Beta
×

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 Officially Awful

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the again-with-the-surprises dept.

Movies 78

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong (1, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430305)

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 (4, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430337)

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 (2, Interesting)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430382)

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

Mortal Kombat
Street Fighter
Resident Evil
Super Mario Brothers...

Re:Wrong (2, Informative)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430509)

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 (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430545)

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 (3, Informative)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430983)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431009)

Oh, I forgot that the adaptation of American McGee's Alice (starring Sarah Michelle Gellar of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Grudge) is slated to come out in 2006 as well, I believe...

Re:Wrong (1)

James_Aguilar (890772) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433604)

Oh really now? This is really exciting news!

Re:Wrong (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431144)

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 of crap. When you have 'nothing', you can still have hope. Once a crappy film maker like Uwe Boll uses a film camera as his personal toilet, there's no longer any hope for your favorite video game franchise.

Re:Hey now! (2, Informative)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430632)

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*

Re:Wrong (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430637)

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 one -- and a chance that it could be done well.

Re:Wrong (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431630)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14430731)

False. Witness Batman. Witness BSG.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431474)

And those would be videogame adaptations? You sir are a moron.

Re:Wrong (2, Interesting)

aztektum (170569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430860)

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 spent on production.

But fucking Bloodrayne? The mere fact they made a Bloodrayne movie at all is a joke. The game is nothing but a vampire Lara Croft, which is a license that itself has been milked into oblivion. (And yes I have played all of the games to some extent in each series I mention)

Re:Wrong (2, Interesting)

milkman_matt (593465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431279)

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 be destroyed, yet Batman Begins was totally redeeming... So they could possibly make a Bloodrayne II (or whatever flop game/comic movie) and make it better than it was before. I do agree with you though, it's hard... and you can't unsee the terrible movies that ruined the franchise in the first place. Ugh... Street Fighter....

Re:Wrong (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431334)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

Soybean47 (885009) | more than 8 years ago | (#14436313)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14441237)

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".

Re:Wrong (1)

milkman_matt (593465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14441273)

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.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14446154)

Didn't watch Equilibrium, but for comparing either of the other two to Dolph Punisher, you deserve to be executed by a musclehead kickboxer with a dye job.

Re:Wrong (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14450826)

Equlibrium was good, but wouldn't have been better with a bigger budget. The original Punisher would have been better. Equilibrium had the money to rent military vehicles and top-notch special effects. Mark Goldblatt had to resort to using the same set for all of the end scenes. The limited action within paper walls was brilliant innovation. You know he went on to do Terminator 2, The Last Boy Scout, True Lies, Predator 2...You need to watch more movies, since you're obviously young and unable to tell the difference between "budget" and "talent".

The Tao of Cannon (1)

Prien715 (251944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431939)

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 the use of the bowl
Will depend on the part
Of the bowl that is void.
Cut out windows and doors
In the house as you build;
But the use of the house
Will depend on the space
In the walls that is void.
So advantage is had
From whatever is there;
But usefulness rises
From whatever is not.

[Translated by Raymond B. Blakney] [tripod.com]

Re:Wrong (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430584)

If someone else likes it, that's good. What's the problem here?

No one likes it.

Even Boll's mother.

Re:Wrong (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430980)

Worthless crap is always worthless crap. And it taints anything it is based on by association.

Re:Wrong (1)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14446473)

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 way, Matrix: Reloaded and Star Wars Ep1 retroactively harmed the earlier films.

More material is always good.

There is a finite amount of investment capital in the world. Spending money on stupid projects that are unlikely to benefit anyone is not "always good", because it means that more useful ideas are going unpursued.

I wouldn't advise anyone to run a mutual fund that invests in lotto tickets... but they're more likely to win Powerball than Uwe is to make a good movie.

Dictionary Addition (5, Funny)

Firewalker_Midnights (943814) | more than 8 years ago | (#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!"

Re:Dictionary Addition (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14430574)

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 Earth when Travo.."
"Oh for gods sake, dont talk to me about that bollshit!"

