Bloodrayne Officially Awful

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Zonk on Monday January 9, 2006 @08:27AM 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.

25 of 78 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Dictionary Addition by Firewalker_Midnights · 2006-01-09 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

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!"

--
I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
1. Re:Dictionary Addition by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-09 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Somebody already got there :)
  
  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:Wrong by Digital+Vomit · 2006-01-09 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
I can't understand! by Saiyine · 2006-01-09 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Uh? What do you mean with "bottom"?

--
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
1. Re:I can't understand! by Anm · 2006-01-09 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
2. Re:I can't understand! by OmgTEHMATRICKS · 2006-01-09 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  German taxpayers.
  
  I'm not kidding.
3. Re:I can't understand! by Irish_Samurai · 2006-01-09 09:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:I can't understand! by Ben+Newman · 2006-01-09 10:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:I can't understand! by joshsisk · 2006-01-09 11:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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:Wrong by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-09 08:39 · Score: 2, 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 by joshsisk · 2006-01-09 08:53 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Maybe the Germans like him and his work? by BulletMagnet · 2006-01-09 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

*shrug* it's readily apparent that we in the US don't..... What say thee?
Re:Wrong by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-09 08:56 · Score: 2, 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:Hey now! by vertinox · 2006-01-09 09:06 · Score: 2, Informative

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*

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
So? by Red+Flayer · 2006-01-09 09:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
1. Re:So? by Red+Flayer · 2006-01-09 09:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
New Underworld movie by Puhase · 2006-01-09 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
David Hasselhoff by lupinstel · 2006-01-09 09:17 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
Re:Wrong by aztektum · 2006-01-09 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

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)

--
:: aztek ::
No sig for you!!
...and in other news by Androclese · 2006-01-09 09:28 · Score: 4, Funny

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
Re:Wrong by joshsisk · 2006-01-09 09:40 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by milkman_matt · 2006-01-09 10:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

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....
Duh. by IronTek · 2006-01-09 10:24 · Score: 3, Informative

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... by vistic · 2006-01-09 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Heres a coral cached link: http://www.1up.com.nyud.net:8090/do/newsStory?cId= 3146777 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!
One other review worth reading... by aendeuryu · 2006-01-09 16:15 · Score: 2, Funny

A movie review worth reading because it's more entertaining than the movie itself...

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

"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.