New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blade...

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
OK I’ve come to understand that many and I mean many people really hate the first film and the second film is hailed over it. I don't really want to get in depth but why does everyone hate the original. Sure the CGI is somewhat unrealistic, but the movie flat out rocks. In my own personal opinion I think it's better then part two and carries well. Snipes gives a great performance along with the rest of the cast, and I totally loved Frost. I don't know, maybe everyone just liked the second because Del Toro worked on it, but for me it got really boring upon my second viewing. Sure Del Toro is cool and all, but the flick had a poor storyline. Hey, it's my own personal opinion and if you don't agree it's all right. I don't claim Blade to be underrated, I just think it doesn't get the credit it deserves, and maybe I'm wrong. CGI blood or not, the opening scene should have been enough to quench anyone’s thirst.
post #2 of 15
post #3 of 15
Jesus H. Christ... It took way more time to pull up all of those links to older threads than it would to have just responded to this one. We get it. Sometimes the things we say have already been discussed. Lighten the fuck up.
post #4 of 15
Just to let you know, this thread is about Blade. Those threads are about Blade II.

That said, Blade flat-out rocks. It's slower than Del Toro's blood opus, but it still kicks the donkey's ass with a better plot and better character development.

I could have done with out Pearl, the Jabba the Hut of Vampires, the ending is flawed (if one of the pure bloods dies before the ritual is completed, how the hell does it work out? I actually have a possible answer to that, but it still seems like they just ignored that plot hole), and the CGI is some of the crappiest ever put to film, but the film is packed with great moments:

The scene between Frost and Blade in the park.

The scene where they take the vampire out into the sun and he explodes (as shitty the effects are, it's still pretty cool).

The subway scene.

The scenes with Whistler.

The ending sword fight.

And the beginning... sweet lord, nothing tops that beginning (which is also a fault of the film). It's sheer genius.
post #5 of 15
Love the first Blade. In fact, most people I know think it's great.

That said, the sequel runs circles around it. And no offense but I think I might scream if I hear one more person claim the first film has better character developlment and storyline.

I mean, neither film is winning a lot of points on those counts. It's like saying the first Friday the 13th is so much deeper than Friday the 13th Part 3.

I think what a lot of people who didn't like the second film responded to in the first one is the way the real world is more integrated into the storyline. It has a more urban "street" feel - almost a nod to the character's blaxploitation roots - while the second film is totally a comic book flick all the way.

But like I said, I think they're both kick-ass. I can't wait to see who they bring on to direct Blade 3.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
Just to add something real quick, it was mentioned earlier, I am talking about Blade the original not Blade 2, which the guy above wanted to post numerous links to. I guess he failed to read my post or just flat out didn't give a shit, oh well no use at getting pissed off over somebody I don't know. Anyway with that aside, if you happen to catch it, Blade was on the TV last night. I can't recall his name, but I believe he plays on fox's TV show ‘grounded for life’, as the father. I really liked his character and found him amusing. Upon this viewing, even though it was edited I noticed there was a hell of a lot of blood and the cgi blood was minimal (until the end) so where does everyone claim that this flick is filled with computer-animated blood? Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people and the ones on this board disagree. Anyway to me Blade will always prevail over the sequel.
post #7 of 15
I think both films stand on there own merits. The second had loads more energy, but the first was as someone said, grittier.
post #8 of 15
Anyone catch Norrington's first picture Death Machine - nihilistic fucker about Brad Dourif's craaaaaay-zeee inventer-type who manufactures body armour and robots with a life of their own. Amalgam of [b]Terminator[/B}, Aliens and Hardware - all of which Norrington worked on as an F/X technician I believe - but not without its charms.

He also did a wonderful picture last year called The Last Minute which has yet to get distribution - it's kind of Trainspotting meets [b]Oliver[/B} meets True Romance meets...well it's got Jason Isaacs doing Percy Sledge routines while sledgehammering Fagin types to death if that sells you any.

Yet to get this picture released (if indeed it ever will - shame...) the guy comes across like a grungy Michael Mann here. Boy's got a good eye that's for sure...
post #9 of 15
Love the first, hate the second.
post #10 of 15
jah

I liked the first a little bit more than the second...but still

Question *SPOILER*

With the big ritual at the end, I also thought they needed all the vamps on the council to complete the ritual....but them that annoying blond vamp chick kills one of them.

