Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BloodRayne Hits Theatres

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the with-a-dull-thud dept.

Movies 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."

cancel ×

38 comments

Umm.... (5, Insightful)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417744)

... 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.

Re:Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14417790)

No one wants to see pure garbage like this.

Agreed. I thought Bloodrayne was a blood-n-guts boobfest of a videogame. The movie had three strikes from the plot alone. Better translated as a porno for skinimax than a mainstream blockbuster.

Uwe isn't going to get good scripts, and I hope that any game company with any decent video game backstory would attempt to use video games to tell that story, not some crapfest on the big screen.

Hell, he's putting people off gaming in general by making this trite.

Wild West?!?! (3, Informative)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417800)

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 [cinematical.com] . Not sure how accurate the info is though.

Re:Wild West?!?! (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417876)

There is no way this can be worse than mortal kombat annihilation, double dragon and street fighter the movie. There is a limit... I think.

Re:Wild West?!?! (1)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14420699)

Considering House of the Dead was worse than the three you named...

Re:Wild West?!?! (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14427318)

Don't forget about the steaming pile of pooh Super Mario Bros.

Re:Wild West?!?! (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418112)

Bad or not, I think I would actually go see a cowboys vs. vampires movie!

Re:Umm.... (2, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418079)

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.... (2, Insightful)

fireduck (197000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418115)

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.

Re:Umm.... (1)

BigDork1001 (683341) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418150)

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.

Re:Umm.... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418279)

They'Re planning to plug that hole, I hope that stops Uwe Boll.

No, that doesn't work. (4, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418498)

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.)

Re:No, that doesn't work. (4, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418773)

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.

Re:No, that doesn't work. (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14425049)

The film didn't make any profit, so no tax is paid.

That's why revenue is taxed, not profit. The film may have lost money, but they still need to pay taxes on that $8 million in revenue.

Re:No, that doesn't work. (1)

Greatmoose (896405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14427387)

Not according to the German tax laws. That's the whole point. You pay taxes on revenues in the US, but apparently in Germany, it's on profits. It's very similar to the "The Producers."

Re:No, that doesn't work. (2, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418774)

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, then even if the film simply breaks even, you're paying less in taxes.

To extend your example, an investor invests $100 in a $10mil movie. The movie makes $10mil, so the investor gets $100 back. That money is (apparently) not taxed--only film profits are--so this is effectively a shelter. $100 of the investor's income for that year is not counted as income for tax purposes, even though he broke even on the investment. Even small losses could mean a net gain.

I question whether this is an accurate representation of the law, but it's possible. Someone else mentioned that they were trying to close that hole, so maybe there's some truth to it.

Re:No, that doesn't work. (1)

jambarama (784670) | more than 8 years ago | (#14419007)

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 [slate.com] . 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.

Now that sounds familiar.. (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422325)

.. 'Uwe Boll's Springtime for Hitler - coming to a cinema near you soon.'

Oh, come on. (1, Funny)

cornface (900179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417745)

It's probably great!

Crap! That's a movie?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14417787)

The commercials looked like clips from a television show.

Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary (2, Interesting)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417801)

Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary [schlockmercenary.com] has a hillarious review [livejournal.com] .

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.

AICN Review (1)

An El Haqq (83446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14421934)

Ain't It Cool News has a review [aintitcool.com] up as well. Oh, and another here [aintitcool.com] although both are mostly comments on Uwe as a person.

Uwe Boll (1)

Doctor Tesla (895547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417819)

Needs to be stopped. These are crimes against gaming, crimes against film, crimes against humanity. Won't somebody please think of the children!

uwe boll = decent? (1)

Blaaguuu (886777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14417971)

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 (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418049)

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:Sigh, movies eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14418231)

At least Bloodrayne 2 was an okay game. Bloodrayne 1 was horrible. It was like the developers just discovered jiggle technology, and based the entire game around that. They put all the female characters in tight skimpy outfits, and had them turn at sharp angles so the Jello technology would make their breasts jiggle. It was hilarious, and it wasn't supposed to be. Oh, and the game mechanics weren't very strong.

At least it's not from Sony/MGM... (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418368)

Which means I'm more likely to watch it than, say, Underworld Evolution.

Re:At least it's not from Sony/MGM... (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 8 years ago | (#14419303)

I just saw the trailer for Evolution; talk about killing the visual artistry of the 1st film. Ouch!

Winner of the Ed Wood Career Achievement Award (2, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14418486)

If he keeps this up somebody will make a movie of his life story.

Re:Winner of the Ed Wood Career Achievement Award (1)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14420712)

Ed Wood made movies so bad they're hilarious. Uwe Boll make them just bad. There's a difference.

ugh . (1)

thdexter (239625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14420705)

WHY DOES THIS PIECE OF SHIT DIRECTOR KEEP GETTING WORK.

SERIOUSLY.

lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter.

