Character actor Michael Shannon has been nominated for his second Oscar for his role in the 2016 thriller Nocturnal Animals. "No Small Parts" takes a look at some of the other characters he's played in the past.
Rayne fights against the Nazis in Europe during World War II, encountering Ekart Brand, a Nazi leader whose target is to inject Adolf Hitler with Rayne's blood in an attempt to transform ... See full summary »
An modern-day assassin, wanting out, is hired for one final job - to kidnap the kids of a local businessman. Things go haywire when it turns out he's chosen to return to the Middle Ages and bring back order to a kingdom in chaos.
American journalists in Sudan are confronted with the dilemma of whether to return home to report on the atrocities they have seen, or to stay behind and help some of the victims they have encountered.
Controversial director Uwe Boll depicts the harsh reality of the process inside one of the most infamous Nazi death camps by using brutally realistic imagery. Book-ended by documentary ... See full summary »
It's a hundred years later, and the dhampir Rayne has arrived in the town of Deliverance, Montana where a group of vampire cowboys have emerged. Led by Billy the Kid, hell-bent on creating his own kingdom, he slaughters townspeople and rounds up children. He spares the life of Chicago Chronicle reporter Newton Pyles. Rayne aligns herself with Pat Garret, a member of the long-thought-dead Brimstone society, a dishonest preacher, and a lowlife named Franson, to stop Billy the Kid and show the world how the West was really won. Written by
Chris Walker (email@example.com)
In the scene where Billy the Kid bites the girl laying on his lap, the bite marks and blood (when viewed from girl's right profile) are located in the center of the throat. A few seconds later, when viewed from above, the bite marks and blood have moved 2 or 3 inches to the left. See more »
[to Billy the Kid]
Big speech... small guns... you tryin' to compensate for somethin'?
See more »
See it with a sense of humor, and a lot of patience...
Recently I've been going on a Boll spree, seeing whatever I can find.Not because I enjoy his films that much, but rather because I wanted to see if he really is THAT bad as I've heard.Haven't yet seen the, as I'm lead to believe, abysmal "House of the Dead".But I've seen Bloodrayne, and a certain review of Bloodrayne:Deliverance I read, made me want to see the second.
You see, the review, while stating that the film isn't that great, it also stated that it was better than the first.I find that statement flawed.While the second sees some improvement, it pretends to be something it's not:a Bloodrayne movie.The first one revolved around her, and though the plot was terrible, you could still see some potential underneath.The second, is just an excuse for Boll to do a "vampire-western".
Let's start off by saying the idea isn't bad, and given the proper director it would've been more than watchable.And in some cases, Boll displays some sort of talent for angles and shooting a scene.Then again, many of these cases are "borrowed" from the western lore.I would've expected some stylizing, given the subject of the film, but I'm pretty sure the up-coming "3:10 to Yuma" is more stylized than this, while mostly sticking to classical western(I should be ashamed for bringing Mangold's film into this comment).No, instead Boll gives us a shaky camera(not that upsetting, but would've been good in a lot of close-ups), bad editing, and less than usual make-up for a vampire-flick.
Vampires now just have fangs, no more face deformity when in a rage.Not that much blood either(which could be a good thing, the first one was terrible at gore-delivery).All in a day's work for keeping the budget down.
The actors in this one do a slightly better job than the big names in the first one.Not commenting on Malthe, since she didn't really have anything at all to work with(few of the others did).But all in all, some less-known, or even unknown actors do what they're paid for:act.
The script is awful, right down to the very core of it.We have the city-slicker, the gun-slinging con-pulling priest, the western cynic, the showdowns on the main street, the Gatling, and the well-dressed villain.Now, to make that villain Billy the Kid(and to somehow bring the whole vampire thing to Wyatt Earp also), a trigger challenged vampire, with a foreign accent, was just outrageous.
The direction:all I can say is Boll.He gets right what he did wrong with the first, but fails in other departments.You could say he's learning as he goes.But it's a really long learning process.There were a few scenes at the climax where the tension was supposed to be high, yet he dissipates it by stretching them to an unbearable length.
So, to conclude...the movie is awful, but still has some enjoyable scenes.If he had made a western with vampires, and not a Bloodrayne movie, he could've passed this as a "worth a check" DVD, but, as it stands it's just an awful example of movie-making.
One last word:I still consider there are worse directors out there than Boll, but I'm sure he will continue trying to prove me wrong with every new movie.Though I am expecting "Postal", he just might pull-off violent comedy, he did it involuntarily so far.
21 of 28 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?