#1 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

Hello my friends. Having very fond memories of this movie, I watched it today on skygo. It still seems exceedingly good to me in many respects. The sequels I didn't like at all but the first movie just seems really great.

I was perturbed when googled it see a 56% on rotten tomatoes which indicated "somewhat shit" (I'm paraphrasing).

Whats your opinion on this 1998 Vampire action movie?

#2 Edited by MonsieurX (30282 posts) -

Was great back then.

2 sucked but 3 wasn't that bad

#3 Edited by KHAndAnime (13778 posts) -

Maybe it being a brainless action movie is why it's considered bad. It's certainly a bad movie. It has pretty bad acting, awful plot, and it's incredibly cheesy. But that's what makes it fun to watch.

#4 Edited by 187umKILLAH (1344 posts) -

I really enjoyed Blade 1 and 2, the first was only slightly better than the sequel. Still haven't seen 3 yet.

#5 Edited by junglist101 (5462 posts) -

It's a good movie.

#6 Posted by Boddicker (2745 posts) -

1= leaning towards shit

2= above average

3= complete shit

#7 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

Maybe it being a brainless action movie is why it's considered bad. It's certainly a bad movie. It has pretty bad acting, awful plot, and it's incredibly cheesy. But that's what makes it fun to watch.

Disagree with your opinion. Stephen Dorff was a great villain who put up a great performance. They made him fairly intelligent and punk like villain and went as far as to have a dichotomy within the circle of vampires of new age VS old age. It wasn't simply "all of them VS blade".

Kris Kristofferson as the old mentor gave a great performance as well. All this ridiculous shit going on and he gives his lines with earnest.

Same as well with the female lead, while she wasn't brillaint, she was serviceable and didn't get in the way. By contrast with something like the Batman movies (which are generally considers top spot of superhero movies) with Vicki Vale, Chase Meridian and Rachel Dawes just tended to be annoying cunts.

Wesley Snipes as a dark brooding character as well, great. Compare that to Christian Bales cookie monster.

The movie seems to balance quite well, stupid fun, with serous ton. Again, take for example "The Dark Rises" in which Cat woman disappears and Christian Bale blunts out "so dats what dat feels likes" it's suppose to be a funny moment but it's just shit compared to the gold Snipes belts out.

#8 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

1st one was great.

2nd one was meh.

3rd one was crap.

#9 Edited by Jankarcop (9539 posts) -

Blade 1 was great

#10 Edited by KHAndAnime (13778 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

@KHAndAnime said:

Maybe it being a brainless action movie is why it's considered bad. It's certainly a bad movie. It has pretty bad acting, awful plot, and it's incredibly cheesy. But that's what makes it fun to watch.


Wesley Snipes as a dark brooding character as well, great. Compare that to Christian Bales cookie monster.

We just have different tastes. Wesley Snipes is difficult to take seriously. Christian Bale is actually quite an actor and does a lot with the Batman role. All Wesley Snipes is good for is spouting one-liners.

#11 Edited by Korvus (3860 posts) -

First one was great and quite enjoyed the other 2 (although I felt the 3rd was trying too hard). Rewatched them last year and still enjoyed them as much as the first time. No, it's not a complex, food-for-thought movie but a lot of media today pretends to be so in order to let some pseudo-intellectuals watch a very basic plot and congratulate themselves on being able to follow its intricacies (Like half of the Game of Thrones crowd)

#12 Edited by GazaAli (22858 posts) -

Its been ages since I watched the Blade trilogy but I remember the fact that they were enjoyable vampire movies quite well. Snipes plays his role quite well and his aide was good too. The plot was decent enough not to make your mind feel numbed and the action was excellent. The third movie was a bit cheesy though and it was mainly intended to milk the franchise a little further.

However, Interview with a Vampire blows the Blade trilogy out of the water. Its what all vampire movies need to aspire for.

#13 Edited by johnd13 (8151 posts) -

I didn't watch it when it first came out but only a year ago so maybe that's why I found it meh.

#14 Edited by megagene (23010 posts) -

Nah, man. The whole Blade trilogy is lots of fun.

#15 Edited by Korvus (3860 posts) -

@GazaAli: That reminds me; never watched Interview With The Vampire from start to finish; caught it on tv several times but only halfway through. Should really watch the whole thing.

#16 Edited by GazaAli (22858 posts) -

@korvus said:

@GazaAli: That reminds me; never watched Interview With The Vampire from start to finish; caught it on tv several times but only halfway through. Should really watch the whole thing.

I highly recommend it, its an excellent vampire movie. The atmosphere is really dark and authentically grim throughout the movie. It has this feeling of despair about it. Also the plot is solid with no cheesy vampire tropes and whatnot.

#17 Edited by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

I liked it, Wesley Snipes is underrated.

#18 Edited by Korvus (3860 posts) -

@GazaAli: It's one of my wife's favourite books and she says the movie was really well done as well =)

@LittleMac19: I agree =)

#19 Edited by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

The 1st one is not bad. Just the 1st one though

#20 Edited by EatShanna (875 posts) -

Blade is fun, Blade 2 is fun, Blade: Trinity can suck a fat one.

Their take on Dracula was neat, making him an ancient Sumerian warlord, problem is, he looks like a backup dancer for J-Lo or some other shitty pop singer.

#21 Posted by lostrib (37045 posts) -

Well it stared Wesley Snipes so it definitely wasn't good

#22 Edited by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

It was pretty good. Frost was the man!

#23 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

#24 Posted by bowchicka07 (1075 posts) -

I like 1 and 2 but 3 was god awful. Ryan Reynolds and Jessica Biel were the worst casting decisions they could have made.

