Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Movies Media Entertainment Games

BloodRayne Hits Theatres 38

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BloodRayne Hits Theatres

Comments Filter:
  • Umm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @03:51PM (#14417744) Homepage
    ... 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.

    • Wild West?!?! (Score:3, Informative)

      by BigDork1001 ( 683341 )
      I did a little surfing real quick, curious in just how bad this movie might actually be. It's worse than I could have imagined. Boll is already talking about a sequel of this movie (which I'm sure is going to be a classic) that will be set in the Wild West.

      A little info here []. Not sure how accurate the info is though.

    • Re:Umm.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      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 fi
    • Re:Umm.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fireduck ( 197000 )
      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 [] 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 pay

      • Seeing as how I've lived in Germany for the past 3 years this actually doesn't surprise me at all. While it's a beautiful country which I've really enjoyed exploring (not to mention great beer), it's got some pretty f#cked up laws and business practices.
      • They'Re planning to plug that hole, I hope that stops Uwe Boll.
      • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:53PM (#14418498) Homepage Journal

        Okay, let's say that a German investor invests $100 in the $10 million movie (I like simple numbers), and it makes $1 million back. The investor gets his $10 and claims a tax writeoff of $90. How much is that writeoff? Let's say it's a 30% tax rate, so he pays $27 less in taxes.

        So the investor's investment of $100 has earned the investor $10, plus a $27 tax break. He's still lost $63.

        Instead, let's say that Uwe actually did a good job, and the movie makes $200 million. Even if the investor is soaked with, say, a 70% tax rate, he has made $130 on his $100 investment, which is, I would think, infinitely preferable to losing $63.

        I'm always amused at how folks think that investors do things to deliberately lose money for a tax writeoff. Unless you're cooking your books, you will never get a larger credit than the loss you took, which means that making money is always a better choice than losing it. If someone invested in Uwe Boll's movie, it's because they hope it will, in the end, make money. (Or who knows? Maybe they're just a huge Uwe Boll fan, but having seen some of his movies, I think the other reason is much more likely.)

        • by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <> on Saturday January 07, 2006 @07:59PM (#14418773) Homepage

          It works like this: say, someone has a business and makes $10 million profit. He has to pay like 40% tax on it, so he only gets $6 million.

          Except he doesn't - he immediately invests that $10 million into a film, so he doesn't have to pay tax over it (there's a law that promotes investments in films, and it means the investor doesn't have to pay tax on that $10M at all - he gets to deduce the whole investment from his income). The film loses money and only manages to bring in $8 million, which is owned by the investor. The film didn't make any profit, so no tax is paid.

          Investor owns $8 million instead of $6 million. Net profit to the investor: $2 million.

          Your mistake is in your very first paragraph; the investor doesn't have a $90 deduction, he has a $100 deduction since it was an investment in a domestic film. And he doesn't get $10 back on his $100 investment, but something that's usually over the $70 he'd have after the taxes in your example.

        • The way the GP wrote it, you could invest $100 and not pay taxes on that money until the movie made you more than $100. So he'd actually pay $30 less. (That's all for my nitpicking)

          Whether such an investment is useful depends upon the tax code, particularly if there are tax brackets. Investing in a sure loser could drop you to just below your current bracket, which, in some cases, means you earn more post-tax income. Heck, if the GP is right, and your investment is 100% deductible until it makes money, t
        • While you are correct that no one loses money to get a tax break, parent poster is right about german tax law. There is a more detailed explanation of how to use German and British tax law here []. As an example, "On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million." Pretty stunning tax loops.
      • .. 'Uwe Boll's Springtime for Hitler - coming to a cinema near you soon.'
  • by cornface ( 900179 )
    It's probably great!
  • by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <> on Saturday January 07, 2006 @04:02PM (#14417801) Homepage Journal
    Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary [] has a hillarious review [].

    Best bit, IMO:

    I'm not trying to tear this movie a new anal orifice. I assure you, the film already has SEVERAL, and it defecates simultaneously through all of them. You don't want to get any of this on you.
  • Needs to be stopped. These are crimes against gaming, crimes against film, crimes against humanity. Won't somebody please think of the children!
  • With rumors abound that Uwe Boll has been making terrible movies on purpose, in order to exploit a german tax loophole... now that that loophole has been closed, is it possible that uwe boll's future works will actually be half-assed decent? I think its pretty safe to say that Bloorayne and Dungeon Siege wont be too good... But perhaps there is hope yet for Far Cry, Hunter: The Reckoning, Postal (ok, maybe not postal), and Fear Effect.

    We can hope.
  • Sigh, movies eh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @04:57PM (#14418049) Journal
    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.

  • Which means I'm more likely to watch it than, say, Underworld Evolution.
  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:49PM (#14418486)
    If he keeps this up somebody will make a movie of his life story.



    lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter.
    • This guy is so bad that we actually need to keep him around. Just as you need evil to truly appreciate good, we NEED Uwe. How could we appreciate terms like "mediocre filmmaking" and "brilliant filmmaking" if we didn't have guys like Uwe Boll and Michael Bay to show us "terrible filmmaking"?

      Uwe is performing a valuable public service, and so I propose we set up a fund to ensure that he can keep making his movies. The worse idea he comes up with, the more money we give him. "Remake Heaven's Gate with Ryan Se

  • It has a vampire AND an explosion!
  • How in blue hell did House of the Dead only get to #22 on the "Worst Films" list? Did anyone even see it? I rented it knowing it was going to be bad, but sometimes bad movies can be fun if done properly. However, when the characters went from clumsy idiots, running around scared and screaming their heads off to wielding a gun in each hand and pulling off Matrix-style moves it just became so rediculous. Uwe Boll must be stopped.
  • Uwe Boll needs to stop making game movies, but that said: he *has* made a movie I enjoyed.
    I was bored one weekend, watching cable, and too lazy to change the channel, and some little thriller came on called "black woods"... well, I watched it, and ended up enjoying it, as the twist was a very interesting one, and I was shocked when it turned out to have uwe boll's name on it at the end.

    spoiler, not that any of you will care enough to actually see it. it was about a guy who was taking a trip to the cou

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun