BloodRayne II: Deliverance Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A heart-stopping adventure!
It's a hundred years later, and the dhampir Rayne has arrived in the town of Deliverance, Montana where a group of vampire cowboys have emerged. Led by Billy the Kid, hell-bent on creating is own kingdom, he slaughters townspeople and rounds up children. He spares the life of Chicago Chronicle reported Newton Pyles. Rayne aligns herself with Pat Garret, a member of the long-thought-dead Brimstone society, a dishonest preacher, and a low life named Franson, to stop Billy the Kid and show the world how the West was really won.
| Natassia Malthe | Rayne |
| Zack Ward | Billy the Kid |
| Michael Paré | Pat Garret |
| Chris Coppola | Newton Pyles |
| Chris Spencer | Bartender Bob |
| Brendan Fletcher | Muller |
| Sarah-Jane Redmond | Martha |
| Michael Teigen | Slime Bag Franson |
| Michael Eklund | The Preacher |
| John Novak | Sheriff Cobden |
| Tyron Leitso | Fleetwood |
| Jodelle Ferland | Sally |
| Mike Dopud | Flintlock Hogan |
| Vincent Gale | Mick |
| John Tench | Moffat |
| Uwe Boll |
2.50 out of 10 (3380 votes)
Visitor Reviews
No mark less than 1, unfortunately.
posted on 14 Aug 2009Easy to say: on a scale from 1 to 10, I say "minus 20". I've seen bad bad movies, but this one?! Is worse than the worst.Bad acting (stupid gestures, the mean "Billy the kid" is a joke!, the lady Rayne chews a matchstick that has such a red head - definitely a 19th century matchstick :P ). OMG, I can give examples of bad acting and stupid gesture from almost 99% of the movie... Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't expect anything but regretting wasting your time.Ah, by the way, it does not have many (if any) things to do with the video game. Except the symbols, the name of the character and the shape of her blades.Just don't watch it! (1 out of 10, I would give -20)
BAD video game pretending to be a movie, movie
posted on 04 Aug 2009I think it WAS filmed with a steady cam.Remember the 'steady' part is to eliminate shaking and let you walk around with it.It doesn't keep you from continuous pan-and-zoom adjustments.The camera man should have his union card revoked.I know it was filmed in Canada, but couldn't they have gotten at least someone who had seen a real western movie as a technical adviser? It seams like a video game pretending to have a 'western' theme. Not a western movie with vampires.Or even a very good violent eye-candy chick movie.
Bloodrayne 2, worth watching?
posted on 09 Jul 2009The bottom line for me would be "yes". While, like the first movie, it has little relevance to the video game, or even to Rayne's character, it is still a good movie. Other then a few poorly acted (or poorly written) scenes, and the camera flowing around like the cameraman was drunk, Bloodrayne 2 "delivers" what the first movie could not. Rayne's character was introduced as a much more humane person, however, her unlikely allies tend to appear very late on-screen, but they still manage to come through for Rayne, giving their lives in a pretty cool climactic gunfight. Characters, as opposed to the first movie, really fit into the time line and the story (the movie story, not the video game). Special effects are lacking, or even inexistent, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a western, not a cgi movie. The budget for this movie, being less then half of what the first movie got, turned out to bring much more on-screen. People are expecting to see Rayne as a bloodthirsty skank that slaughters Nazis's, like in the first game, but I believe that THIS movie adaptation (Bloodrayne Deliverance) is... dare I say it?... an even better approach to the Rayne character then the video games themselves. Uwe Boll didn't have to follow the storyline of the games to make a good movie. He tried doing that loosely with the first movie, and it ended up being crap. That's part of the reason why Bloodrayne 1 was so bad. Because people have very high expectations for video-game movie adaptations. I personally wasn't expecting much from Bloodrayne II, but after viewing it I was stupefied. The movie, as opposed to what most people would have you believe, IS NOT worse then the first one. If anything, it's Uwe Bolls finest work as of yet. The movie doesn't deserve more then a 7.5, perhaps 8/10, but it got a 10 from me because most people won't give it more then 6. In the end, the appreciation of this movie boils down to three criteria. 1) If you've played the video games, you most likely have very high expectations of it. 2) If you have a more adult-oriented sense of humor. 3) If you set aside prejudice, and watch the movie from start to finish without thinking about every flaw you might see.