#25 Edited by KHAndAnime (13778 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Assuming you aren't just trying to create a pun-fest, what's so sharp about the story? What makes the story deep compared to something like... A Tale of Two Cities?

And do special effects make a movie good? Last time I checked, they were rather irrelevant to the quality of a movie.

#26 Posted by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Assuming you aren't just trying to create a pun-fest, what's so sharp about the story? What makes the story deep compared to something like... A Tale of Two Cities?

And do special effects make a movie good? Last time I checked, they were rather irrelevant to the quality of a movie.

Depends on the movie. If we are talking about something like Jane Austen's sense and sensibility, then yea, irrelevant.

Something like Lord Of The Rings or Jurassic Park, very very important. The most important aspect? No. But still, super important.

I'd say not so much for blade though. It's mostly choreographed hand to hand combat with a few effect here and there but nothing anywhere near as heavy as the two movies mentioned above.

Blade 2 is far more effect heavy but we aren't talking about that. So, eh.

#27 Edited by KHAndAnime (13778 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Assuming you aren't just trying to create a pun-fest, what's so sharp about the story? What makes the story deep compared to something like... A Tale of Two Cities?

And do special effects make a movie good? Last time I checked, they were rather irrelevant to the quality of a movie.

Depends on the movie. If we are talking about something like Jane Austen's sense and sensibility, then yea, irrelevant.

Something like Lord Of The Rings or Jurassic Park, very very important. The most important aspect? No. But still, super important.

I'd say not so much for blade though. It's mostly choreographed hand to hand combat with a few effect here and there but nothing anywhere near as heavy as the two movies mentioned above.

Blade 2 is far more effect heavy but we aren't talking about that. So, eh.

They're certainly more relevant for some movies than others. Poor special effects can bring a movie down, but having good special effects doesn't purely make a movie good (IMO). Either way, they aren't hugely relevant - some of the best regarded movies have poor special effects compared to movies being released today. Even Evil Dead had relatively poor special effects for when the movie came out, despite the practical effects taking a ton of effort on their behalves.

#28 Edited by jasean79 (2374 posts) -

@korvus said:

@GazaAli: That reminds me; never watched Interview With The Vampire from start to finish; caught it on tv several times but only halfway through. Should really watch the whole thing.

Interview with the Vampire was an okay movie, but holy crap is it looooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

#29 Posted by GazaAli (22858 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Is it because Snipes is black?

#30 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@KHAndnime said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Assuming you aren't just trying to create a pun-fest, what's so sharp about the story? What makes the story deep compared to something like... A Tale of Two Cities?

And do special effects make a movie good? Last time I checked, they were rather irrelevant to the quality of a movie.

I was trying to create a pun-fest. :P

However, Blade was revolutionary. It was the first comic-book based film of the modern era and it was the first film to use bullet-time (which is falsely attributed to The Matrix). As for its story, the idea of a Human-Vampire Hybrid who chooses to fight against the vicious aspect of his nature as well as combat the villainous members of his "half-species" is pretty profound; Blade isn't just a mindless action flick.

#31 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Blade's story was sharp and its special effects were cutting edge for their time. So, anyone trying to take a slice out of this film in order to bolster some argument that it's bad needs to cut it out!

Is it because Snipes is black?

Honestly, no.

#32 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

Actually that's something I like about the movie as well. Race (other than fictional vampire breeds) is never brought up.

#33 Edited by Korvus (3860 posts) -

@jasean79: I felt that way too when I first watched it but it's only 2 hours. Last month I watched the extended version of the LOTR trilogy in one day...now that was long....

#34 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

Blade was bad, as in badass! Watching the half-breed Bulletproofed Black brute brandishing a blade and beating down blood-drinking blokes was the best thing since Burton's Batman!

#35 Posted by lamprey263 (23975 posts) -

Not sure how it holds up but I remember it being pretty cool in its time. Didn't much care for the sequels myself either.

#36 Posted by SapSacPrime (8773 posts) -

Yes it was a bad film, it's predictible and cheesy from start to finish the same as -- as far as I can recall -- every other comic book to movie adaption.

#37 Posted by Detroit222 (5302 posts) -

I liked one and two. Snipes was good but the villains of one and two were both "worthy" - evil, bad-ass, nasty and deserving of killing. That's sort of what you expect from this type of movie - that the hero or anti-hero has a worthy foe. Without it (3) it's just a long stupid movie with a lot of action.

#38 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

It was good for what it was. Holds up better than some supernatural action flicks though.

#39 Posted by sSubZerOo (43199 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

Was great back then.

2 sucked but 3 wasn't that bad

Wait what what what? Blade Trinity was one of the worse movies I have ever seen.. How could you say the second one sucked but liked the third?

That being said, the first Blade is a comic classic and really one of the first big successes that led to comic book movie boom that is going on now.

#40 Posted by MonsieurX (30282 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@MonsieurX said:

Was great back then.

2 sucked but 3 wasn't that bad

Wait what what what? Blade Trinity was one of the worse movies I have ever seen.. How could you say the second one sucked but liked the third?

That being said, the first Blade is a comic classic and really one of the first big successes that led to comic book movie boom that is going on now.

Never said "I liked" Trinity. Just less bad than the 2nd one

#41 Posted by Cynical_Buzzard (224 posts) -

The first Blade movie is the best out of the bunch.

#42 Posted by tocool340 (20524 posts) -

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Blade movie. I hardly recall much of 2 though I did see it from start to finish. And 3 was decent...