This is topic Blade II in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000289
Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 03-22-2002, 06:52 AM:
Rough, Baby, Rough. Ok this movie is flat which blows chunks. Beyond that it's action till the very end. If you love action movies, see it and I mean now. This thing blew me away, besides the digital dummie special effects (as seen in Harry Potter and LOTR)the effect were great and did not distract you during the movie. The only effects that distracted me were the ones in the star wars trailer beforehand. Del Toro has delivered a non-stop brutal action fest. More violence than the first which is a good thing.
The only thing it did not top from the previous film was the opening scene.
Giving it 5 out of 5 reels. Too much fun. Enjoy it now, cause there are no great action flicks in the near future,(scorpion king is PG-13, can anyone say Kull: the conquerer, uuugggh)the closest will be spidey and it is a whole different kind of action.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-22-2002, 05:03 PM:
03/22/2002, Cinemark 17, Springfield OR, #13, 11:30AM early-bird bargain show ($3.75), flat, SR-D. Full house, packed right up to the front row. Excellent presentation, and *very* loud.Most everything Josh said. The action is brutal and relentless. Special effects are quite good. Directed with a lot of flair, and although quick-cuts rule, the visuals are above standard MTV-director-level crap. Not for young children or the squeamish, although this is so cartoonish that I found it inoffensive. Some of the dialog is stilted and sounds like, well, dialog, but that's a minor nit because this movie has little to do with dialog anyway. 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-27-2002, 01:24 PM:
quote:
this movie has little to do with dialog anyway
It's funny that you say that. I haven't seen this movie, but some of my friends/coworkers that had seen it were talking about it at lunch today. The consensus among this group was that the first one was better, and that Blade 2 was too "over the top". Someone mentioned that some movies were being made with much more action and much less dialog to make them more attractive to foreign markets (where English is not the primary language). In a way, it makes sense, and it would also decrease the cost of making alternate language soundtracks if there wasn't as much dialog.
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 03-27-2002, 01:34 PM:
"In a way, it makes sense, and it would also decrease the cost of making alternate language soundtracks if there wasn't as much dialog."Hey! I've got an idea! Silent films! In digital stereo!
Yeah, that'll work. The frame rate could be reduced to save money, and if somebody could just figure out an inexpensive process to make black and white pictures...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-27-2002, 02:59 PM:
Hey it's not such a crazy idea. Go to the video store and rent Chaplin's "City Lights" (my favorite) or a slew of other movies from that era and I think most people today will be shocked at what they see, provided they give it a fair chance. Black and white, 1.33 aspect, silent, and yet many of them far outperform the crap Hollywood is churning out week after week today in terms of entertainment.Having color, widescreen and multi-channel digital sound is fantastic, but don't underestimate the artist's capabilities of 70-80 years ago. I'd rather see one of those films over Blade II any day. 
(Disclaimer: no I have not seen Blade II yet, but it looks awful lame to me.)
Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 11-22-2002, 06:02 AM:
I'm a relative newcomer to the Blade films, i saw the first one just as the second finished its cinema run.
The first Blade film was awesome, over the top with intention and very funny.
BLADE 2 was even better, Del toro did a terrific job on this film, alot darker than the first with the homour a little more subdued but always there. Ron Perlman stole the show in my book! I caught this on DVD, the image was great and the dts sound was awesome.
A friend of mine tells me that Del toro is working on a film version of HELLBOY (comic book) with the incredible Ron Perlman as hellboy, i cant wait for that one!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-25-2002, 06:07 PM:
I didn't like "Blade II" very much at all. There was next to nothing in terms of character development. Many of the players in the movie just seemed to be there to get killed off in some kind of gruesome way and little else.
I liked the first "Blade" film and have a copy of it on DVD. "Blade" worked well in 'scope and really sort of had its identity set in the format. It was jarring to see the second one shot flat. My first thought, just from the trailers, was that the film was shot flat and released in March (not summer) because it was really just intended to go straight to video.
With lowered expectations, the movie should have had at least some redeemable moments. But even with all the super fast fight scenes and such, it never really got onto its feet. The main problem was the lack of a coherent character-driven story arc. In "Blade" you at least had the main character uncovering his past and the female lead working to save herself from vampirism as well saving the day. There was very little of that stuff in "Blade II". Just a lot of fight scenes loosely pieced together.
Finally, there were some plain, bad, inconsistencies between "Blade II" and "Blade". Remember how gruesome the vampires would die? They were either exploding from contact with sunlight or disentegrating into a pile of smoldering embers from a single stab of Blade's sword. That's what made that last part of "Blade II" seem so hokey. Blade watches while this beautiful vampire gets cooked by the sun --in a fashion that looks more like a perfume commercial. She looks like she is almost enjoying cooking. Baloney. Dragon Eddie's sun-plosion in the first film makes for that moment in "Blade II" not working.
To sum it up, I think the director of "Blade II" succumbed to the John Woo / Michael Bay disease. And that's the disease of shooting some really pretty action images regardless of whether they work in the story or not. Character, script, continuity and all that other stuff be damned.
I hate to come down so hard on "Blade II", but I am doing so because I wanted it to capture some of the same kind of thing "Blade" was successful in delivering. It flat out didn't do it. And having DTS-ES 6.1 on the DVD isn't going to be much to redeem it either.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-31-2002, 01:57 AM:
Although I prefer Blade I to Blade II, I still enjoyed this film. The action and effects were so very well done and produced. I do agree that it was very over the top, with little story and charachter development to go with it. Still though, Good show.
Dave
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-02-2003, 01:54 AM:
I had went to go see this back in March (when it was released). I went to go see it at the UA Showcase 8 - (MGM GRAND). When I went into the auditorium and saw no stadium seating - I turned around and got my money back. The theatre was that unimpressive.
December of 2002 - finally got to see this one on DVD. Half way through the 'big' battle scene in the middle of the feature the DVD froze. The problem was so bad I had to take my DVD player into the shop.
Needless to say - I finally got to see the whole thing and felt it was 'way over the top' and no where near as good as the first one.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-02-2003, 09:44 AM:
Gross
I wish they hadn't made it, much less flat. I like 1 but this isn't near the quality.