CHRIST.....I hated that chick.....glad when her head went *p0p*
post #11 of 15
Loved both!

Blade I & II have their moments, Blade II is much more comic booky though.

I love Whistler lines in both.

And love the big ape in B II in the blood pack you know the guy plays in Alien IV, one of the mercs.

The only Thing I truly hated was the way toooo CGI battle at some point near the lights, you know when the 2 Whampies enter the lair of Blade, Whistler and the turncoat, know the part when they're like little plastic flipping clay men.

Love the way the Flash Grenades turn corners and everything wink

Anyhow, now that think about it Blade I would be my personal fav.

Cheers peeps!
post #12 of 15
When Blade 2 came out I felt in the minority, being I thought Blade 1 was a much better movie and everywhere I went I heard
otherwise. I think one of my problems going into Blade 2 was the fact that for the most part they acted as if Blade 1 had not
happened at all. I really liked the urban feel to the first film and I thought that was lacking in the second. By no means do I hate
part 2, I just thought it could have been better then it was.
post #13 of 15
one more littlee gripe I had with B2.....the crap mouthed vamps were made out to represent drug addicts.....like, they NEEDED the blood constantly like crack

one up I'll nod for the CGI is the end battle...although it did look like a couplee of G.I.Joe action figures goin at it, some of those hits made me say "Jesus...OUCH!"
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Also, the subbing of CGI for stunt men duuring some of the fight scenes = sad. While the first Blade stayed energetic due to pacing the fight scenes, part 2 lacks energy at all.
I'll limit myself to these two points.

1) The use of CGI to enhance some of the film's action is perfectly valid and if it doesn't look entirely photo-realistic I'm not sure why that's an issue. For one, the film was attempting to evoke a anime-style feeling and in a scene like the fight in front of the lights, that's exactly what it looked like - an anime-flavored battle.

Every type of special effects has some level of stylization to it. When stop-motion is used and it obviously looks like stop-motion (which would be always, by the way) - no one holds it against the film.

2) The pace of Blade 2 was arguably much-improved over that of Blade. How many fans and critics noted that the film blew its wad in the first ten minutes with the nightclub scene and had nothing as exciting afterwards?

While I don't quite agree with that view, it's clear that many felt the first Blade peaked too early and didn't "stay energetic". And to say Blade 2 lacked any "energy at all" is frankly ridiculous.

As I said, I liked the first Blade and felt it had a lot of bold strokes to its credit (like introducing a HK feel to the action) but I feel Blade 2 was even more ahead of the curve.
post #15 of 15
I agree with the Blade lovers .

The first film easily beat the second when it came to Martial Arts and action.

The second film kinda blew its wad by saying the Bloodpack trained 2 years to take out Blade then they got dispatched by the Reapers like ants getting wiped out by Raid weak.

Also the second film gets muddled with its plot twists. I dug Nomak and the Frankenstein story but the rest was pretty sad. Perlman I like but the way he was dispatched was even sad. Saying that though I really think Blade 2 and even Blade is as close to a dark gothic gory comic book as I have seen and only The Crow comes close there. Crow doesn't touch it when it comes to gore though. Something I liked about Blade 2 was in how it was much more of a horror film and thats cool. I respect Del Toro but I feel the film needed more energy, better badguys and better fight scenes. If it wasn't for the end fight with Nomak i'd say the film totally failed in the fight scene department.

The action other than the Nomak scenes seem really uninspired ala the sewer sequence. Blade and Perlman just unloading guns on Reapers crying and yelling then big flashbang UV grenade explosion.

In contrast watching the dual stories of Deacon Frost and Blade and then watching them edge closer then at the end hit the peak and collide was spectacular. I loved Norrington's direction much more than Del Toro's. I like Blade 2 and it was a great fun time but it isn't as good as the original film. The beginning of Blade in the bloodbath and then the ending temple sequence's took that film to another level.

Blade 2 also wasted Donnie Yen . I'll be picking up Blade 2 on dvd soon though because it was a fun gory good time .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main