Re:Dictionary Addition (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431053)

I prefer the term Boll-icks

Re:Dictionary Addition (1)

ChadN (21033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432623)

I like to refer to him as "Gutter-Boll".

Re:Dictionary Addition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14436809)

This needs to be on wikipedia

I can't understand! (4, Funny)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430338)


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"?

Re:I can't understand! (1)

Firewalker_Midnights (943814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430385)

You should have also noted how many of Boll's films are on that list... ;)

Re:I can't understand! (3, Insightful)

Anm (18575) | more than 8 years ago | (#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

Re:I can't understand! (2, Funny)

OmgTEHMATRICKS (836103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430521)

German taxpayers.

I'm not kidding.

Re:I can't understand! (3, Informative)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

What the hell? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433783)

Then why haven't we seen a honest to goodness feature length Springtime For Hitler?

Re:I can't understand! (1)

gumpish (682245) | more than 8 years ago | (#14441630)

Unsubstantiated claims are always fun - until someone puts their eye out!

Re:I can't understand! (5, Informative)

Ben Newman (53813) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:I can't understand! (3, Interesting)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431652)

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.

Re:I can't understand! (1)

PeelBoy (34769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14436865)

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?

Re:I can't understand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14437325)

This movie was funded well before the loophole closed.

Maybe the Germans like him and his work? (2, Interesting)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430540)

*shrug* it's readily apparent that we in the US don't..... What say thee?

Re:Maybe the Germans like him and his work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431528)

Since they also embraced David Hasselhoff's singing antics, I am quite sure they won't be too bothered by Boll's 'masterpieces'. :D

Re:Maybe the Germans like him and his work? (1)

svip (678490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431851)

Personally I think Uwe Boll is the reincarnated Messiah, trying to bring us all closer together by uniting us in the loathing of his movies.

That or retarded.

Now where was that Dungeon Siege interview that explained how he gets the actors? Ah yes [fantasticadaily.com] .

I'll spoil it for you: The actors are just as stupid.

Re:Maybe the Germans like him and his work? (1)

PeelBoy (34769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14436888)

They don't seem to care for video games all that much over there so why in the hell would they care for crap movies based on video games?

Boll doing well? (1)

Ekarderif (941116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430546)

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?

Netcraft confirms it... (1)

dcapel (913969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430627)

Boll needs to die :)

Probably True But (1)

grimharvest (724023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430634)

We seem to have a whole lot more articles bashing this game, that movie whatever than praising anything that's done. Why is that?

Human Creativity = Crap (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431131)

It all boils down to everything has already been done before. Seen it, done it, lived it. Nothing is new any more. No new ideas. Boring, boring, boring. Just like this post.

So? (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430654)

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.

Re:So? (1)

Ayaress (662020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430976)

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. In the hands of almost any other director, with a more carefully selected cast - actors who can actually work the character, not just bring a big name, pretty face, or nice boobs to the show - I believe they could have been good movies, and at least decent translations of the games behind them.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431095)

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).

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14437231)

Give me a break people that tax loophole excuse no longer works the law was changed.

THESE SHITTY MOVIES ARE NO LONGER TAX SHELTERS GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS

New Underworld movie (2, Interesting)

Puhase (911920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430695)

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 Bloodrayne. Those who appreciate this genre of movie enough to see such films will, hopefully, adopt the better of the two.

Re:New Underworld movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14430979)

Who does appreciate this kind of movie?

My wife asked me if Underworld:Evolution had the same main character as Aeon Flux. And this is a woman who can recoginze 99% of voices on tv without seeing their face.

These black-latex-and-leater-clad women with dark hair (yes, Trinity, I'm thinking of you, too) need to get their shit together and figure out how to differentiate themselves from each other. Maybe wearing a giant S in a red polygon on their chest can help.

All I'm saying is that my wife's on to something: these "heroines" all look the same, making it feel like it's all the same movie. Honestly, if I wanted to see a woman in latex, I'd ask my wife to suit up or rent a porno, not watch Underworld, Aeon Flux or the Matrix.