Western vs Vampires...bad choice
posted on 07 Jul 2009Always tried b movies simply because sometimes they really tend to have good stories or sometimes nice actors but this time not the actors disappointed me..the story itself..with vampires and western and so many ways of getting the script awfully wrong.now..i'm no script writer or anything but...there are so many plot holes..so many unnecessary lines and such bad camera that makes u wonder if this is not a b TV series :) i wouldn't buy this film not even rent it..simply find a friend who has it ...and see it if u are a western fan..a vampire fan would get disappointed. Also the director should get changed ..it trashes the movies by not keeping nothing cursive !
Criminals have been Executed for less.
posted on 21 Jun 2009Watching this movie makes me wonder how Uwe Boll hasn't been incarcerated, let alone still alive after this box office bomb. I honestly don't see how he secured a sequel, let alone being able to make a trilogy. Before, the BloodRayne game franchise might have been able to become more then two titles, however the first movie killed this and this movie just rapes it's corpse.But to be honest, it is somewhat better then the original, but there are some features from the original that could have made this movie somewhat surpass a 2/10 rating. Ranye has become less of a heroine and more of a rag-doll for her enemies pleasure of releasing the built up stress of their eternal vampire lives, AND AGAIN DOES NOT FOLLOW A PRESET TIMELINE OF THE ORIGINAL GAME!! It makes me wonder that if he just liked the time-lines of these two movies, if he did he should write his own damn movie and not stuff up a somewhat successful and very popular game franchise.I'm not particularly looking forward to the third, however, Boll promised it would follow the first games plot line, (Talk about third time's the charm.) hopefully a new writer can redeem this fallen franchise, though i'm not holding my breath.
A complete waste of time
posted on 09 Jun 2009I can see something of value in almost any film, even if it functions only as a bad example of something, but it is a gross understatement to say that BloodRayne 2 is a bad movie. I have read all the prior reviews and I struggled to understand how any of them could find any form of value in this movie that could not have been exceeded by a 12 year old with a camera filming whatever occurred to his mind next. If there was a complete story prior to the start of this film (a consideration I highly doubt) the flow was virtually incomprehensible and when it did make sense it was just outright silly. It was like 15 people wrote a few pages in isolation and then it was bound into a "script" and filmed without even reading it all. The characters were unreasonable, incomprehensible and (most of the time) barely rose above shadows on the periphery. Some films are entertaining because they are bad (eg. Ed Wood) but BloodRayne cannot even rise to that kind of stature because it is just tedious. I feel foolish even pointing out how bad this film is but there are times when, in the service of people who value their time, films unworthy of attention should be pointed out. What Dorthy Parker said about an unworthy book also works here. "This book should not be put down lightly - it should be thrown with great force."
