Wow, Blade II got a REALLY good review...

Do I need to have seen the first one in order to understand the second one?

 

I've been wondering that, because it looks good
_jOBO

 

it helps to see the first but i don't think so, i saw both and all together they were really cool.

 

Don't go by ONE good review. Check out www.rottentomoatoes.com and see all the reviews. The majority are bad.

 

Well what do you expect from a site called rottentomoatoes....



Mace Windy,
windier than the signature feature!

 

If you liked Blade, you'll probably like the sequel. I saw it yesterday with my wife. Good popcorn movie... the new vampire "mutant" dudes were freaky, dude!

As long as you're not expecting Ben-Hur or anything, I think you'll be entertained by it.

Screw the critics. Either way, I still went because I knew how I reacted to the first movie... at first I thought it was cheesy, but then I got into it. Neither film takes themselves too seriously. The sequel really picks up and gets interesting about halfway through... right where you think the story is pretty much over. But then, the first time I saw the Matrix, the first sequence with Trinity seemed awfully cheesy to me, too... but I overcame that quickly.

 

I don't trust rottentomatoes. Their whole point is to be asenine.

 

Well, I don't think it's good to just go by reviews, but I use them as guidance. I might see Blade II when it comes out on video, because the first one was 'aight.

 

Well, DarkSide, I saw the first Blade when it first came out and barely remember it, so I think it's safe to say that you dont need to see the first to see part two.


By the way, if you take Blade 2 for what it is, an action packed gore fest with a paper thin plot and next to no character advancement, then yes, it is deserving of a really good review. Great movie if you ask me, I thouroughly enjoyed it.

 

I like to visit RottenTomatoes once in a while, just to see what certain critics thought, but I rarely decide to see or not to see a particular movie just because of what the critics said.

Besides, Roger Ebert is the only good critic out there worth listening to.

 

I've seen rottentomatoes mislabel good reviews with rotten labels and vice versa. I don't trust them.

 

The first one was crap and this one looks even worse.

 

"Besides, Roger Ebert is the only good critic out there worth listening to."

Is this the same Roger Ebert who last night at the Oscars told Sandra Bullock how great of a movie Speed 2 was?! He was dead serious too!

 

TFU, read his review here and you'll understand why.

 

I give Roger Ebert credit. It must have taken a lot of effort to try to muster up some good commentary on an otherwise horrible film in response to the studio that wined and dined you while on a press junket screening.

(Mind you, this is the seemingly sane critic who gave Gladiator thumbs down.)

 

Mind you alot of respectable critics gave a not so warm response to Gladiator.

And most serious and professionals in film, whether as historians or instructors or in the buisness did not even think it should have been nominated nor won.

And I am sorry. Gladiator was not a good movie. It was a fun above average popcorn flick. It was better than most popcorn flicks.

It did not deserve those Oscars. You can like what you want. Freedom of choice. But the film, on a technical level, was a mess. Weak acting and a shoddy story to boot.

And with that I will say that i really dug Blade. But Blade 2 was horrid. I mean, please, you are going to tell me that Snipes and that chick could not have done that fight scene in the film? They had to use CGI humans who looked silly? If Jackie Chan, Tom Cruise and John woo could do fight scenes just as intense without CGI, so could they. The original has intesne fight scenes without making usuing CGI humans!

The film had so many plot holes and was so predictable. Blade was an awsome movie. It was a great example on how to do a comic book movie. Blade 2 ruined it.

I did like how the Reapers looked. They were creepy. I liked the gore, of course. And I dug the final fight... when you could tell what was going on and it did not get silly.

Most of the fight scenes were silly! You couldn't tell what was happening because of the extreme close ups and shaking of the camera. The first Blade had cool fights without depending on exterem close ups and constant shaking, which has been the trend in films now for the last 2 years.

Ugh.

 

Like I said in another thread...you're not going to go see an American Maovie Classic when you see Blade 2...but if you want to see a movie that is really enjoyable and fun...go see it.....the main female actress is a horrible [/b] actress (but really foxy) but Wesley Snipes is good in IT AND THERE ARE SOME GREAT FIGHT SCENES....

 

I didn't like the first Blade film because of the excessive profanity. Every second word out of someone?s mouth started with f and was four letters long. I don?t mind occasional cursing, and I don?t expect a popcorn movie to have great dialog, but Blade was absolutely wretched in that respect.

 

Mind you alot of respectable critics gave a not so warm response to Gladiator.

I didn't care... I went anyway... several times.

And most serious and professionals in film, whether as historians or instructors or in the buisness did not even think it should have been nominated nor won.

