OT: Blade II - Spoiler - Opinions?
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
The_lone_gunman
First Post
How could you possibly believe that this one was better than the first one? The first one had awesome action plus a decent plot (although I hate the idea of "pureblood" vampires, that is dumb. But I guess it follows the comic).
The opening action scene from Blade 1 is one of my favorite scenes of all time. It goes along the same route as the "lobby" scene from Matrix IMO.
Although I don't expect much from an action movie, I do hate stupid inconsitencies, especially the ones in this movie. No point in restating them here, as Karinsdad pretty much summed up my opinions. Although I did enjoy the movie (I would probably give it a 4 or a 5), I was not impressed by the opening scene as I was in the first one, and the story blew ass. I think it would have been 10 times better if they would have just had this "special forces vamps" try to take down Blade. The story had mucho potential, but IMHO, the director screwed it up.
TLG
The opening action scene from Blade 1 is one of my favorite scenes of all time. It goes along the same route as the "lobby" scene from Matrix IMO.
Although I don't expect much from an action movie, I do hate stupid inconsitencies, especially the ones in this movie. No point in restating them here, as Karinsdad pretty much summed up my opinions. Although I did enjoy the movie (I would probably give it a 4 or a 5), I was not impressed by the opening scene as I was in the first one, and the story blew ass. I think it would have been 10 times better if they would have just had this "special forces vamps" try to take down Blade. The story had mucho potential, but IMHO, the director screwed it up.
TLG
My thoughts,
-Cinematography was poor (too close on the fights)
-You're right, action movies don't need deep thought provoking scripts, but I think they need at the least a solid LOGICAL one. A few slips in logic is definitely okay in an action movie, but too many makes the movie start to lose points.
Blade 1 even had a few logical slip-ups and we didn't mind. Frost standing out in the open with sunscreen on, yet his eyeballs, scalp, gums (when he opens to talk) don't burn up. But Blade 2 had way too many. Most of which were already listed in this thread.
But was I entertained, I hate to say this...but I actually was. There were a few moments of 'coolness' that I enjoyed. Like the final fight where the head Reaper bad guy leaps to a far wall then jumps to do a HUGE elbow drop on blade......heh heh...suh-weet. Reaper guy also catches Blade's leg and swings him into a pillar. The suplex was cool......cheezy, but cool.
However, I have no illusions....this is a crappy movie.
Scale of 1 to 10.
"Blade 2" gets a 3.
Then........PLUS an extra 1.5 points because there were some cool shots here and there and most of all........................
.........Leonor Varela ..............hooo-hah! Watching her made the movie not seem so bad. I loved her hair piece and the choker she wore. Cool fashion.
Total Score: 4.5
Link to Leonor as Nyssa Image: http://www.comics2film.com/ImageFrame.php3?f_filename=images/Blade/Pubs/Image9.jpg
-Cinematography was poor (too close on the fights)
-You're right, action movies don't need deep thought provoking scripts, but I think they need at the least a solid LOGICAL one. A few slips in logic is definitely okay in an action movie, but too many makes the movie start to lose points.
Blade 1 even had a few logical slip-ups and we didn't mind. Frost standing out in the open with sunscreen on, yet his eyeballs, scalp, gums (when he opens to talk) don't burn up. But Blade 2 had way too many. Most of which were already listed in this thread.
But was I entertained, I hate to say this...but I actually was. There were a few moments of 'coolness' that I enjoyed. Like the final fight where the head Reaper bad guy leaps to a far wall then jumps to do a HUGE elbow drop on blade......heh heh...suh-weet. Reaper guy also catches Blade's leg and swings him into a pillar. The suplex was cool......cheezy, but cool.
However, I have no illusions....this is a crappy movie.
Scale of 1 to 10.
"Blade 2" gets a 3.
Then........PLUS an extra 1.5 points because there were some cool shots here and there and most of all........................
.........Leonor Varela ..............hooo-hah! Watching her made the movie not seem so bad. I loved her hair piece and the choker she wore. Cool fashion.
Total Score: 4.5
Link to Leonor as Nyssa Image: http://www.comics2film.com/ImageFrame.php3?f_filename=images/Blade/Pubs/Image9.jpg
Last edited:
jollyninja
First Post
it's a movie based on a comic book and you people are talking about continuity errors and saying that the first one was better. when referring to logical plots, you need to not refer to a completley ficticous character based on a mythical creature. the only problem i had with the plot of the movie was that once again, the evil guy wanted blade's blood. and my complaint is that it was unoriginal (as in the same as the first movie, not the whole concept which was unoriginal to begin with) not that it was unbelievable.
in case you had not noticed, blade said in the movie that he had known as soon as his young buddy had turned, which happened before the vampires came to visit with him the first time. therefore, he would have expected them to come at some point. also he was not exactly beating the crap out of them and he knew that there were more then two. so stopping the fight probably didn't seem like an all bad idea.
the cg sucked, i'll give you that
RE is a huge piece of crap.