Re:New Underworld movie (1)

spx (855431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434075)

I can agree to a point, but Im pretty sure Aeon did it first :D As well, most men prefer to go see a hot chick in that type of wear, seeing as not every down to earth wife would do so :)

Re:New Underworld movie (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434620)

You're a special flavor of awful when your film compares unfavorably to an Underworld movie.

David Hasselhoff (5, Funny)

lupinstel (792700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430755)

We gave the Germans David Hasselhoff, they gave us Uwe Boll.

Re:David Hasselhoff (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14430877)

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.

Re:David Hasselhoff (1)

ToastyKen (10169) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432958)

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>.

...and in other news (4, Funny)

Androclese (627848) | more than 8 years ago | (#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

Where's the obligatory PA link? (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431348)

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!

Re:Where's the obligatory PA link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14433116)

And as usual Penny Arcade is about as funny as Bloodrayne is well-made. I never understood why PA is held in such high regards on Slashdot. PA is so not funny that it's almost depressing. Maybe it's the occasional swearing that makes Slashdot users love it so?

Yeah, yeah, mod me down. I committed sacriledge. But I'm not about to defile the blessed PA on Slashdot with my regular account. :P

Duh. (3, Informative)

IronTek (153138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431379)

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.

That's the best interview I've ever read... (3, Informative)

vistic (556838) | more than 8 years ago | (#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!

Don't forget the Filthy review! (1)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431429)

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 say it's good, it's just that it's like getting a staph infection below the knee instead of the entire leg.

Those are strong words. It must have been a powerful movie :)

gee... (1)

MoreNoiseThanSignal (916548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431478)

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

I liked it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431540)

I had fairly low expectations, and there were even some plans in palce to guide me away from any press after the premier if I didn't like the movie, so I wouldn't say something "unproductive", but I was pleasantly surprised.

No, it isn't an oscar movie, but it definitely isn't Super Mario Brothers / Street Fighter / Double Dragon.

I do wish they had kept the true satanic / hellish theme, but I think they did a credible job with their alternate direction.

This is one of those movies . . . (1)

rev_sanchez (691443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431695)

You want filthy [bigempire.com] to review . . . and then he does.

Oh Dear God, take away his plastic. (1)

Tragek (772040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432049)

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 actors?
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: How was Ben Kinglsey on the set? Rumor has it he's always wanted to play a vampire.

UB: super diciplined [sic]. this is true

Ok? Come on. Either he has a serious issue with self expression, or he REALLY is as inept as he comes off; Either way I come back to my original point: Who keeps financing him?!

Re:Oh Dear God, take away his plastic. (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433097)

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

Re:Oh Dear God, take away his plastic. (1)

Starsmore (788910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14440905)

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.

He won't show the critics b/c of piracy? (1)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432497)

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.

One other review worth reading... (2, Funny)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14433228)

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 staph infection below the knee instead of the entire leg."

"For the actors, appearing in a Uwe Boll is a declaration that they act for money and have costly addictions that must be fed. It also declares that they have less self-respect than a Tri-Delt. It's like falling on a spiral of shame and bumping your head on every step all the way down to the bottom."

"Bloodrayne is pure shit. So pure that if people shot up shit instead of heroin this would be a million bucks a kilo. But they don't, and turds should have a warning labels before anyone tries."

You know, one day he's not going to hold back.

Video Games are always made into great movies! (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434918)

Movies made from video games are timeless... just look at Mario Brothers, Doom, Final Fanatasy, Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil!

Big surprise (1)

Krush3r (936981) | more than 8 years ago | (#14436073)

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.

Sheesh. Can we get a straight answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14446008)

I had to read that obviously biased review in order to get any straight answers.

WHY does the movie suck? and don't tell me Uwe Boll.

I realize this is Slashdot and all but I'd really appreciate it if you guys would actually tell us WHY the movie sucks, instead of just spouting the same crap in these messages.

Have any of you even seen it?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?