Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Bloodrayne Officially Awful 78

Posted by Zonk
from the again-with-the-surprises dept.
Uwe Boll's latest attempt to kill the future of gaming movies is officially terrible, reports Next Generation. From the article: "Filmjerk: 'In his mind, [Boll] is Steven Spielberg; arranging danger and adventure on the screen with clarity and a roaring sense of excitement. However, the tragic reality is that Boll has all the artistic ability of the average 4th grade finger-painter.'" Update: 01/09 21:33 GMT by Z : 1up has a short and telling interview with Mr. Boll from this past weekend.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloodrayne Officially Awful

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

    More material is always good. If you don't like a particular installment of your favorite sci-fi/fantasy series, nothing lost. If someone else likes it, that's good. What's the problem here?

    • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Digital Vomit (891734) on Monday January 09, 2006 @04:35PM (#14430337) Homepage Journal
      I beg to differ. Something is lost. No one will make a proper adaptation of a video game movie when a crappy one has already been made.
      • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

        Because all the non Uwe-Boll video games movies were astonishing successes, right?

        Mortal Kombat
        Street Fighter
        Resident Evil
        Super Mario Brothers...
        • Re:Wrong (Score:2, Informative)

          by joshsisk (161347)
          Mortal Kombat was a mild box office hit, more than doubling it's money. Resident Evil was also successful, though not to the same degree.
          • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

            The point was there are virtually no video game movies made now except those by Uwe Boll. People would rather have nothing, because trashing the guy is an internet meme.
            • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)

              by joshsisk (161347)
              Oh. That didn't really seem clear from your comment... but I still disagree with you. In 2005 we had Doom and the announcement of Halo (with Peter Jackson producing). In 2004, we had a Tomb Raider sequel and Aliens Vs Predator. This year, we can expect Metroid (directed by John Woo), Silent Hill and Mortal Kombat 3. Next year, Castlevania (directed by Paul Anderson, who did AVP and MK).

              There is not a shortage of video game movies, and none of those above (to my knowledge) were directed by Uwe Boll.
            • The point was there are virtually no video game movies made now except those by Uwe Boll. People would rather have nothing, because trashing the guy is an internet meme

              Bashing Uwe Boll (and believe me, he's not the only one who's made terrible, terrible movies from video games) is not an 'internet meme' any more than calling the sky blue is a 'real world meme'. The guy stinks at making movies. That's just plan fact.

              People would rather have 'nothing' because 'nothing' is better than a big, steaming pile

        • Re:Hey now! (Score:3, Informative)

          by vertinox (846076)
          Resident Evil

          At least Resident Evil Movie stole scenes directly from the CGI of the games'

          Remember the scene where she dropped the gun to catch it to shoot the barrel. Taken directly from the CGI cut scene scene in Resident Evil: Codename Veronica. Generally they kept to the plot of the game. That and it was rather successful.

          Well... When you compare it to Mario Brothers and Street Fighter... *coughs*

        • Whether the other movies were made by Boll is irrelevant.

          After a movie is adapted from any work (be it a game, a novel, a short story, or a comic book), it will be a long time -- often 20 years or more -- before someone else in the same film market attempts another adaptation. If the first version is crap, it'll be a decade or two before you have a chance of someone coming along and doing a good movie. If there's no current adaptation, then there's still room for someone to step up to the plate and make
        • Because all the non Uwe-Boll video games movies were astonishing successes, right?

          Whatever gave you that impression? Most movies based on video games suck.

      • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aztektum (170569)
        Although this begs the question, why do we really need to make game -> movie adaptations (and vice versa) in the first place? I would rather each market battle each other out for our dollars by creating things that only that specific form of entertainment can provide rather than just milk each others ideas.

        Of course the answer to this question is $$. From a purely marketroid point of you, you'd be crazy not to make a Halo movie because you're almost guaranteed a few hundred million above what you spen
      • Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

        by milkman_matt (593465)
        I beg to differ. Something is lost. No one will make a proper adaptation of a video game movie when a crappy one has already been made.