as for the connection between blade and the chick, perhaps he had never considered the plight of the pureblood vampire. humans are their food, bottom line, to live they have to kill humans, a sentient creature. you would do it if you had to to live. had he ever got to know a vampire before? nope, in essence, blade is a racist in the purest sense, he kills simply because of what they are, never considering their motivations or caring about their sentience. perhaps he thought about that for a moment and realised that if he could save a human he would do it in a second, so why not save a vampire, because Frost was a psycho? not really a good enough reason if you ask me, or apparently blade.
in case you had not noticed, blade said in the movie that he had known as soon as his young buddy had turned, which happened before the vampires came to visit with him the first time. therefore, he would have expected them to come at some point. also he was not exactly beating the crap out of them and he knew that there were more then two. so stopping the fight probably didn't seem like an all bad idea.
the cg sucked, i'll give you that
RE is a huge piece of crap.
as for the connection between blade and the chick, perhaps he had never considered the plight of the pureblood vampire. humans are their food, bottom line, to live they have to kill humans, a sentient creature. you would do it if you had to to live. had he ever got to know a vampire before? nope, in essence, blade is a racist in the purest sense, he kills simply because of what they are, never considering their motivations or caring about their sentience. perhaps he thought about that for a moment and realised that if he could save a human he would do it in a second, so why not save a vampire, because Frost was a psycho? not really a good enough reason if you ask me, or apparently blade.
Chun-tzu
First Post
I liked it.
The greatest sin that a movie can commit is NOT the sin of being inconsistent. The greatest sin that a movie can commit is being BORING. This movie was not boring (for me). And to me, that says a lot about an action movie, because as much as I like a good action movie, the bad ones just suck SOOOO bad (I can't remember a thing that happened in "Collateral Damage").
Getting back to the point I was trying to make, there are times when a writer has to sacrifice consistency for story value. If Blade detonated the bomb while it was in the big bad vampire's head, it would have had less story value than using it to kill the traitor. A movie that is solid and completely consistent (if badly executed) also runs the risk of being boring. Sure, it would have been a better, more solid movie if the writer (David Goyer) had worked out those plot holes, but they weren't huge, gaping (i.e., unforgivable) plot holes in my book.
So, I liked it. Blade II had some solid strengths, and I guess it just hit the right chords for me. A lot of it reminded me of "Aliens", one of my favorites. I'd watch this movie again (mind you, sometimes my opinion of a movie changes after the 2nd or 3rd time).
The greatest sin that a movie can commit is NOT the sin of being inconsistent. The greatest sin that a movie can commit is being BORING. This movie was not boring (for me). And to me, that says a lot about an action movie, because as much as I like a good action movie, the bad ones just suck SOOOO bad (I can't remember a thing that happened in "Collateral Damage").
Getting back to the point I was trying to make, there are times when a writer has to sacrifice consistency for story value. If Blade detonated the bomb while it was in the big bad vampire's head, it would have had less story value than using it to kill the traitor. A movie that is solid and completely consistent (if badly executed) also runs the risk of being boring. Sure, it would have been a better, more solid movie if the writer (David Goyer) had worked out those plot holes, but they weren't huge, gaping (i.e., unforgivable) plot holes in my book.
So, I liked it. Blade II had some solid strengths, and I guess it just hit the right chords for me. A lot of it reminded me of "Aliens", one of my favorites. I'd watch this movie again (mind you, sometimes my opinion of a movie changes after the 2nd or 3rd time).
WizarDru
Adventurer
jollyninja said:
And being based on a comic book means that it automatically will have continuity problems? That might be true for some comics, but that hardly holds true for all. Maybe you just need to expand your horizons. I'd start with 'Powers' and 'Midnight Nation', for example.
PenguinKing
First Post
That one may not be all that inconsistent - vampires just aren't as vulnerable to sunlight in Blade as they are in the sequel (or in most vampire fiction, for that matter). In the "execution" scene, the indirect sunlight of early morning only causes the pureblood to smolder, while Frost and his companions expose their faces to it apparently without ill effect (maybe "turned" vampires aren't as affected as purebloods?). Even a focussed UV floodlight only causes 3rd-degree burns rather than flash-frying the vampire in question.Fenros said:
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Last edited:
Aaron L
Hero
I liked it. When Blade jumped off the ledge and sommersaulted in air to land with his sword through the vampire, that was pure comic book.
Of course, I went in knowing it would be a cheesy fun action movie with techno-neon-vampire-ninjas. I already knew that I didn't like a large part of the story, VAMPIRISM BEING A VIRUS. Ugh, I hate that. But I accepted it as part of the mythology of this movie. I accepted that it was supposed to be a comic book on a big screen, so I liked it over all.
Of course, I went in knowing it would be a cheesy fun action movie with techno-neon-vampire-ninjas. I already knew that I didn't like a large part of the story, VAMPIRISM BEING A VIRUS. Ugh, I hate that. But I accepted it as part of the mythology of this movie. I accepted that it was supposed to be a comic book on a big screen, so I liked it over all.
Similar Threads