A very entertaining vampire western
posted on 05 Jun 2009Bloodrayne: Deliverance actually received worse reviews than the first film (even those few who wrote positively about Bloodrayne disliked the sequel), but I actually prefer it to the initial movie.The entries in the Bloodrayne series are some of the few vampire films that acknowledge the passage of time from the perspective of an immortal being. The first film is set in 18th century Eastern Europe, and the opening titles depict paintings and illustrations from that period, and also medieval woodcuts. Deliverance takes place in the American West of the late 19th century, and accordingly - after a picture of the castle that was the setting of the climax of the previous film - the opening titles consist of sepia-toned photographs of ships setting sail for the New World, towns being founded, and railroad tracks being laid down. In Bloodrayne, the title character relied on her swords. In Deliverance, time and technology have moved on, and a pair of six-shooters (loaded with silver bullets dipped in holy water and smeared with garlic) are her weapons of choice.There's an admirable amount of period grittiness in Deliverance. Instead of the wide open, dusty plains of most westerns, the movie is set in the depths of winter, and the ground is either covered in snow or been reduced to filthy, churned-up mud. And despite the fact that in the Old West the only sources of indoor illumination were often limited to candles, simple oil lamps and the occasional open fireplace, have you ever noticed in the westerns of the 1930s - 1960s how suspiciously well lit all those saloons and ranch interiors were? This was simply because the lighting technicians lit those sets the same way they did for all other movies - for maximum visibility. Deliverance corrects this discrepancy: building interiors are dim and murky, with deep pools of black shadow. It all creates a wonderful scene of authenticity.Kristanna Loken played Rayne in the first movie, but she was unable to reprise the role due to filming the TV series Painkiller Jane, so Nastasha Malthe steps into her shoes. Loken gave a driven and forceful but somewhat one-note performance. In contrast, portraying the same character a hundred years older and wiser, Malthe's Rayne is sullen and cynical, and altogether more fleshed-out and well rounded than Loken's take. And I must say that Malthe looks stunning in her all-black outfit, consisting of a duster (the name given to an ankle-length coat common to the period), flapping leather chaps and wide-brimmed hat. The only returning actor from the initial film is Michael Pare, who had a brief cameo in Bloodrayne and here plays a different character - real life Western legend Pat Garrett, no less.Garrett appearing as Rayne's sidekick is due to a plot element that earns the film it's only minus mark - having Billy the Kid as the main villain. The Kid is bizarrely reinterpreted as an ancient East European vampire, instead of the young, all-American sociopath that he actually was. His inclusion is a gimmick, and it's an unnecessary one. Ironically, as played by Zack Ward (a regular in Uwe Boll's movies) the Kid is an impressive bad guy, but he would have worked better as an original character.Uwe Boll (director and producer of both Bloodrayne films) has promised a third instalment, set in Nazi Germany during World War 2. I'm looking forward to it.
not that bad but not that good
posted on 03 Jun 2009Natassia Malthe was the main reason i saw this; she was as good as she always is. She brought a passion ans intensity that made the movie actually seem like a movie (as opposed to a poorly funded student film, or high school play.) The sets looked like they were recycled from a long dead stereotypical western (hence why i compare it to a high school play.) And the acting from most, if not all the minor characters, left allot to be desired.But i am giving it a 5/10 because of the rare moments where I was pleasantly surprised; rare moments when the characters go beyond what is expected.
BloodRayne 2 DVD Unrated R1 review
posted on 22 May 2009The first movie is terrible, not only the story but the blood is terrible and disgusting, the blood is light red. Anyway, this is part 2 of BloodRayne. It is okay, slightly better than part 1 but still can improve. I heard Uwe Boll is considered one of worst director and I don't know whether he is or not. It does not matter if he can create fun-action movies. BloodRayne 2 got a straight-to-DVD release and I am not surprise. The first one is bad and he is trying to save money and decided to put on DVD. That is fine as long as it is fun. And no, it is not fun. I had a hard time staying awake as there is almost no action until the last fight and I find it hard to believe that this contains so little action while the first one has more action. Believe or not, it does seem like a low budget movie with cheesy gun fights and everything that look fake. There is not even sex, unlike the first one, this one is not even sexy. Yes, the new actress for BloodRayne is pretty but she can't save the story which ,I feel, is boring.It does not matter whether it is following the game story line but it does matter whether it is action-packed or fun. In this case, there is nothing to say. The story premise seems good but it won't seem good without action. There are some short gun fights place in it and are too short to be even considered as fights. It looks good but it is not, cheesy filming. It may be worth a watch. So if there is BloodRayne 3, I hope it will turn into a solid action movie.DVD features digital comic book, commentary with the director and extended/deleted scenes. That is all, can't they at least chunk a making of? Anyway, you choice of buying the DVD.Rated Unrated. Contains violence and adult language.
BloodRayne? BloodPain!
posted on 08 May 20091/10If I would drink heavily for two days in one run and then wake up to the mother of all hangovers I could still come up with a better story than this one. Bye the way, the camera movement looks like the camera man DID drink for two days in a row.If I would close my eyes and blindly pick 20 people while walking through town I'd probably pick a better acting crew than the one in this movie. Even if I ran into a lamp post because of the closed eyes. Rayne is looking sexy, though, if Boll would have included a sex scene like in the first movie I might have thought about giving it 2 stars. Naw, just kidding.The thing that bothers me the most is how weak Rayne is. If she was mankind's last hope against vampires... kiss this world goodbye. Hell, if she was mankind's last hope against a gang of kindergarden babies she might get overpowered. She gets beaten up more than she is beating up the bad guys. Half human, half vampire? In one scene you see her show canine teeth. In this scene she is almost dying and then is given blood from the arm of a friend. Very powerful hero she is...The action is slow paced, badly executed and boring. I can't remember the last time I saw such a bad fight choreography.The one thing that was actually REALLY good was the sound effects and the score. Guess that's where all the money went.You liked the first BloodRayne movie? This one will deeply disappoint you. You didn't like the first one? Well, then you probably think what I thought, it can't possibly get worse. If you want to broaden your horizon watch this one - it CAN get worse.
worst movie ever!
posted on 28 Apr 2009Rayne is back to fight a powerful "child kidnapper" vampire in the wild west. I didn't knew someone could spoil a movie like that... It is the worst movie I have ever seen! Doesn't worth a minute: the effects are cheap, no good fights, the plot is... gone... it seems you get glances to the main idea, but there isn't any. Actors? looks like they are not sure what they're suppose to do. The whole act is so unnatural and you're getting the feeling that only 40 to 50 people participated in that whole 90 or so minutes of filming. It's like the director didn't knew if he wants a western or a vampire movie, so he spoiled them both. Awful, just awful, please do me a favor, if there is any reason or good thing I can take out from this movie is to warn you: don't waste your time!
What is BloodRayne?Wheres the original Image?
posted on 26 Apr 2009I am a gamer, and first time i heard about BloodRayne was in a game that carried the name.When u create a movie with one of these characters the fan base is obviously from the game and will likely hope to see if not something related to the storyline at least the characters from it. This movie is worst then the first one it drags the BloodRayne character "into the mud" literally. The whole fantasy of a half-vampire heroine and the action packed game motions.Where is all this? Where is the original image or what Blood Rayne is? This is just a disgrace depicting a wannabe hero woman. I mean for god's sake if u cant do something properly at least don't ruin the great image the heroine had when she was created. I ask myself who was the guy that gave them the licence to use that character. This game depicts the worst vampire movie i've ever seen. Action i could probably film myself better than that.And about the effects?Like we're in 2007 under what rock where you guys living?I can do better effects on my computer with a free software then u have in this movie. It's appalling it looks so fake, its a waste of time i want my time wasted to be refunded to me.Besides that u ruined the character.
Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be (vampire) cowboys!
posted on 18 Apr 2009Okay, come on, let's say it. "Vampire Cowboys". Just sounds silly, but every few years, someone tries to make the concept work.I've never played the Bloodrayne video game, and I am guessing most people who watched this movie and its predecessor want a movie that is up to the standard of that game.So here's the plot. Billy the Kid, who turns out to be a European-accented Vampire (who knew) and his gang take over the little town of Deliverence, which is about to get a railroad so he can overrun the world with vampires. (Couldn't he just set up in a big city that already has a railroad and do this?) He takes the children of the town hostage to get their parents to cooperate, and just in case he gets a case of the munchies.Along comes Bloodrayne, now played by a different actress. After killing three of Billy's hench-vampires, she is sentenced to hang. After a confusing escape, she recruits a team of guys to help save the town. (Yes, this sounds remarkably like the Magnificent Seven, except that movie was good. And she only recruits four.) After they get their pendants, garlic and learn the secret handshake, they go back to town to fight the vampires.This is followed by an even more confusing gun fight involving garlic and a Gatling gun.Compared to the first Bloodrayne or House of the Dead, this is a better movie, but that is like bragging about being the leper with the most fingers.