        First thing that came to mind for me was The Punisher (Although a comic movie, not a Game movie, but follow me here) The Dolph version of that movie was horrible and everyone you ask will say the same, the newer one that came out a couple years ago was quite a lot better. Same goes (loosly) for Batman, the first two were great, the second two were horrible, awful and should
        • This is quite true... but note that there was a sixteen year gap between Punisher films. A bad adaptation may not nix another try forever, but it most likely pushes one back by several years, if not a decade or more.
        • Well... probably not "Bloodrayne II." In all of your examples, the naming of the newer, better movie was designed to imply that the previous movie(s) had never existed. So if they do decide to make another, non-Uwe Bloodrayne movie, they'll probably just call it "Bloodrayne" and hope that people don't remember the previous installment.
        • by Jack9 (11421)
          The Dolph version of that movie was horrible and everyone you ask will say the same
          I think there's a couple thousand people who would disagree with that statement bucko. Also mention how Buckaroo Bonzai, Welcome to the Dollhouse, and Equilibrium "were horrible and everyone you ask will say the same".
          • I think there's a couple thousand people who would disagree with that statement bucko. Also mention how Buckaroo Bonzai, Welcome to the Dollhouse, and Equilibrium "were horrible and everyone you ask will say the same".

            You're right, I don't even remember writing that and wonder why i'd put something so blatent and definite. However I can safely say that the vast majority thought it was horrible at least right? ;) Hell, every movie out there's got at least one person who likes it.
      • That's completely silly. If a kindergartner decided to write an official sequel to LoTR would it add to the series? Probably not, it would in fact detract from the series since the average quality would decrease. In the extreme case, if "everything" were added to every series, they would in fact, all be exactly the same, since they would all contain everything. Therefore, by taking things out we define them as much as by what we put in. This idea is very old:

        Tao Te Ching #11
        A clay bowl is molded;
        But th
    • If someone else likes it, that's good. What's the problem here?

      No one likes it.

      Even Boll's mother.
    • Worthless crap is always worthless crap. And it taints anything it is based on by association.
    • If you don't like a particular installment of your favorite sci-fi/fantasy series, nothing lost.

      Something's lost. The value of the original is diluted by low-quality extensions, especially under a copyright regime where the follow-on products are required to have been authorized by the original creator.

      It has just become more difficult to convince someone that Bloodrayne is an entertaining and worthwhile action video-game, because the movie will have left such a bad impression on so many minds.

      In a similar
  • by Firewalker_Midnights (943814) on Monday January 09, 2006 @04:31PM (#14430306)
    Boll: 1) v. To render unviewable "He really Boll'ed that film" 2) adj. In reference to a sight too horrible to look at "That image is just Boll!"
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Somebody already got there [urbandictionary.com] :)

      bollshit

      combined from Uwe Boll, worst movie producer/director this planet has ever seen (Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead), and "bullshit"

      (1) term to describe the end product of a Boll production

      (2) rating for a movie or scene that was just as good as if it was made by Boll himself

      (1) "Dude, did you hear who's gonna direct the adaptation of 'Dungeon Siege'?"
      "Yes, and it will end up being the same bollshit as usual"

      (2) "Hey, what did you think of that one scene in Battlefield
  • by Saiyine (689367) on Monday January 09, 2006 @04:35PM (#14430338) Homepage

    How is that you think that this movie is so bad? It is at #37 place in this all time imdb chart [imdb.com]!

    Uh? What do you mean with "bottom"?

    • You should have also noted how many of Boll's films are on that list... ;)
    • by Anm (18575) on Monday January 09, 2006 @04:45PM (#14430434)
      Apparently, he's getting better with experience:
            House of the Dead (2003) #18
            Alone in the Dark (2005) #36
            BloodRayne (2005) #37

      Who in their right mind is funding this guy?

      Anm
      • German taxpayers.

        I'm not kidding.
        • by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Monday January 09, 2006 @05:40PM (#14430978)
          Whats sad is you're the only person who understands why he makes such crap movies.

          Under the German tax system, if the movie tanks, the investors make a mint through a tax loophole. Video game movie rights are sometimes really easy to obtain if your a big studio. Big studio execs then form a shell German corporation and invest in the movie through that. When the movie tanks, the investors (studio) makes a mint.

          Hollywood is too cutthroat to allow this kind of crap to be released for no reason.
        • by Ben Newman (53813) on Monday January 09, 2006 @06:44PM (#14431526)
          You know, that theory still doesn't hold water for me. The way the German tax loophole worked (I say worked because it was recently closed) was this. The studios would sell a movie to a German holding company for, say 100 million, and then the holding company would lease the movie back to the studio for, say 90 million. Why would they be willing to lose 10 million on the deal? Because the money they put up is considered a capital investment under the old German tax law, and isn't taxable until it turns a profit, so instead of losing 40% of that money to taxes they only lose 10%. It's free money for both parties, but the thing to keep in mind is that it's completely removed from the actual box office receipts. It doesn't matter if the movie is a hit or tanks, the amounts are decided long before the movie is released, and no matter what happened the holding company always "loses" it's 10%, and the risk is still on the studios shoulders with just a little extra padding because of the loophole.