Uwe is a genius (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14427557)

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 Seacrest and Tara Reid? Great idea! $20 million!" "Jolly Green Giant: the Movie? Excellent! $25 million!" "Little Rascals 2 starring Michael Jackson? Superb! $30 million!"

-Eric

This is the best movie I've ever seen. (2, Funny)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14420732)

It has a vampire AND an explosion!

Re:This is the best movie I've ever seen. (1)

ksiddique (749168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422753)

It's amazing the way you *notice two things*. :)

House of the Dead? (1)

TrevX (617474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14422647)

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.

Re:House of the Dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14430223)

I had made longer post at the end, but I don't have an account so odds are no human eye will ever see it.

I thought this movie was hillarious and seemed very purposefully made that way. I don't think people realize the amount of time and planning, that those actions sequences take to layout, nor the quality of them. They are definitely not half-ass(whihc was what I was expecting). They are in comparison magnitudes harder to plan and execute than anything that was done in Resident Evil.
I laughed through out the entire movie and without any alchohol. The acing was perfect for HOD and had some amazingly fun (to me) lines of badness.
In short I thought it was spot on for a HOD schlock fest that actually seemed to be aware that that's what it was, rather than the majority of the movies that take themselves seriously but for me are just not that good fr what they are targetting.. like Ghost Ship (other than a slick intro an incredibly painful movie) or Underworld... But I'm not really into any comic books or movies where characters need to perch on buildings in the night to brood over their Hot-Topic apparel marketable 'tormented darkness'...
I don't really find the b movies on the sci fi channel entertaining at all either.

And yes I did laugh all the way through Battlfield Earth, which obviously was meant to be serious. And would be first in line to see a sequel.

But then again I don't think most people saw Starship troopers as satirical film, like I did.
If you care you can see my longer post at the bottom, hidden, safely ...

Uwe boll needs to stop making game movies... (1)

Allison Geode (598914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14423280)

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 country for the weekend, and gets kidnapped and subsequently tortured by a bunch of hillbillies. However, it turns out the country-folk tormenting the guy were in his own imagination. they had lived there at one time, but he'd killed their daughter in a drunken traffic accident (after which they'd moved away to get away from their own grief of loss, or something), and thanks to having rich parents, he got off free of consequences. the hilbillies tormenting him were just a psychological manifestation of his guilt and desire to be punished for his carelessness. end spoiler
and, then the credits rolled and I saw uwe boll's name. SHOCK! he'd made something, that, while not exactly cutting edge cinema, wasn't that bad! so obviously, he has an enjoyable movie in him..... he just needs to stop making game movies. I'm more inclined to blame game movies as being god-awful and un-doable now, as opposed to blaming Uwe. admittedly, there have been a couple good game movies, and there are certainly a few other games that *could* turn out to be great flicks if the movie script followed the one in the game as closely as possible: "max payne" I'm looking at you: where was the movie we were promised in the manual?!...) but as a whole, if you want to watch a game for an afternoon, go rent it for your playstation, do NOT see it in a theater.

you may doubt my sanity in two sentences.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14429054)

After hearing all I had about House of the Dead, I was very curious about it but obivously also pretty reluctant.
I am worried to admit publically that I really really loved it.
I think that everyone is really missing the intent of this movie and the inspiration for it.

I think it was intentionally very schlocky and 'bad', and I laughed, like I haven't laughed in a while, the whole way through, without the aid of alchohol, I might add.
Seriously, has anyone really thought there was any depth to the HOD games that isn't being broguht out here? They are totally over the top schlock, and I think this movie captures that hillariously well. Certainly the crap that gets produced on the sci fi channel seems to me far less aware of it's own badness and less exploiting of it's own badness for humor.

I don't think anyone should ever consider this a real horror movie in anyway.
It's a bad B movie, that may be completely accidental in how bad it is, but seemed very purposeful to me. The clue for me was that the special effects are extremely slick and well choreographed. Far far better make up and action sequences than Resident Evil, which I actually enjoyed for what it was. I think this movie is very much what it is intended to be, and even if a movie is in a genre I don't care for, I will respect it if it carries out what it intended to do. This is my roguh criteria for art. I have no business expecting a movie to be something for me when it's not intended to be.

I wouldn't argue that Uwe and co didn't try to leverage the Tax code loopholes to make some money, but I do think this is the best and most accurate video game to movie translation. Video games, though have a huge scope of genre, and this is of course not an adult or dramatic game in anyway.

I think most video games do not easily translate to film and this is something most tend to agree on but of course companies keep trying because the franchising of IP is extremely lucrative if it works. The whole idea behind interactive and non interactive experiences are different.

On the other hand, I think that, while Chronicles of Riddick was one of the worst movies I've seen(Dungeon and Dragons being possibly the worst), the Video Game Butcher Bay was actually excellent, with great atmosphere and voice acting.

I am also looking forward to what Chris Gans and Roger Avery have done with Silent Hill. That series, to me has been more interesting than 90 percent of the hororr films to come out in the last 20 years, including asian horror.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...