He is at it again! Another One Bites the Dust!
posted on 14 Apr 2009The obvious sequel would have left off right where the first one left off! Not Uwe Boll and his humongous load of shitty directing that he has brought to the big screen! He has ruined countless movies and this is just another one that he laid his reversed Midas touch on! First off when was Billy the Kid a vampire?! I never heard of vampire cowboys in my life, but I'll let that one slide. Second, where is Kristianna Lokken? I like the Natasssia Malthe better, but usually when you make a sequel you either get the original main character back or you just don't do the movie at all. Third, the storyline to this movie made me so bored that I actually fell asleep! I'm not kidding! Fourth, the camera work is so shaky throughout the entire movie that I seriously started to get motion sickness! And I'm the type of person who doesn't get sick on boats or planes! Once again, as I have said in many other blogs that I have posted about Uwe Boll's movies, I am boycotting him no matter what! My 11 year old brother could make a better film high on crack and blind-folded!!
What a disappointment
posted on 08 Apr 2009I quite liked the first film and was a little disappointed that Kristianna didn't reprise her role. But what the hell, I was looking forward to it anyway. I don't normally turn a film off half way through, but I had to with this one (Unrated directors cut version). It really is a poor excuse for a film. The blurb on the cover ("exhilarating and action packed") really does fall far short of what the film actually delivers. I decided to watch the second half more in hope than anything else, but by the end was left bitterly disappointed.I note that BR3 is in the pipeline. Surely a franchise cant sink any lower than this effort.
Must NOT see!!!
posted on 23 Mar 2009Awful. The only word to describe this movie. It is surely a waste of time. You may as well watch something half notch better like skin-walkers or Bloodrayne - I itself. This is a fantasy movie for crying out loud. Uwe Boll mixes it with western. That is a creative spin. But guess what, it is like an amateur trying to make a cocktail. A cocktail with a combo of Scotch and frozen yogurt. Yeah, that is exactly how you are going to feel watching this movie. Plot is weak, so is the concept.The stunts in the movie is weak. The editing is even weaker. I hope they realise there is a concept called editing. The machine gun scene is abysmal. So overall a MUST NOT SEE movie!
Makes the first one seem like a masterpiece
posted on 23 Mar 2009The sequel is an unmitigated disaster. This is definitely worthy of the title of modern Ed Wood picture. Well, maybe not. Wood's films are entertainingly bad. Like all the worst movies ever made, Boll's films are just dreadfully boring. This one actually has a decent premise to start with: set in the Wild West (vampires, even half ones, I guess, are immortal), Rayne (the role taken over by Natassia Malthe) must kill a vampire Billy the Kid (Zack Ward), who has taken over a small town. Now, the idea of a vampire Billy the Kid sold me on the movie immediately. That could be hilarious, right? Sigh. It didn't even feel like there was a director on the set of this one. Almost nothing happens. It feels like they were working off a script written on a cocktail napkin, a script that consisted of only the words "Billy Kid is a vampire". And has an Eastern European accent for some reason. And who prefers to feast on children, which gives the entire movie, as bad as it already is, an even more unlikeable tone. Wonder whose decision that was. This one doesn't even have the good taste to show the audience boobs, and the gore budget was obviously a lot lower. Gun fights are a lot more boring than sword fights, even poorly done sword fights. This is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
As time goes on, Uwe Boll's "logic" gets clearer
posted on 21 Mar 2009BloodRayne II: Deliverance--Rayne returns as a character of the Wild West, where she takes on the elder vampire Billy the Kidd in a shoot-out style small town. Like Boll's storytelling, the connection between this movie's story and the last one is pretty much left to the viewer to assume. Unfortunately for Boll, his isn't the type of well-crafted scenario that such assumptions come as respect for the audience, it's more a lack of attention to the details that leads the audience to confusion.Here's Boll's problem: he operates his movies within a generic framework, and lets the audience's familiarity with that genre dictate the staples of the storyline. Then he fills in the gaps with the scenes or action he wants to. The result is something like an outline of scenes with no actual motivation, direction, or worst of all, consequence. Whenever Boll is forced to include exposition, it comes in the form of a character literally appearing out of nowhere to give the details: some might remember this character in Alone in the Dark as the moving guy who was working in the