          So how does Boll exactly benefit from this? His movies are too low budget to benefit from this shell game, studios like doing this with big budget movies because it benefits from an economy of scale. Trying to make a $1 million off of a $10 million dollar movie doesn't work as well because too much of the profit margin gets eaten up with lawyer fees and the like. BloodRayne is his biggest budget film yet, and from what I can see it's right around $20 million which is not enough. German investors aren't going to directly invest in his films if they don't return at least 60% of their investment, and I don't think any of them have. I'm still voting on blackmail polaroids of various studio executives as the most likely explanation.
          • by joshsisk (161347)
            Likely he is doing the same thing as many exploitation film distributors did in the days of yore... preselling foreign rights. It used to be standard to come up with a catchy title, tagline and poster, then pre-sell distribution rights for $300,000 here, $200,000 there... After awhile, you have enough money to make the movie. Boll could very well be doing something similar.
        • That is no longer true. That law has changed. The loophole is gone. Boll is still making movies. It kind of makes me wonder if the whole german tax loophole was ever the reason he was getting funded. It made perfect sense at the time, but why is he still getting funded to make the worlds shittiest movies even after the loophole is gone?
  • *shrug* it's readily apparent that we in the US don't..... What say thee?
  • Uwe Boll's latest attempt to kill the future of gaming movies is officially terrible, reports Next Generation. So he's failing at killing gaming movies. Does that mean he's making good movies?
  • Boll needs to die :)
  • We seem to have a whole lot more articles bashing this game, that movie whatever than praising anything that's done. Why is that?
  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday January 09, 2006 @05:08PM (#14430654) Journal
    So what? They are B-movies. Of course they are terrible. Furthermore, they are cheap to make and are tax shelters for their investors.

    Let's face it, most video games don't translate well to movies; the same is true in reverse. I ofter see people complaining that video games are largely unoriginal, either they are sequels or movie tie-ins...

    How is this any different?

    Just like video games based on movies (with occasional exceptions), most of the time movies based on games will suck. That doesn't mean there won't be an occasional winner, which is what we should all hope for.

    Of course, if it has Uwe Boll in the credits, I think we all know where it will fall.
    • All true, but the "So?" comes in when you remember that a bad translation, a bad sequel, or a bad remake hurt themselves far more than just a regular bad movie does. How many times have you heard, "It was a good movie, but it was a bad sequel."?

      Every furthur Boll movie that comes out leaves me more and more convinced that the article a while back on Slashdot was true: He's not even trying to succeed, he's using some obscure tax hole to bilch investors.

      A few of these movies, I've actually believed COULD work
      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Red Flayer (890720)
        I agree, and I think it's pretty typical of B-movies -- with a different actor/director/etc. the movie could be better, maybe even make it out of the 'B' grade.

        I think the problem is hidden in the article summary -- Boll thinks he's Spielberg, but is B-grade. The best B-movies are made by directors who are aware they are B-grade, and direct the movie accordingly. Ditto with actors (Bruce Campbell comes to mind).
  • New Underworld movie (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Puhase (911920)
    It seems like nothing is going Mr.Boll's way. It took Bloodrayne a terribly long time to find a production company that was willing to carry this film and put it in theatres and now that he finally has, a far better movie starring a violent female vampire, Underworld:Evolution, is coming out this friday. Now I know many did not like the first one and will probably not like this one as well, but I believe we can all agree that it will seem like Shakespeare when compared to the visual abortion that is Bloodra
  • by lupinstel (792700) on Monday January 09, 2006 @05:17PM (#14430755)
    We gave the Germans David Hasselhoff, they gave us Uwe Boll.
    • So a show with a cool car and a show with a lot of boobies for Boll?

