Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance - 1/5

How do you follow up a horrible vampire film like "Bloodrayne"? Obviously, you set it in the Wild West. Duh. In all actuality, a western style vampire flick sounds somewhat intriguing. Gun slinging, neck biting, general discourse for authority all around. I suppose one can say you get that in "Bloodrayne 2", yet it took me three days to finish this movie. Why? Because for a vampire flick set it the old west, it's BORING AS HELL. It's practically a snooze fest of epic proportions. It's not like I was expecting much considering the first film, but damn. Damn. What could have gone so wrong?

Oh yeah. There I see it. It says it's directed by Uwe Boll on the credits. Yep. That's it.

Rayne (now played by Malthe) has been wandering the western countryside and is returning to visit some old friends at a homestead outside of a little town called Deliverance. She finds the town overridden with vampires led by the super powerful Billy The Kid (Ward) who hold it hostage. She then bands together a group of gunslingers to end their tyranny once and for all.

I'm not going to waste too much of my writing time here. Let's get straight to why this film doesn't work.

A) The script sucks. It's basic with no nuances to give it stylistic flair to earn the merit the concept should have had and the dialogue can be atrocious. They even have a joke about why life is like a penis. Wow.

B) The acting sucks. Malthe goes through the motions with no emotions and the supporting cast easily overacts the decency of their roles with off beat enthusiasm. Ward is so wishy washy as the villain that its not even funny. Why does he have an accent? Cause he's old?

C) Boll makes a lot of odd stylistic choices as a director. The camera never stops shaking. It's like he knew the film was overly drawn out to the point of beating oneself silly just to stay awake, so he decided to make the film more 'interesting' by shaking the camera the entire time and making what little action sequences we have 'epic' by putting them in slow motion half the time. It's just rather confusing.

There. Let it be that "Bloodrayne 2" is now reviewed and I no longer have to think about watching it or writing about it. The film doesn't cut it on any aspect of how it was crafted and it even loses the few random things that seemed to make the original interesting (like random gore or even more random nudity). The idea for a fun B movie is there, but "Bloodrayne 2" doesn't utilize it at all.

BONUS RANT: What the hell is with the cover? It has a gothic tone and a picture of Rayne that looks little like the actress and has an outfit on that doesn't exist in the movie. What?!

Written By Matt Reifschneider