Last week, having finished a huge project, I was in the mood for a turn-the-brain-off action flick. Blade II was showing at the 2nd run theater -- perfect! It was exactly as billed in the previews: loud, fast, and lots of action. And, somewhat surprisingly, it was really fun. Inspired (or perhaps deranged), and craving more ridiculous martial-arts movies, I then rented Blade (and Iron Monkey -- excellent!) and watched it. I remember the reviews for Blade being poor, so I had low expectations. But it exceeded my expectations, and turned out to be a decent movie (at least for my tired, brain-dead state). What I found most interesting were the complementary strengths of Blade and Blade II. The first had better character exposition and development. Who, what and why Blade was, was much better explained in the first movie. But the style and internal logic felt inconsistent, as if the directors couldn't quite make up their mind what they were going for. I think this is clearly shown in the explanation of Vampirism as a physical, not spiritual affliction; yet the movie's climax involves supernatural forces of evil. The ending didn't follow the internal logic of the movie. The second movie, however, is the reverse. it had much less character development (almost none), and only gave the basics of who Blade was. This could in part be because this was done in the first movie. Even so, it was very weak on the characters. But, to its credit, Blade II felt much more consistent. The story and plot devices were consistent with the premise of these worldly Vampires. The style also seemed unified throughout. In all, it just held together better. My biggest complaint is the choppy, fast cuts during fight scenes. The first movie, as well as parts of the second, show that these cuts aren't needed to hide weaknesses of the fight scenes. Snipes seems to be quite good, and the movie would be improved by showing the fight scenes in all of the choreographed beauty. If you've got a hankering for popcorn action movie, and don't mind some gore, then Blade II is fun. And Blade isn't too bad either.
According to my recollection, I thought "Blade" received good reviews the year it was released! It also did very well at the box office which is why a sequel was made. Crawdaddy
I think the only negative press Blade got was its horrible trailer. I thought the original's trailer made the film look horrible. BTW, I loved Blade and Blade II -Dean-
I thought Blade was pretty good. I remember that there was definitely positive buzz about Blade. I have not seen Blade II and I’m uncertain. To the contrary, Blade II seems to have only negative buzz and I’m waiting for the DVD.
Stephen Dorff made vampires cool again to me. Frost was an awesome character and missed in the second one although I liked both movies. BII will be in my collection on that first tuesday.
Roger Ebert (maybe Siskel too? I can't remember) sold this movie to the public. The opening blood scene was amazing on the big screen.
The opening scene of Blade is one I often use as a demo for people who are totally unaware of the benefits of a Home Theatre (and DVD, and 5.1) After that, the movie almost couldn't go wrong anymore . BII will be on my pre-order list the day it will be announced. Cees
