BloodRayne Hits Theatres

Gamespot reports on the release of yet another Uwe Boll film, one that was not pre-screened to film critics. You just know that means quality. From the article: "While Boll's work is often decried by gamers and critics alike, there are preliminary signs of improvement on the part of the oft-maligned director. According to the Internet Movie Database's Bottom 100 ranking system, BloodRayne is only the 42nd worst movie ever made as of press time. Boll's previous game-to-film efforts, Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead, rank as the 38th and 22nd worst movies ever, respectively."

Umm....

[BigDork1001]

... you think that the movie industry would learn their lesson. They bitch about low profits and declining audience attendance and then they release pure, total crap. No kidding sales are down. No one wants to see pure garbage like this.

Find better directors, make better movies, get some original ideas and poof, better profits.

Sigh, movies eh

[SmallFurryCreature]

I mean, I can understand some game movies. They are usually made about BIG games that had a lot of influence. I played bloodrayne 2. It is not in that class. Not by a longshot.

Now I don't want to get all the bloodrayne fans at me but lets be honest here. It was a cheap action game surviving on sex and gore. Not that there is anything wrong with it but compare it to Tomb Raider, Dungeon & Dragons, Doom, Super Mario, Street Fighter it becomes clear that Bloodrayne does not belong in that list.

So I don't know how you could ruin it. Hot girl, in skimpy customes slaughtering men and equally scantily glad females in gory ways with plenty of blood soaked skin. Throw in some stuff about vampires and you should be done. It does not have a strong intelligent lead, it does not have an extremely complex game history, it does not play on mars and have expensive CGI demons, it does not have simple fun gameplay that cannot translate to a script, it does not have a cast of two dozen players who have to be squeezed in.

And yet the reviews all seem to conclude that even this game to movie can be ruined. No I haven't seen it. I am weak and am still recoverning from the last Star Wars Nasty.

But I am thinking that we are all wrong. Uwe Boll is not the next Ed Woods. Ed Wood knew he was a hack and as far as I know all his movies were cheap to make. Uwe Boll must either be a millionaire or he actually does make enough on his movies to fund his next project. The only reason I can see someone invest in a movie produced/directed by a known failure is if it is for tax reasons.

People who says movies and games are coming together are right. Uwe Boll is doing it. Sadly what we hoped would be a loving encounter under moonlight has turned into a rape scene.

Oh well, at least this reinforces my believe that it is okay to pirate movies and steal actors money. People with no morals about appearing in movies like this deserve to starve to death.

Re:Umm....

[cgenman]

House of the dead had a 7 million dollar budget and grossed 11 million in domestic box office. Add in overseas numbers and DVD sales, and you have what the industry considers a real winner.

What happens next is, of course, the problem. A: people watch the movie, are terrified by how bad it is and don't come back. B: With a success under his belt, Uwe Bowl is given 20 million dollars to make his next movie, with is also drek but doesn't have the charm of a low-budget film. C: Anybody who didn't see the first movie goes in to see the second movie, realizes how bad it is, and doesn't come back.

In essence, you have hollywood investing in people who can sucker the largest audience into bad films.

BTW, I just posted this to the IMDB forums, but might as well share here. This [bloodrayne2.com] is the poster for the movie. This [chriscanfield.net] is a quick photoshop edit of the poster to make it look like the character from the game. The actress was more than capable of pulling off the role, but without competenet direction, cinematography, and costuming she didn't have a chance.

Re:Umm....

[fireduck]

You are under the mistaken belief that Uwe Boll makes movies to make a profit. He doesn't. Apparently German tax laws are quite screwy and investors get to write off all of their expenses. Here's one site [cinemablend.com] that explains the idea:

When you disseminate all the boring legal business law surrounding it the bottom line is this - the German investors in a movie only pay tax on any RETURNS the movie makes, their investment is 100% deductible, so the minute the movie makes a profit, said investor has to start paying tax. Plus the investors can actually borrow money to put towards investment and write that off too.

So, Boll doesn't make movies to make money. He makes them to lose money.