BloodRayne.

Review #2317: BloodRayne.

Cast: 

Kristanna Loken (Rayne), Michael Madsen (Vladimir), Ben Kingsley (Kagan), Michelle Rodriguez (Katarin), Matthew Davis (Sebastian), Will Sanderson (Domastir), Geraldine Chaplin (Fortune Teller), Udo Kier (Regal Monk), Meat Loaf (Leonid), Michael Paré (Iancu), and Billy Zane (Elrich) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King, #1924 - Alone in the Dark, #2144 - House of the Dead)

Review: 

I forgot that Boll wanted to be a filmmaker because he saw Mutiny on the Bounty as a kid...the Marlon Brando version. This was the third film in what you might as well call the Boll Gaming Cycle that came in the wake of House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark (2005). The movie is based on the action-adventure game series of the same name, which began in 2002 involving various locations being visited by a member of the "brimstone Society" to deal with supernatural creatures and Nazis. An "unrated" director's cut came out on DVD, incidentally, which apparently came out with a copy of BloodRayne 2 on it (incidentally, the series has had just one game released since the film came out). The next video game movie Boll did for theaters was In the Name of the King (2007). You might recognize that the screenplay was written by Guinevere Turner, who apparently delivered a first draft a few weeks late that Boll went right in to pick and choose what to use immediately (which was apparently 20%) for the actors to apparently take a crack at it. While the movie was a financial failure, Boll would direct two sequels for the direct-to-video market: BloodRayne 2: Deliverance (2007) and BloodRayne: The Third Reich (2011), in which only Michael Paré appears in each film of the "trilogy". 

It probably goes without saying that Boll has not managed to achieve anything in the manner of effective entertainment even when having a video game right there for adaptation. In the aim of blood, dirt, and sex, the success rate is about on the same level as an apple becoming a tomato (one interview had him stating it would possibly be two hours but it ended up being 95 minutes long). It certainly never seems sexy even with its attempts at doing so with leather outfits and I kid you not, hiring actual prostitutes to be in a scene (as one does when filming in Europe). The thing about Boll is that he seems to direct things as if it was a blunt instrument to plow through regardless of who is cast or the scenario. He has a lead actress in Loken that might as well be playing T-X from Terminator 3 all over again. He has a movie where one actor called it an "abomination" that still would say yes to being in another Boll movie. The best parts in the whole movie is either Meat Loaf lounging around with prostitutes or the bits and pieces where Madsen seems interested enough to actually make effort (probably the result of liquid courage, but I can think of worse ways to get through a film). It probably is most amusing to see Zane in the film when you have the whole context: Zane liked being with such a "decisive" director even in a small role and he apparently gave Boll the idea to use Romar Entertainment (which Zane was involved with) as a way to handle distribution of the film to a target of 2,000 theaters...only 950 theaters ended up getting the film on opening day and Boll later sued Zane (incidentally, Zane co-starred alongside Loken in Boll's Darfur film, released in 2009). Christian Slater might not be a particularly great actor, but at least him being in the aforementioned Dark film seemed to make sense. But Kingsley? An Academy Award-winning actor wanting to play a vampire deciding to join here? I suppose it must be a British tradition in the Michael Caine sense, but even Caine was better at this, because Kingsley barely delivers actual substance to what is meant to be a villainous role. One sees more effort in the makeup job than from Kingsley, who can't even play to the cheap seats for something funny. The movie is listless and barely seems competent to actually approach what you might call filmmaking. It just feels like a movie patched together, where even a sequence of someone trying to dodge traps (and water, because ooooh, water) has little weight to actually level attention to. The sex scene might actually inspire confusion over how it is staged more than anything, and yet somehow this is a movie that is more tolerable than Bolero (1984), even with all of the godforsaken wigs. As a whole, this is merely just a boring bad flick, not even measuring up to the lesser vampire movies you've probably seen before. It isn't completely incompetent as with some of Boll's previous line of work because it just is blah B-movie stuff that really should not have tried to be anything more. It is dull and goofy in ways that would probably be amusing with a couple of beers for the turkey night, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Redux #089: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Cast: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator), Nick Stahl (John Connor), Kristanna Loken (T-X), Claire Danes (Kate Brewster), David Andrews (Lieutenant General Robert Brewster), Mark Famiglietti (Scott Mason), and Earl Boen (Dr. Peter Silberman) Directed by Jonathan Mostow.

