Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Ok ok so Sange is slow but I only saw this last night and all I wanted to say was Wow
I loved it
I loved it
Posted: 12:18 Jul 04 2003
Blade II - Review (contains spoilers)
Criticising Blade 2 would be like complaining to McDonalds that a Big Mac is unhealthy and lacking in nutritional value.
It has no plot, no character development, a paucity of dialogue worthy of repeating and at no point in time is the audience likely to feel any engagement with the events on screen or care about the outcome.
If you didn't know that before you went in, then you deserve to forfeit your ticket price.
What Blade 2 has in spades is carefully choreographed, beautifully filmed, effects-laden ultra violence. The film rarely slows down for more than a few minutes before charging into another conflict.
Snipes is as watchable as he was in the first movie, seeming to appreciate that Blade is not a part that requires much acting, simply the desire to look very very cool.
Whistler is a complete waste of time although Kristofferson offers the same brand of 'I may look like I'm 60 but I'll kick your butt' machismo as he did in the first film.
The story such as it is involve the emergence of a species of uber-vampires. Blade leads a crack team of vampire assassins (the bloobpack) who had originally been trained to take him down against the new enemy.
The Bloodpack vampires are pretty much one and the same with the exception of Rhinehardt (Ron Perlman looking like Tom Waits on steroids).
The big surprise is Luke Goss (yes, that Luke Goss) who does a surprisingly good turn as Nomak.
If you liked Blade, then odds are you'll enjoy this. If you are looking for a film with anymore than two dimensions, find something else.
{edit: please bear with us until we have a confirmed policy on offensive language. Thanks
}
(Edited by Desire 30/03/2002 11:49)
(Edited by Desire 30/03/2002 11:50)
(Edited by Incandenza 30/03/2002 15:29)
(Edited by Whistler 01/04/2002 20:40)
It has no plot, no character development, a paucity of dialogue worthy of repeating and at no point in time is the audience likely to feel any engagement with the events on screen or care about the outcome.
If you didn't know that before you went in, then you deserve to forfeit your ticket price.
What Blade 2 has in spades is carefully choreographed, beautifully filmed, effects-laden ultra violence. The film rarely slows down for more than a few minutes before charging into another conflict.
Snipes is as watchable as he was in the first movie, seeming to appreciate that Blade is not a part that requires much acting, simply the desire to look very very cool.
Whistler is a complete waste of time although Kristofferson offers the same brand of 'I may look like I'm 60 but I'll kick your butt' machismo as he did in the first film.
The story such as it is involve the emergence of a species of uber-vampires. Blade leads a crack team of vampire assassins (the bloobpack) who had originally been trained to take him down against the new enemy.
The Bloodpack vampires are pretty much one and the same with the exception of Rhinehardt (Ron Perlman looking like Tom Waits on steroids).
The big surprise is Luke Goss (yes, that Luke Goss) who does a surprisingly good turn as Nomak.
If you liked Blade, then odds are you'll enjoy this. If you are looking for a film with anymore than two dimensions, find something else.
{edit: please bear with us until we have a confirmed policy on offensive language. Thanks
}(Edited by Desire 30/03/2002 11:49)
(Edited by Desire 30/03/2002 11:50)
(Edited by Incandenza 30/03/2002 15:29)
(Edited by Whistler 01/04/2002 20:40)
24 Replies and 6247 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
Posted: 12:18 Jul 04 2003 
Don't.
by Milky
I still haven't seen this
I mean, seriously, man; I have seen some terrible films in my time, but this has to be one of...well, not the worst, because it doesn't come close to Hemoglobin, but certainly one of the worst films I have ever seen that achieved a cinematic release.
The fights are dull. Dull, dull, dull. No-one, not even Reinhardt, come close to matching Blade until the final match with Nomak, which means that the whole thing is a boring parade of Blade bullying these poor vampires who can't do a thing to fight back.
Actually, that's not quite true. While flipping back and forth to obtrusive, unconvincing CGI, the chick vampire and Cat from Red Dwarf give the B-man a run for his money, but in all subsequent appearances they are as useless as a thing that is useless. Plus, that fight is rendered deeply dull by the laughable CGI work.
Wirework is so much the way forward for superhuman leaps.
So yeah; Blade beats up a bunch of people who can't really fight back. There's some unconvincing light bombs with slow-moving UV. Various people come up with plans of increasing stupidity, and all die dull and pointless deaths; not that we care, because they're dull an pointless characters.
Oh, and there's a bit where Blade defeats a hundred opponents because they sportingly decline to attack him en masse of with ranged weapons.
Then the final showdown, which suddenly switches from super-powered kung fu to super-powered (read, badly CG'd) WWE Wrestlemania.
I want to be clear here: I didn't expect much from Blade II. I didn't expect a classic; I didn't even expect a film that could be described with a straight face a s'good'. But I dared to hope for something that came up to the low but enjoyable standards of the first film. I was sorely disappointed.
Posted: 09:27 Jul 07 2003 
So, not looking forward to Blade III then, Prophet? 
Posted: 17:26 Jul 07 2003 Sure I am; I mean, if I'm not looking, I might not be able to avoid it in time.
by Alan
So, not looking forward to Blade III then, Prophet?
Posted: 09:26 Jul 08 2003 [ 1 2 ]