      Damn did they get the better end of that one.
      • Perhaps you're not aware that David Hasselhoff is famous in Germany not for Knight Rider, but for SINGING. One of his albums went triple-platinum there, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hasselhof f">his Wiki article</a>.
  • by Androclese (627848) on Monday January 09, 2006 @05:28PM (#14430862)

    A list of headlines that you could never have possibly guessed

    - iPods come in white

    - Sony to sell a device called "The Playstation"

    - Microsoft is a monopoly

    - IBM said to sell computers

    - SlashDot is read by people called "geeks"


    More obvious things at 11:00

  • Oh, here [penny-arcade.com] it is!
    s/House of the Dead/Bloodrayne/;

    So far, all his videogame movies are in the IMDB's bottom 100: 18, 36, and 37. I never particularly cared for any of these games but if he screws up Far Cry (which I'm sure he will), I'll probably go Postal in the theater!
  • Duh. (Score:4, Informative)

    by IronTek (153138) on Monday January 09, 2006 @06:24PM (#14431379) Homepage
    It's a January release. One of the traditional Hollywood dumping times when people are generally watching football and such and not going to the movies.

    Of course it's bad.
  • by vistic (556838) on Monday January 09, 2006 @06:25PM (#14431391)
    Heres a coral cached link: http://www.1up.com.nyud.net:8090/do/newsStory?cId= 3146777 [nyud.net] since it wasn't loading for me.

    But seriously...

    "1UP: What stood out about the casting of Kristanna Loken? In the latest issue of FHM (an American men's magazine), she's quoted on the cover as saying "I love being naked." C'mon, tell us, that must be it.

    UB: yes. and she is in the movie naked"

    "1UP: It's understandable Meatloaf had fun working with the prostitutes during filming, but how did you even come up with the idea of casting Meatloaf? How did you track him down?

    UB: he has LOKENS manager"


    Yes, THAT is how to cast a film!

  • The Filthy Critic [bigempire.com]'s review is also available. Have a look [bigempire.com]. Of course, he hates just about everything...but he reserved some of the best words I've seen in any review for Bloodrayne:

    Bloodrayne sucks goat tits. It sucks shit and smelly ass. It sucks the husks off corn, the foreskin off dicks, the shit off the submissive in a Dirty Sanchez. It sucks harder and more sloppily than a Bennigan's waitress on her lunch break, but costs slightly less. It is, however, better than Alone in the Dark. That's not to

  • didn't see that one coming.

    Is it just me or does this sound threatening?(from the 1up interview)
    1UP: Sum up what we should expect from Postal in one sentence.
    UB: the biggest desaster [sic] on earth - but not for me - for AMERICA
  • You want filthy [bigempire.com] to review . . . and then he does.
  • I'm reading through the interview, and all I can think is WHO KEEPS FINANCING THIS MAN? I mean, he writes like a grade eight child,

    1UP: Though BloodRayne hasn't officially screened for critics, there have been some select showings, one of which prompted a sharply negative review by Ain't It Cool News, a site you previously told 1UP you read. Is that the response you were expecting?

    UB: no. HARRY and Quint are retards

    Ok, so now we now how he responds to criticism... How about his feelings about his act

    • eh, whoever does it, i'm glad they do. I kind of like the guy (mostly based on that interview).

      it might help that i've never seen his films (based on what people are saying).. but that has got to be one of the best interviews i've ever read :)

      if you want a serious answer, read earlier in this discussion. there's something about a german tax loophole for movies
    • There was an article up, possibly on Slashdot, that explains how Boll keeps making movies.

      From what I remember, it boiled down to a loophole in German tax law that says that investors in things (such as movies) get to write the whoooole investment off if it tanks.

      I'll post later if I can find the original article.

  • 1UP: Why are you forgoing critic screenings for BloodRayne?

    UB: we have a premiere where the press can come. piracy is also a problem
    Yes, we all know that piracy will be ultimate reason why people won't see this movie.
  • A movie review worth reading because it's more entertaining than the movie itself...

    http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/bloodrayne.html [bigempire.com]

    "Bloodrayne sucks goat tits. It sucks shit and smelly ass. It sucks the husks off corn, the foreskin off dicks, the shit off the submissive in a Dirty Sanchez. It sucks harder and more sloppily than a Bennigan's waitress on her lunch break, but costs slightly less. It is, however, better than Alone in the Dark. That's not to say it's good, it's just that it's like getting a stap
  • Movies made from video games are timeless... just look at Mario Brothers, Doom, Final Fanatasy, Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil!
  • I saw this coming. A friend asked me if I was going to see Bloodrayne. I replied "No." "Why?" "Trust me, it will absolutley suck." I had read no reviews or had seen any previews or screenshots.

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- D.E. Knuth

Working...