Review: 

From my review on January 25, 2012: 

This is a film I had forgotten to review a while long ago (man that sounds redundant), and so I will do it justice. As such, let us see if this film is any better then the two before it. And in a few words it is not so. It's a decent film, as it has action to entertain you. The plot is not as interesting as the first two, but the film at least doesn't make that happen on purpose. It tries hard to revive the series, and it succeeds. The film isn't as good as the first two, but it is at least decent. This film basically sells all that the first two did in story all to just to revive this franchise, So...We have 3 films in which the Terminator is our real hero, and now we have a fourth on our hands. Who's the hero? Batman? Oh wait, that Batman...What's the name? Salvation. Huh. Fitting title, isn't it? This ends Part IV of Robot Week.

On July 2, 2003, the third film of The Terminator series seeped into theaters. You may remember Terminator 2: Judgement Day had come out in 1991, twelve years prior. James Cameron had made it with the idea that it would be the end of the series. Of course, he didn't own the franchise, but even he had an interest in doing another film by the time he was behind the studio park attraction T2-3D: Battle Across Time in 1996. The bankruptcy of Carolco Pictures created a conundrum of who would own what eventually led to Mario F. Kassar and Andrew G. Vajna spearheading an effort to make a third film (which meant paying its key star a good deal of money) rather than 20th Century Fox or Cameron. Schwarzenegger thought about rejecting the film before he was convinced by Cameron that if they had a good script idea and a ton of cash to pay, "don't think twice". The first draft was done by Tedi Serafian in 1999. In 2001, Jonathan Mostow was recruited to direct the film on the heels of his first two features as writer and director) that received attention with Breakdown (1997) and U-571 (2000). Right after he was brought in, he sought the help of Michael Ferris and John Brancato, a screenwriting duo that had also went to Harvard University with Mostow (the most noted of the screenplays written by Ferris and Brancato is probably The Game (1997)). While he knew that there would be immense skepticism towards the idea of a third film, he felt that the best way to disarm those people would be to make the choice to use humor, for which he has stated that some parts have not aged quite well with time. With a budget over $150 million, the film was a general success, although a fourth Terminator film would not come out until 2009, as done by new owner of the series in The Halcyon Company with an entirely new cast while Ferris and Brancato were kept as one of numerous writers.

Truthfully, I feel more of an obligation to look back on films with milestones now more than ever to see just what I got right and wrong within my perceptions years ago. I didn't really have doubts about the first two Terminator films, those reviews were most re-done because I felt like it. But I was curious to see what I would feel about the third film, which is now twenty years old and is generally felt to be the peak for Schwarzenegger as an action star. One month after the release of the film, he made a run for the recall race for Governor of the State of California, which, well, he won. It is evident quickly that the movie is looking to be an entertaining movie in scale to make up for the obvious fact that it is the third film of a series where the last two are basically the best thing one could ever hope to make with the series. Of course, there is one other thing that sticks out to me when compared to the other two, but more on that in a bit. Honestly, I had a fear that I would think the film as too good to be true the next time seeing it. Hell, what do you know, I found it to be a delightful feature that might as well serve as the true example of a big-budget B-movie in all of its odd characteristics. The best of these are ones that don't shy away in embarrassment. Schwarzenegger was actually 55 at the time of the release of this film, but he still has the chops required to pull off the beat of "kicking ass" while also providing a bit of levity (shtick or not). Stahl was cast after a bit of time was spent in preproduction with original T2 star Edward Furlong only to see him deal with personal issues that had him leave. I think he does pretty well here, all things considered. There is a soulfulness needed to convey the tension of this character that is seen here as drifting aimlessly until fate steps in. He grows in to a role that is not so much about relating to Schwarzenegger again like the previous film but instead about relating to getting a grip beyond despair and moving forward. Danes makes a quality piece of the traveling trio, wrapped in a panicked and weary timing that obviously merits watching in further movies with screen time.  Loken says fairly little by the halfway point, which means a good deal of stone-faced watching for a role that makes for fairly decent menace when considering that the role probably has a body count comparable to a slasher. 

I enjoy the movie as a spectacle because it does keep momentum within its chase in a time where there was still practical use for staging and stunts that tries to keep everything wrapped under two hours. The sequence where one has to convince the other to not fail their mission (namely by killing them) is a fairly neat sequence to stand well before the climax, although obviously the initial chase is a good one as well. The climax ends where else but by having the world get nuked. Oh, yeah, it does that. Actually that is probably the best way to end the film and maybe set up another one, just clean the slate and establish, that, well, maybe there was a time for one to make a fate for themselves, but that some things are just inevitably over. The third Terminator film can't handle a comparison to the previous two Cameron films, but who honestly can? It still makes a quality blockbuster venture that saw its star get one more glow in the spotlight and deliver some entertaining spectacle for those who care for that sort of thing, which makes it all worth it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012).