In case people don't know, this is a vampire movie, a la
Blade. And from some other images I've seen, it looks as if it'll be bloody... also like
Blade.
Ben Kingsley and Billy Zane having roles in the movie is a good sign. They, especially Kingsley, are serious actors who might not have appeared in the movie if the script reeked of crap. (Kingsley's pedigree includes
Ghandi and
Schindler's List. But, then again, it also includes
Species, so this rule isn't ironclad.

)
Here's an IGN interview I found with the director, Uwe Boll:
IGN Uwe Boll Interview, Part One. She's directed another movie based on a video game,
House of the Dead, which I hear was good, so at least the film appears to be in competent hands.
Something that concerns me from the interview:
IGN Interview said:
It's a very interesting movie and the first Avid output is around three hours. So, it is a long movie but I will make it two hours in the end. It's definitely the longest movie I've done so far.
Why do studios believe they must cut movies so much of their original content lies on the editing room floor? I could understand if the original cut of the movie has a four hour running time. But
BloodRayne is only three hours. Maybe the studio should chop it to 2.5 hours instead? The
Harry Potter and
Lord of the Rings movies run that long, and we know them as good movies partly because they have time to develop their characters and stories.
Meanwhile, shortening movies to a perfunctory 2 hours (or less!) ruined movies such as
Daredevil. And it's an onimous portent for how
BloodRayne will turn out eventually.
Still, I'm always up for an 18th century period movie that's not like
Pride and Prejudice or
Sense and Sensibility.
This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 20 December 2005 - 07:21 AM