|Tags: action, bloodrayne, Brendan Fletcher, Chris Coppola, Chris Spencer, Michael Eklund, Michael Paré, Natassia Malthe, sequel, Uwe Boll, vampire, western, wild west, Zack Ward|
Cast:Natassia Malthe, Zack Ward, Michael Pare, Chris Coppola, Brendan Fletcher, Michael Eklund, Chris Spencer
German director Uwe Boll (AKA the "disaster master") returns once again to bring forth yet another crappy and forgettable film. This time it's the unwanted sequel to the first game-to-movie adaptation of BloodRayne. Why or how this guy continues to make films is a mystery that will likely never have an answer to. Actress Kristanna Loken was unable to return as "Rayne" reportedly due to "scheduling conflicts", but we all know that she just didn't want her career to go any further down the toilet than it already did thanks to the first movie.
Instead, she's replaced by the much more attractive Natassia Malthe, who I personally liked better as Rayne (although her awkward movements with the double blades were painful to watch) than Loken, but sadly doesn't appear nude in the film. Having seen the movie it's apparent that Uwe just wanted to make a western and (for one reason or another) decided to throw in some vamps and call it BloodRayne 2. There's very little vampire action at all; in fact, even the supposed vampires used guns, especially the lead vamp "Billy the Kid" -- who knew the infamous young outlaw was a blood sucker with a horrible Transylvanian accent!
So, basically in this story we follow Rayne as she makes her way to a new town called "Deliverance," where Billy has taken over and plans to stay until the newly constructed railroad is finished, with hopes to turn anyone who comes to the town into vamps. I can't say I remember how strong Rayne was in the first film, but in this sequel she's incredibly weak -- getting knocked out easily by a simply hit on the back of the head by the butt of a weapon. Not only is she weak, but she barely even uses her twin blades, which I suppose is a good thing since actress Natassia Malthe could barely move around with them.
The flick has a little action in the first 15-or-so minutes, but it takes literally another hour before any further action is picked up. In between that time we get a lot of cheesy dialogue and close up shots of mouths, and eyeballs, with further slow-paced scenes that seemed to only be there to fill up the film's running time. Once the hour mark hits, Rayne (as weak as she is) decides to recruit a couple outlaws to help her and Pat Garret dispose of Billy and his lackeys.
The only action we even really get in the movie is with gun fights, mostly all towards the end when they have their big showdown. Even Rayne totes around a couple revolvers, barely using her twin blades, leaving there to be zero gore, except for some shots to the chest and head, and maybe a couple bites to the neck and a slice to the throat. The only reason why I found the first movie watchable was the fact that it had gore. In this movie there's really no redeeming value, except for hottie Natassia Malthe and the semi-original story of vampires set in the wild west. Uwe's attempt at a western (much like everything else he dishes out) has failed. When will this horrible movie-making madness end Uwe?
Doomed the moment Uwe Boll thought up the idea of a BloodRayne sequel, the film is essentially just a western with some vampires thrown in. The pacing is slow, there's not much gore, and there's barely any action. Skip this mess.
|Posted on June 5, 2011 - 1:00pm | FrighT MasteR|