OT: Blade II - Spoiler - Opinions?

[KarinsDad]

Just saw Blade II last night.

Was not impressed.

Way, way too many very close-in shots during fast fight scenes.

Too many discrepencies in power levels. How come some vampires can flip from spot to spot on the wall and others have to slowly climb ladders?

They have an overnight cure for Whistler, but haven't used it on any other poor unfortunate humans that were ever infected.

They take a bunch of different weapons in to attack the "super vampires", but for the most part, only try the bullets and silver until way late in the battle when they finally start using their UV. What DND player takes 4 different weapons into combat and only uses the first 2 and keeps using them, even though they are not working.

And, although they shoot thousands of bullets in a crowded vampire nightclub, only about 6 vampire patrons die.

Too much noticable CGI.

Over and over again, one "super-vampire" is powerful enough to fight a regular vampire using weaponry, but four "super-vampires" cannot take out a single human cowering in a van, even after the human blows out one of the windows with a gun.

A UV light bomb goes around corners in a maze-like tunnel system as if it was a fire bomb.

The ally who turned on Blade at the end sounded so corny "Ha ha ha, I was a traitor the entire time. Fooled you." So when Blade only has a remote control device to blow up a bomb attached to one of the more powerful vampires (although they removed his weaponry, they did not remove the remote), he waits to use it to blow up the puny human. If that was your only weapon, would you use it to blow silver nitrate into the powerful vampire's head when you have no other weapons, or to blow the human to a million pieces whom you can rip to shreds with your bare hands?

There were so many stupid and inconsistent elements to the movie that I cannot even remember them all. But, I do know that everyone with me was also "pushed back into the theater" many times.

On a 1 to 10 rating, I give it about a 3. There were some good effects, but for the most part, the movie was lame. Not quite as bad as the 2 for DND the Movie, but fairly close. What is it with Hollywood? Don't they even watch these movies before they send them out to the public?

This movie had so much potential and they flushed it down the drain. The plot and effects were fine for the most part. They just blew it with the inconsistencies and the poor photography.

 

[RogueJK]

I went to the theater with some friends to see Resident Evil. When we got there, we decided to see Blade 2 instead. I'm regretting that now. We'll be going back soon to see R. E., like we should have done yesterday.

From a purely "action movie" P.O.V., Blade 2 wasn't that bad. It had some good fights, and it had enough humor to make it amusing. However, if you go in expecting a vampire movie, like I did, you will be sorely disappointed.

I agree that the plot had many inconsistencies and holes. Also, some of the effects are very clearly CGI. The battle in front of the lights is the worst. The characters are so obviously computer-generated that it makes it just laughable. Other movies have gotten away with doing lots of CGI scenes, since they worked hard to make them seem real. The artists for Blade 2 didn't, it seems.

After discussing it with my friends, we decided that the plot of Blade 2 would have made a good episode for some sort of sci-fi TV show, but it certainly didn't fit with the style of the first Blade film. Call me a old-fashioned, but I prefer the classic vampire. Stakes, crosses, sunlight, blood drinking, fangs, etc. The new type of vampires didn't seem like vampires at all. They reminded me of any number of "bogeyman" monsters from various science fiction movies, but certainly not vampires (other than their clearly Nosferatu-esque appearance and aversion to sunlight). The whole dissection scene reminded me more of "Alien" than "Dracula".

I was hoping for a good vampire movie, since not many have come out recently. Unfortunately, it seems I'll have to keep waiting.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it about a 4 or 5. It's certainly not the worst movie that I've ever seen, and it was, at least, not a bad way to waste a few hours.

 

[cbatt]

Wow Karin's Dad. That's very impressive. You summed up my thoughts about the movie almost exactly. Get out of my head!

I'd just like to add:

For those who were fans of the first movie, this movie removes all of it's fun and replaces it with a healthy dose of shock. Plain and simple, the direction of this movie sucked ass. The plot was decent, and for the most part, so were the performances, but the director just didn't know how to handle the material.

It does have it's moments and both Snipes and Kristofferson (sp?) are really good in thier roles. However, the movie has far to many holes and just plain nonsense which overshadows anything good about it.

3 out of 10 is a very fair score.

FURTHERMORE:

Anyone notice how the movie was just a big mishmash of Blade, Aliens, Predator, and verious other sundry action movies? I mean it's not just that you can see the "influence" of these past movies, no, it's more like they lifted entire concepts almost directly from them with little to no change. Very sad to see so little in the creativity department.

And what was up with the "Alien Autopsy" scene? Was there a point to that besides showing that the FX team on Blade could do better FX than the Alien Autopsy crew? Waste of film.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

OK, I really liked it, the CG didn't really bother me at all. I thought it really took the fights to a level of coolness not possible with live actors. I mean they're vampires they should be super humanly quick and strong, the use of CG really let them emphisize that in a way the first movie didn't. Second thing you need to remember is Blade is based off a comic book series, that means you're not going to get the classic vampire horror flick. The plot while far from perfect was still good, it was strongly tied to the first movie, which you don't see a lot in movie sequals, and it was a lot more complex than the first one.

For me the biggest disapointment was they didn't keep that cool samurai vamp around and developed him a little more, i thought he had a lot of potential.

on a sacle of one to ten, i'd give Blade 2 a 6 or 7. It was well above avarge, but not an instant classic. I'd definatly recomend seeing it and judgeing for yourself though.