Apparently, considering it was chosen by professionals who actually work in film. Let me ask you something, do you go to historians and instructors to figure out which CDs to buy, too?

And I am sorry. Gladiator was not a good movie. It was a fun above average popcorn flick. It was better than most popcorn flicks.

Perhaps... so? Which movies were nominated that year?

"Billy Elliot"
"Erin Brockovich"
"Gladiator"
"Sunshine"
"Traffic"
"Wonder Boys"

I certainly don't think any of these others deserved it over Gladiator. If you're vying for Traffic, the mandatory art-flick-with-a-message bullcrap... don't even start. That film was good, but it's as if it tried too hard to sell a message and yet fell into the Hollywood cliche-trap of depicting the drug world in a disgusting-yet-mesmerizing way as if the writers seem to have first-hand experience with the world of drugs (gee, ya think?).

It did not deserve those Oscars. You can like what you want. Freedom of choice. But the film, on a technical level, was a mess. Weak acting and a shoddy story to boot.

I disagree, audiences who made the film a top-grosser disagree, and apparently so did the majority of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. So, who else should decide what movies win trade awards? Gene Shalit?

And with that I will say that i really dug Blade. But Blade 2 was horrid. I mean, please, you are going to tell me that Snipes and that chick could not have done that fight scene in the film? They had to use CGI humans who looked silly?

Some of the parts of the fight scenes were a little out of touch with reality, hence the need for CGI. They can't simply defy gravity in some of those moves... so it's either CG or wirework (which, after all the training expenses and expert choreography, probably costs the same as a low-budget CG contractor). If you're going to gauge Blade vs. Blade 2 on silliness... neither film took itself very seriously... and I don't know where I'd draw the line in terms of what to get nitpicky about in a movie based on a comic book.

If Jackie Chan, Tom Cruise and John woo could do fight scenes just as intense without CGI, so could they.

Tom Cruise wouldn't use CG? Oh, of course... I forgot, he's completely capable of leaping off a 10 story building and landing unharmed.



The original has intesne fight scenes without making usuing CGI humans!

The original also didn't have vampires that could cling to walls and ceilings. Granted the CG was not the best but... when you're making low-budget comic book films, it's not like you can afford to hire Dennis Muren and the rest of the ILM guys to do Oscar-winning CG stuntwork for your little vampire flick.

The film had so many plot holes and was so predictable. Blade was an awsome movie. It was a great example on how to do a comic book movie. Blade 2 ruined it.

I dunno... I'm sure the original had it's own problems, too. Either way, I overlooked any inconsistencies in favor of just enjoying the movie that was only barely worth the five bucks I paid to see it.

I did like how the Reapers looked. They were creepy. I liked the gore, of course. And I dug the final fight... when you could tell what was going on and it did not get silly.

I agree. By the way, it's not like Wesley Snipes wasn't trying... the guy coordinated a lot of the fight scenes and is a 5th degree blackbelt in karate and several other martial arts.

Most of the fight scenes were silly! You couldn't tell what was happening because of the extreme close ups and shaking of the camera.

The first Blade had cool fights without depending on exterem close ups and constant shaking, which has been the trend in films

 

I generally trust Ebert. He occasionally makes mistakes, like giving TombRaider a good review, but on the whole we're on the same wavelength and I agree with his reviews.

 

Roger Ebert's Speed2 review:

"I will observe, however, that it's not every day (unless you live in New Orleans) that you get to see a ship crashing into a pier.[/i]"

LMAO! So true, so true.

 

His funniest review is of Eraser. He goes off about the possibly applications of rail guns, and it's frickin' hilarious.

 

I was not really blown away with Blade 2.

On paper it was awesome. It had good fight scenes and special effects. But the story was real predictable, and I don't think they really developed the villian very well.

Plus is was really gory. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I mean the whole opening of the chest cavity was just pretty gross.

I seem to have the minority opinion though, so I suggest that if you liked the first one you should go see the second.

Although I will go on record as saying I liked Resident Evil better than Blade 2, even though RE had sub-par special effects compared to blade 2.

 

I thought Resident Evil was all-out awful. I only saw it for two reasons:

1) My 13 year old brother wouldn't shut the hell up about it until I took him to see it.

2) I heard Milla got naked in it

And I must say that her nudity was just as disappointing as all the other aspects of the movie. They started off on the right track by killing off the worst of the actors right away, but the acting, the dialogue, the music, the special effects, the fight scenes -- all were badly done. It was even worse because, watching the movie, I saw a million ways it could've been much better; it had potential, it just failed horribly to follow through.