Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Flak_Magnet Unlike the first Bloodrayne, this direct-to-video sequel fails to deliver laughs as an unintentional comedy. I think we got one good chuckle out of it, but spent the majority of the time rolling our eyes and counting the minutes. As a plus, I think this is one of the worst Westerns I've ever seen and its also one of the lamest vampire movies. Unfortunately, though, its just too lame and unfunny to be worth most peoples' time. Expect to see the juvenility and incoherence that defines a Uwe Boll project, but also a drab story that limps along with the help of tired clichés. It isn't really campy; it just sucks. You can skip this one; its totally forgettable. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet

harpy After watching the first movie in this installment, I thought to myself "well isn't this the worst movie I've ever seen." So why would I then watch the second movie? I thought it wasn't possible for a movie to get any worse...I was wrong, dead wrong. This has officially become the worst movie, no worst visual media presentation I have ever in my life seen. The acting was even worse than the first movie, the plot senseless. It has become the biggest waste of my life thus far. Seriously, why would you set a vampire movie in the old wild west? WHY? And truly...why make such a weak and pathetic heroine, with no idea as to strategy or how to save lives. This film was so bad, I'm considering recommending it to everyone I know just so I can inflict the pain that I had to suffer onto them. It really is that bad.

misbegotten Bloodrayne: Deliverance actually received worse reviews than the first film (even those few who wrote positively about Bloodrayne disliked the sequel), but I actually prefer it to the initial movie.The entries in the Bloodrayne series are some of the few vampire films that acknowledge the passage of time from the perspective of an immortal being. The first film is set in 18th century Eastern Europe, and the opening titles depict paintings and illustrations from that period, and also medieval woodcuts. Deliverance takes place in the American West of the late 19th century, and accordingly - after a picture of the castle that was the setting of the climax of the previous film - the opening titles consist of sepia-toned photographs of ships setting sail for the New World, towns being founded, and railroad tracks being laid down. In Bloodrayne, the title character relied on her swords. In Deliverance, time and technology have moved on, and a pair of six-shooters (loaded with silver bullets dipped in holy water and smeared with garlic) are her weapons of choice.There's an admirable amount of period grittiness in Deliverance. Instead of the wide open, dusty plains of most westerns, the movie is set in the depths of winter, and the ground is either covered in snow or been reduced to filthy, churned-up mud. And despite the fact that in the Old West the only sources of indoor illumination were often limited to candles, simple oil lamps and the occasional open fireplace, have you ever noticed in the westerns produced in the 1930s - 1960s how suspiciously well lit all those saloons and ranch interiors were? This was simply because the lighting technicians lit those sets the same way they did for all other movies - for maximum visibility. Deliverance corrects this discrepancy: building interiors are dim and murky, with deep pools of black shadow. It all creates a wonderful sense of authenticity.Kristanna Loken played Rayne in the first movie, but she was unable to reprise the role due to filming the TV series Painkiller Jane, so Nastasha Malthe steps into her shoes. Loken gave a driven and forceful but somewhat one-note performance. In contrast, portraying the same character a hundred years older and wiser, Malthe's Rayne is sullen and cynical, and altogether more fleshed-out and well rounded than Loken's take. And I must say that Malthe looks stunning in her all-black outfit, consisting of a duster (the name given to an ankle-length coat common to the period), flapping leather chaps and wide-brimmed hat. The only returning actor from the initial film is Michael Pare, who had a brief cameo in Bloodrayne and here plays a different character - real life Western legend Pat Garrett, no less.Garrett appearing as Rayne's sidekick is due to a plot element that earns the film it's only minus mark - having Billy the Kid as the main villain. The Kid is bizarrely reinterpreted as an ancient East European vampire, instead of the young, all-American sociopath that he actually was. His inclusion is a gimmick, and it's an unnecessary one. Ironically, as played by Zack Ward (a regular in Uwe Boll's movies) the Kid is an impressive bad guy, but he would have worked better as an original character.Uwe Boll (director and producer of both Bloodrayne films) has promised a third instalment, set in Nazi Germany during World War 2. I'm looking forward to it.

grimpiotras I'll say it short. First of all it has nothing to do with the game. Rayne from powerful, vampire warrior became weakling which is constantly beaten, kidnapped and such (even her blades look like can openers). She is no longer a "living weapon" against Nazis, of course why he should put this original idea into the movie? Cowboys sounds better! Most scenes lack sense, i don't want this post to contain spoilers, so let me just say it was very disturbing because amount of bull-crap per 1cm of reel is unspeakable, especially the "Great final".Personally i hated it, as all Uwe Boll movies. If this guy wants to keep his "art" like this, he shouldn't use trademarks and titles from video games. He just can't keep up to it even in small piece.