As for resident evil, i probably would have seen it if they hadn't dogged out Bruce Campbell. That put it insantly on my wait for tape list.

 

[Voidsinger]

Okay, rebuttal.

I thouroughly enjoyed Blade II. From the posts I've seen so far, many of you forgot that this movie was not made to be overanalysed. It's 2 hours of glorious, campy fun, and to expect anything else would be to walk into "Dude, where's my car" wanting to see "Mulholland Dr.".

The visual style of director Del Toro fits well the dark mood and atmosphere needed to pull a good Blade flick. The battle scenes were well done and just oozed Comic Book action. I, personally, did not find that there were too many "close-up" shots at all, quite the contrary. Lords of the Rings, Gladiator, these movies' battle scenes were very much hidden by close-up and blur, but most of the Blade action can clearly be seen on the screen.

Blade II is everything Resident Evil should have been. Gadgets up the wazoo, great combat scenes, techno music (Great Massive Attack song too, "I against I" (w/ Mos Def)), tons and tons of gore (as opposed to the clinical asceptism of Resident Evil) and typical badass Blade attitude (props to Whistler and Reinhardt too, great one liners).

It's supposed to be a 2 hour long videoclip, and that's what I got.

 

[Voidsinger]

And what was up with the "Alien Autopsy" scene? Was there a point to that besides showing that the FX team on Blade could do better FX than the Alien Autopsy crew? Waste of film. [/B]

SPOILER!!!!!!!!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The "alien autopsy" scene gives out info on the Reapers' anatomy, and one clue on how to kill them. Just remember how Blade kills Novak in the end, and you'll see the whole point of that scene.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Okay, I will say it was not a great movie but I enjoyed it. I stopped going to movies some time ago expecting anything wonderful, I went to Blade for the action, that was what I got, sure it has holes in it but it was still fun.

It was like watching WWF (it had the moves), it was enjoyable.

My biggest issue was vampires! Vamps are not getting fair treatment in movies, more and more we see weak, easily killed, want-to-be vamps. The grand-master vampire in Blade is a weak wimp! Where was the power? Where was the fear and control?

 

[cbatt]

Voidsinger: DUH! But that's not the point. It could've been seriously shortened, with the chick vampire reporting back to Blade and the gang the about results. Actually going in and showing didn't serve a point except to provide more eye candy. In short, it seemed completely contrived to me and detracted from an already ham-fistedly paced movie.

 

[uv23]

I liked it, though despite the inctreased action, it felt slower than the first movie for some reason. As far as the fighting goes, I thought the wrestling moves were hilarious. Everyone in the theatre let out pleased giggles. But the CG really put me off. Cheap. They should have minimized it rather than mazimized it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I thouroughly enjoyed Blade II. From the posts I've seen so far, many of you forgot that this movie was not made to be overanalysed.

I was not trying to overanalyze it when I went in. I went to have fun.

The problem is that you are sitting in a theater and suddenly realizing over and over again that you are in a theater.

That sucks in a movie.

You are just getting drawn into some cool plot element or fight scene when something totally stupid occurs.

For example, the red headed vampire chick slowly climbing the ladder to avoid her super-vampire boyfriend. Vampires suddenly move like humans? This type of thing totally throws me out of a flick.

The four super vampires not being able to break into the van.

The two vampires that fought Blade so well in the warehouse (the black one and the girl), but suddenly they just walk into the water full of supervampires and when Blade shouts for them to get out of the water, they just stand there like idiots waiting for the slaughter. Where was the 30 foot leap to that ledge so that their enemy at least had to come to them? In fact, why did they go into the water in the first place when they didn't have to?

Blade hates vampires, but when the two fighting in the warehouse suddenly stop fighting, he does too. What was that? The scene with him holding the sword on her and her holding the sword on him was terrible. He would have not hesitated to just finish her off.

And, why is it that in the first Blade movie, the vampires are protected from the sunlight by wearing sunscreen, leather clothes, and motorcycle helmets and in Blade II, they decide to attack during the day and do not bother to put any of these protections on?

Just stupid inconsistencies.

The visual style of director Del Toro fits well the dark mood and atmosphere needed to pull a good Blade flick. The battle scenes were well done and just oozed Comic Book action. I, personally, did not find that there were too many "close-up" shots at all, quite the contrary.

You must have watched a different movie. It was extremely difficult to see the action in the first set of scenes in that building. A shoulder flashed by and suddenly a vampire dies. Err, was that a sword swing or something else? Can't tell.

It wasn't until Blade got outside with the motorcycle scenes that they actually panned back enough for you to see the action except for a few shots. Even then, they often zoomed in on the bike, but not the rider. Why? Whose idea of good action is that?

Gadgets up the wazoo, great combat scenes, techno music (Great Massive Attack song too, "I against I" (w/ Mos Def)), tons and tons of gore (as opposed to the clinical asceptism of Resident Evil) and typical badass Blade attitude (props to Whistler and Reinhardt too, great one liners).

I agree that a lot of this is true with the exception of great combat scenes. There were some very good ones. But about a third of them were bad.

The obvious CGI was bad. Too many combat close ups made watching some of the action painful.

Just better photography, better CGI, and consistency in vampire abilities would have turned this movie from a 3 to an 8 with no problem. It was like looking at your kid's homework and realizing that if she would have put 15 minutes into it instead of 5, it would have been done well.

Don't get me wrong. It had great potential and some very well done scenes. It just threw so much crap in between that I constantly got jarred out of the film. What a waste!