boll’s world he’s a great director, and we’re the idiots whom don’t understand his films, makes him ripe for parody. To him we don’t appreciate the contribution he’s making to the film world for us. No one else would make these movies, no one wants to make these movies, so we should be happy he’s making them even if they are bad. What a sad man. He’s almost like those contestants on one of those crappy reality shows where they sing terribly, yet to them they’re the next Whitney Houston, and they’ll insist on it right to their death bed. To Boll, he’s an excellent director, and if you don’t understand the subtle artistic nuances of films like “House of the Dead”, or “Alone in the Dark”, well then you’d better go back to your internet and video games, freak.
I’ve yet to see “Alone in the Dark”, but it doesn’t take a genius to imagine its quality when people begin getting red in the face just by describing it in detail. As for “Bloodrayne”, it is yet another video game adaptation based on the series of popular video games about a female vampire in medieval times. But Boll learns his lesson this time and doesn’t let up on the women folk and exploitation. “Bloodrayne” is a really, really bad film, but Boll redirects that obvious observation by flashing as many naked women as possible in the films running time. Horrible acting? Look, boobs. Terrible choreography? Who cares, look at the gore. Incredibly terrible directing? Whoa, Kristanna Loken is hot! “Bloodrayne” doesn’t attempt to appease the intelligent movie-goers, yet Boll aims for the young teenagers, frat boys, and utter dimwits by adhering to that same formula and the right audience he wants won’t even know the difference.
“Bloodrayne” is watchable when compared to Boll’s previous efforts, but that’s really never saying much when you examine this on its own terms. “Bloodrayne” is an often ridiculous and mind-numbing film that’s reliant on its experienced cast to deliver clunky lines, and shoots anachronisms at the audience without worry (who knew they had blue jeans, tank tops, and sweater vests in medieval times?). For a director who is so intent on becoming Peter Jackson, Boll really has no idea what makes an epic, particularly because of the fact that this “epic” speeds through the story without time to really settle down and focus on its characters. Bloodrayne is yet another leather clad fetishized Goth whose character emphases is based on her repeated line “I have no family, I am an orphan” which she repeats to basically everyone she comes across, while the rest of the characters really are nothing but concepts and half baked ideas. And apparently Boll equates period films with horrible coifs. Wait until you get a load of Meatloaf as a British vampire with a Texas accent.
Characters enter and exit like stage performers at a community theater delivering flat lines without conviction, and if you look closely you can see some of the cast go out of character as the scenes shift. Most criminally though is that writer Guinevere Turner steals from better films like “Underworld”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and “Lord of the Rings” shamelessly, and never seems to have enough confidence in the scripts own arc. Which is not surprising, the story actually present here is rather paper thin, and its characters are never interesting enough. Boll’s speedy storytelling is reliant on endless badly choreographed battles, endless montages of horse riding along mountains and forests, and a terrible script. Boll’s film is also inconsistent in terms of plot.
Take for example Rayne’s break out from the carnival. The way it’s performed will leave the audience wondering “Why didn’t she do that in the first place?”, and what was the deal with the room filling up with water? Why the oddly out of place sex scene in the middle? Where did Rayne get her weapons from? Did that sub-plot with the eye make any sense? Sadly, the worst off seems to be Kingsley whose role is built up of him sitting at a throne looking off into space doing basically nothing. But Boll hopes we won’t notice since Loken is so good looking, even if her performance is grueling. Boll caps his film off in usual Boll fashion with a five minute montage of scenes we’ve just witnessed prior, and an endless horseback sequence of Rayne riding off into the sunset. What wrath hath the gods of filmmaking besieged on us?
In all honesty, though, “Bloodrayne” is the best of Boll’s films, but Boll’s best is no different than his worst. Many whom hate his films may not like to hear that, but I’d rather watch this again than “House of the Dead”, or his upcoming three hour fantasy “Dungeon Siege”.
Posted on June 1, 2006 in Reviews by Felix Vasquez Jr.
If you liked this article then you may also like the following Film Threat articles:
- IN DEFENSE OF UWE BOLL
- RAGING BOLL KICKS ASS…STILL SUCKS THOUGH
- ALL ABOUT UWE…
- UWE RISES AGAIN WITH “HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2″
- FANTASIA 2007 – DAY 7
Popular Stories from Around the Web