Like I said, Blade: Trinity is entertaining; but the worst of the franchise. And there are many reasons for this (possible spoilers)...
Firstly, I didn't enjoy the fact that it didn't have that "Blade feeling" to it. I was thinking through the whole thing, "Okay, how is this different from Buffy?...What makes this unique to Blade?". And by the end I didn't find the answers.
I don't know about other people, but it really moved away from what I saw and felt with the first two.
One of the things I noticed was that there wasn't NEARLY as much action as the first two, and therefore not nearly as much blood and gore. We were simply left with ash. I mean, does anyone remember the first Blade when blood flowed from the sprinklers in the ceiling? What happened to that type of Blade?
Also, when there was a fight, there were barely any vampires involved other than the main villains, and that scene with the unrelated vampires at the bus station. That's one of the things I enjoyed about Blade II. The fact that the new race of vampires were literally wall-to-wall really intensified the film. For most of the scenes, we saw henchmen (which I question the logic: If they are human, how come the vampires don't eat them? And if they are vampire, how come Blade simply knocks them out with one hit?). So ask yourself, if there are only a few vampires that they actually DO fight, how desperate is the vampire situation?
And that's another thing....Something that irritated me a hell of a lot, was that I didn't get the sense that there was a real threat against the good guys. Sure, Drake is a powerful vampire (who I might add can dodge bullets, yet uses that hi-speed ability only when shot at, and not in the final battle), but do you seriously believe that he's a match for Blade when he runs from him? Or perhaps by the fact that you really don't get a sense whether Drake worked with, for, or above the other vampires.
Goyer also introduces this fascinating idea of the FBI on Blade's trail; but abandons that concept up until the last five minutes where he reminds us that they're a threat. By this time, I think everyone had forgotten about them, and if they hadn't, they didn't consider them a threat because Goyer hadn't shown or proved to us that they were.
Anyways, I could go on about bad qualities of this film (Snipes coming out of character, tools used, the overall reaction to Whistler's death, and how long they recover from it, etc.), but the idea behind this is a review (and I think you know where that will be going). I entered the theatre thinking that it would be fun flick, but not a Oscar winner by any means. And in fact it wasn't even fun. However, on some level it was at times, entertaining. Overall, 4/10.
Firstly, I didn't enjoy the fact that it didn't have that "Blade feeling" to it. I was thinking through the whole thing, "Okay, how is this different from Buffy?...What makes this unique to Blade?". And by the end I didn't find the answers.
I don't know about other people, but it really moved away from what I saw and felt with the first two.
One of the things I noticed was that there wasn't NEARLY as much action as the first two, and therefore not nearly as much blood and gore. We were simply left with ash. I mean, does anyone remember the first Blade when blood flowed from the sprinklers in the ceiling? What happened to that type of Blade?
Also, when there was a fight, there were barely any vampires involved other than the main villains, and that scene with the unrelated vampires at the bus station. That's one of the things I enjoyed about Blade II. The fact that the new race of vampires were literally wall-to-wall really intensified the film. For most of the scenes, we saw henchmen (which I question the logic: If they are human, how come the vampires don't eat them? And if they are vampire, how come Blade simply knocks them out with one hit?). So ask yourself, if there are only a few vampires that they actually DO fight, how desperate is the vampire situation?
And that's another thing....Something that irritated me a hell of a lot, was that I didn't get the sense that there was a real threat against the good guys. Sure, Drake is a powerful vampire (who I might add can dodge bullets, yet uses that hi-speed ability only when shot at, and not in the final battle), but do you seriously believe that he's a match for Blade when he runs from him? Or perhaps by the fact that you really don't get a sense whether Drake worked with, for, or above the other vampires.
Goyer also introduces this fascinating idea of the FBI on Blade's trail; but abandons that concept up until the last five minutes where he reminds us that they're a threat. By this time, I think everyone had forgotten about them, and if they hadn't, they didn't consider them a threat because Goyer hadn't shown or proved to us that they were.
Anyways, I could go on about bad qualities of this film (Snipes coming out of character, tools used, the overall reaction to Whistler's death, and how long they recover from it, etc.), but the idea behind this is a review (and I think you know where that will be going). I entered the theatre thinking that it would be fun flick, but not a Oscar winner by any means. And in fact it wasn't even fun. However, on some level it was at times, entertaining. Overall, 4/10.
Tell Your Friends