Guest chirs3 Report post Posted April 21, 2002 Starring: Wesley Snipes, Kris Kristofferson... those are the only ones worth mentioning. Kevin Thomas, Los Angeles Times Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer Jeff Vice, Desert News, Salt Lake City Wade Major, Box Office Magazine Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times And I'll throw C.H.U.D. on there too. These people all said that Blade II was as good as, if not better than, the original. These people need to be shot in the face. Synopsis: It's two years after the first movie ends. Blade is searching for Whistler, who was turned (bitten and became a vampire) and then kidnapped. He finds him, and using some method that isn't explained too well, cures him. Then some vampire baddies drop by, to give Blade a message. There's a new thing on the streets, a new breed of monster. Much like vampires, only these things are really ugly, and need to feed every few hours... and they can feed on vampires. The Vampire community strikes a temporary truce with Blade, and lend him "The Bloodpack", a group of vampires trained only to kill him, to track down the ugly new thingiemajiggers. Whoo-hah. The Good: Uhhh... There were good previews... The Bad: Script, Acting, Plot, Villain (or lack thereof), predictability... Music wasn't so great either. Care for an example of how ridiculous this movie can get? When the two vampires break into Blade's warehouse to give him the message, they attack Blade (because one of Blade's buddies (not whistler) fires a gun at them). THEY FIGHT FOR FIVE MINUTES. Then one of them says "Wait, stop! We're just here to give you a message!" ... Oh, and the woman Blade was with in the first one... the one who was supposed to develop a better serum and stick with him... Not even mentioned. At all. Ever. The fight scenes are minimal fun, and not nearly as good as the first. The deaths go from being cool (in the first, the vampires just kind of disintegrated with some sparks) to absolutely ludicrous (exploding into exploding balls of exploding sparks and exploding flame... that explodes). There's a real lack of villainy here, too. With Blade, you could see Deacon Frost as a real threat. In this one... uh... no... And lets not forget that Blade goes from being a badass to a smartass. Uh... yay? And, if they turned Whistler, WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY JUST LET HIM SIT IN A TUBE?! Wouldn't you WANT someone like Whistler on your side if you're fighting Blade?! Overall: This movie made me want to rent the original, just so the night wouldn't be a total loss. This is a god-awful movie. ---- chirs3 gives "Blade II" three severed movie-critic heads out of ten. ---- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 21, 2002 Well the ninjas were fired at and went into self defense. Also the ninjas were part of the group trained to kill Blade so it isn't unlikely for them to fall back to what they have been trained to do after originally being attacked. Then after the intial attack died down and they weren't afraid of being attacked they made their reason for being there clear. Sure it was largely done just to get the fight in, but it's not that hard to understand all of it. It wasn't like they just appeared and attacked for no reason at all and then said they aren't here to fight. Sure it didn't have amazing plot, script and acting but neither did the first movie(or any Snipes movie for that matter). The plot was actually better then the first and fit better. Blade is about high tech vampires that blend in with the humans not castle dwellers who eat rats and fly around in bat form. So for that reason a plot about cloning vampire dna to make super vampires with no weakness fits in alot better with this type of vampire then a plot about trying to awaken an ancient vampire god did. The villians weren't that bad and they made for better villians then Deacon Frost did. Yes i enjoyed the Deacon Frost performance but he was a weak villian. He wasn't all that threatening and came off as a spoiled rich kid. "The Master" and the first clone guy were stronger villians and actually looked and acted more threatening. "The Master" had the old "super powerfull evil mastermind" thing going which makes for a stronger villian then a power hungry punk kid that's in way over his head. And the original clone guy was made into an unstoppable monster that even Blade may not be able to beat. As far as Blade II being predictable which is true. Are you telling us that Blade wasn't highly predictable as well? Hell almost every movie like this(hero vs. villian action movie) is predictable. The majority of all mainstream movies(especially action movies) are very predictable because Holywood can't stand sending people home on a downer or disappointed so the hero will win 95% of the time. Blade had smartass comments in the first movie too. He had alittle more smartass comments this time but the character was basically the same. They kept Whistler alive in that tube to feed off him to torture him because he's Blade's friend. Sure that may not seem like the best way to handle him but it's a typical mainstream movie villian stunt which always backfire. Most mainstream villians seem to take their villian tests by watching the 60's Batman TV show. Overall i found the sequel to be alittle better then the originally, but both are about equal to each other. I enjoyed the first one too, but personally enjoyed the sequel more. However neither were great or "amazing" movies. Acting as if the original was a great movie and was vastly better and far superior is not accurate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chirs3 Report post Posted April 21, 2002 Well the ninjas were fired at and went into self defense. Also