museum, but in this film it's even less logical--a man who literally appears out of the woods to tell Rayne what happened to her family? friends? neighbors? so that she can go and, like, fix it or something. Remember, no details makes no clear motivation.Boll is literally clueless. He doesn't know how to make a movie, he doesn't know why his movies are bad, he doesn't understand why people say they're bad, he doesn't learn from the mistakes he doesn't know he makes, and then he gets defensive and beats critics up ('cause, you know, that really changes the quality of his storytelling, indeed). For a while there, he was getting better... BloodRayne was better than Alone in the Dark, which was better than House of the Dead. BloodRayne II: Deliverance reverses that trend. It does so because he takes some of the most irritatingly banal of action sequence approaches (excessive slo-mo, turning and gunning the backstabber, etc.) and turns it into the very staple of the film. He takes a genre, the Western, and shows that he has absolutely no real comprehension of its purposes, it's true iconography, or its use of Americana (some could say that's because he's not an American, but that never stopped the Italians from producing some kick-ass Westerns, now did it?). Even the background rings entirely false. He filmed this up in Canada. That's fine, many people have recreated the West in Canada. He didn't. He shot Canada. You can tell.What's left? Well, the characters. Rayne herself is nothing but some woman walking around scowling... except when she's pretending to be a whore. Was it me, or did that actress entirely light up when that scene began? Suddenly she fit better into her element. Billy the Kidd is some Dracula caricature without the grace, classiness, or wit... so... nothing. The townsfolk are less than stereotypes, they're empty frames, and the whole thing is tied together by a bumbling reporter who could have been entirely removed from the movie and not changed a thing. The only person who stands out is The Preacher (that's his name), who does a good job because the actor actually has some fun with his role versus everyone else who are dead on their feet. Otherwise the rest are less than vampires, less than cowboys. Their very accents sound like half-hearted attempts to reminisce over what the character should be. It's actually depressing to hear them speak....and the dialog, which ranges from inane to entirely nonsensical. Rayne's response to a warning to be careful? "You're fly is down." The closing words that sum up the movie? "Life is like peanuts." A dying man's last words? "You better hope we don't meet again." And so on.Worse, Uwe Boll seems to be hinting, especially at the end with the mention of Tombstone, that this movie is supposed to fit within the popular iconography of the American West... but he calls it Deliverance?! I don't know about you, but when I consider "Deliverance," I hear a certain voice in my head saying "Why don't you just drop them there pants." He is out of tune with popular conscience, as well! Here's two things that set this movie apart from Uwe's other works: 1) it's straight-to-video, which is what people have been saying he needs to stick to anyway. 2) It actually has a good concept that makes it all the more depressing when it fails. I mean, c'mon: Vampires duking it out in the Wild West! That would be an awesome movie if it was done correctly! Think "From Dusk Till Dawn" meets "Tombstone"! But instead you get lazy, boring action without consequence or narrative. Yawn.--PolarisDiB
Geez.... vampire cowboys!
posted on 11 Mar 2009At first, I didn't realize that Uwe Boll had any involvement with this production. I can't begin to describe the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when his name flashed on the screen. But still, I figured that I would see what the film had to offer. And that was -- vampire cowboys! From the shaky camera-work (mount the camera on a stick if you don't have a tripod), to the unconvincing wardrobe that doesn't show any frontier wear and tear and finally, a vampire Billy the Kid with a bad Euro-trash accent.I truly wish that I could rate this lower than one star -- the first film was worth one star and this "sequel" falls so far beneath it.
So very bad
posted on 20 Aug 2009I liked the lead actress. But the writing, plot and just about everything else was so bad it makes the Subspecies movies look like blockbusters. It was so bad I felt like my mind was being raped. Sadly I love the genre but it was just bland. The action was contrived the acting was mundane. And the worst part the part that will kill any movie.. it seems lacking it is though you start in the middle. There is no back story and it is like getting to the theater about 20 mins. too late and never quit getting an explanation of previous goings.I can say if you are watching scifi and its on go ahead. But do not spend money renting this film. Put it towards something more interesting like hammering tacks into your own hand. LOL