Who payed the critics

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Rayne, the half-human/half-vampire warrior, ventures to America's 1880's Wild West to stop the vampired Billy the Kid and his posse of vampire cowboys. BloodRayne II: Deliverance is nowhere near as good as the first film that even tho it wasn't great or even a good film it was at least a fun guilty pleasure, the main girl who portrays BloodRayne might be good looking but looks aren't everything and this film was even super slow boring to the point where the viewers will fell asleep. Overall it's kinda better than the next one but still not a good film and nowhere near as good as the first. (4/10)

BLOODRAYNE was bad enough as it was, but BLOODRAYNE 2: DELIVERANCE is something else. Another godawful horror flick directed by German 'auteur' Uwe Boll, this singularly fails as a film thanks to the absolutely excruciating production values, or rather lack of them.There isn't much link to the first film aside from the titular character; even Kristanna Loken doesn't return, replaced instead by the instantly forgettable Natassia Malthe. The story has been removed from its medieval origins and instead takes place in a western town and the whole film is full of western clichés. There's some very small novelty from seeing Michael Pare playing Pat Garrett but the rest of the film is dull of long, dull dialogues and very little in the way of horror or action.Even worse, for some reason Boll decides to shoot 95% of this film at night, in almost pitch black scenes with very little lighting. Thus much of the action (and the characters) remain almost invisible for long stretches of time. Needless to say that the script is a mess relying on clichés to get by, and the use of a 10 second piece of music over and over and OVER again is exceptionally annoying!

Blood Rayne II is actually one of Uwe's better efforts, believe it or not. For his limited talent, it was a decent attempt, to make a good Horror/Western. The problem is, it's a little too low budget, to really succeed, and the pacing is very inconsistent. It starts off with a very tense beginning, with Billy The Kid dragging some innocent children away, unfortunately it's all down hill from their. We are often given plenty of boring dialog, with very little going on, and that's what made the original, so unbearable for me. The gun fights, and all the action itself, consist a lot of the time, of that annoying slow motion stuff, that I hate. It kinda took away the effect for me, and made it look really cheesy. Natassia Malthe in my opinion, was actually a little more convincing then Lokken. She seemed more comfortable, and made for a much more engaging heroine. Unforutantley for her, the movie works against her, by being much to dull for it's own good. Blood Rayne II is an interesting attempt, but in the end, it's another terrible movie, for Uwe.Performances. Natassia Malthe is gorgeous looking, and as I said, a better option then Lokken. She's more convincing, and I bought her a lot of the time. She tries her best, with the crappy material she has. Zack Ward is an OK villain, a little too much on the cheesy side though at times, for my liking.Bottom line. Blood Rayne II wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be, but that's giving it faint praise, so to speak. It's a bad movie, that isn't worth the effort, when all is said and done. Too dull, too unexciting, to capitalize on it's potential.3/10

The fact that the original Bloodrayne wasn't received with a cheer they decided to make a second part. We already know that it is tricky to make a franchise out of a movie, mostly the second part can't do what the first part did. Sometimes the second part is better than the first and sometimes the second part has nothing to do with the first part. Guess what, this second part has nothing in common with the first part, even Rayne is played by another actress. The only thing that refers to the first part is a necklace. Where did it go wrong, first with the DVD cover, you see Rayne in a sexy outfit, well, she never wears it in the movie. but the worst thing is the script, suddenly we are in the wild west. Not exactly a place were you would suspect a vampire. That alone, the wild west, could have been used to make an original movie but it isn't the script that is extremely bad, they also make use of real names like Billy the Kid who is a vampire, can it get worser. Billy is hunted by Pat Garret, a fact, but he is a vampire hunter. Man, this is trash. Billy a vampire, be real, do they think we go for it? And to get it worser out of the blue comes Rayne to help Pat. Anyway, no gore or bloody scenes, just one slash, the rest of the Billy the Kid gang is shot down, even Rayne doesn't use her anti vampire weapons that much. I just couldn't believe that they could make such a flick. If you want to see the wild west in horror watch Ghostttown instead