the ninjas were part of the group trained to kill Blade so it isn't unlikely for them to fall back to what they have been trained to do after originally being attacked. Then after the intial attack died down and they weren't afraid of being attacked they made their reason for being there clear. Sure it was largely done just to get the fight in, but it's not that hard to understand all of it. It wasn't like they just appeared and attacked for no reason at all and then said they aren't here to fight. Did it not occur to them to say "Wait! Don't shoot! We're only here to deliver a message!" The shooting stopped well before the end of the five-minute fight. Sure it didn't have amazing plot, script and acting but neither did the first movie(or any Snipes movie for that matter). The plot was actually better then the first and fit better. Blade is about high tech vampires that blend in with the humans not castle dwellers who eat rats and fly around in bat form. So for that reason a plot about cloning vampire dna to make super vampires with no weakness fits in alot better with this type of vampire then a plot about trying to awaken an ancient vampire god did. Blade is about high tech vampires that blend in with the humans not castle dwellers who eat rats and fly around in bat form. Exactly. Yet the main villains of this story fall more into the latter category. The evil father lived in a dungeon reading archaic texts. Anyone remember the vampire council from Blade? In the high-tech place with the high tech archives and the high-tech goodies? Yea… And as for the plot, I didn’t think it was all that great mainly because they tried to have us sympathize with the poor freaky son who was a failed experiment. You NEVER want to make someone sympathize with a villain. That’s why Frost worked so well. You saw Frost and you were like “God damn, what an asshole. Kick his ass, Blade.” And the original clone guy was made into an unstoppable monster that even Blade may not be able to beat. La Magra was a freakin’ God. When Blade cuts Frost in half and he kinda welds himself back together, you think “Oh holy fuck.” There was absolutely no question in my mind that Blade could handle Nomack in this one. As far as Blade II being predictable which is true. Are you telling us that Blade wasn't highly predictable as well? Hell almost every movie like this(hero vs. villian action movie) is predictable. The majority of all mainstream movies(especially action movies) are very predictable because Holywood can't stand sending people home on a downer or disappointed so the hero will win 95% of the time. I’m just mad that they botched the “Oh, this guy’s turning on you!” from the very beginning. Blade didn’t have any surprise heel turns, and Blade II’s surprise heel turn wasn’t a surprise. That’s why I complain about this one’s predictability. Blade had smartass comments in the first movie too. He had alittle more smartass comments this time but the character was basically the same. Yes, he did. And I am probably (no, definitely) nitpicking here. But here’s an example. Someone jumps out from a corner and points a gun at Blade. In Blade 1, what would he have done? Something badass. In Blade II? “Don’t shoot!” he shouts as he jumps back. And Whistler had to throw him his freakin’ sunglasses. They shoulda paid a little tribute to Blade 1 and have Blade chop off baldy’s head, then catch the glasses midair. They kept Whistler alive in that tube to feed off him to torture him because he's Blade's friend. Sure that may not seem like the best way to handle him but it's a typical mainstream movie villian stunt which always backfire. Most mainstream villians seem to take their villian tests by watching the 60's Batman TV show. How are we supposed to take vampires as a serious threat if they do something that stupid? Acting as if the original was a great movie and was vastly better and far superior is not accurate. The original WAS a great movie, and WAS vastly better and far superior. The acting was better, I still hold the plot and villain were better, the fight scenes were better, the music was better… everything about the first was better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 21, 2002 Blade 2 kicked ass. I loved Blade, and I thought Blade 2 was just as good, if not better. Ron Perlman owned and the Reapers were really well done. The movie is pure action from beginning to end, which is what you should expect. If you liked Blade, chances are you will like Blade 2. Everyone else I know did. I don't understand how you can hate Blade 2, while saying you enjoyed The Mummy Returns, which was by far a worse sequel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chirs3 Report post Posted April 21, 2002 I never saw The Mummy. So I didn't grade TMR as a sequel. And it's easy to hate Blade 2. It's crap. Blade was a serious action movie. Serious as in it wasn't chock full of one liners, comic relief, the stock sappy love story, etc. It had a serious plot, serious characters, and it took itself seriously. Blade 2 is a serious action movie done with bad acting, bad music, only decent fight scenes, no regard for past events from the first one, and a villain that you never really got to hate or want to see die. And it was chock full of one liners and some attempted comic relief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Report post Posted April 21, 2002 Your loss dude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chirs3 Report post Posted April 22, 2002 If you say so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mystery Eskimo Report post Posted April 25, 2002 I thought Blade 2 was slightly better than the first film. Neither of them take themselves seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
