Personally, while I liked Blade 2, I thought it couldn't hold a candle to the original Blade film. And don't get me started on Trinity. Anyway, to the people that like this over the original Blade film: please explain to me why. I seriously would like to know.
---------------
People of the IMDB forums: Please learn how to type!
They are different beasts. The first one had elegance, white clinical horror and blood galore; Blade was a dead-serious lone wolf. The second one had the gory reapers, the blood gang and a more gangsta feel; Blade actually smiles several times, is much more expressive and communicative, and has one absolutely awesomely badass fight scene just before the end, set on fantastic music (the fight after he got out of the blood pool - which was badass by itself). For a more moody and chilling movie I'd prefer the first one, for badassery and slimy fun I'd take the second. For Wesley Snipes hotness I'd even take the third .
there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder
An easy answer. "Blade 2" had better, more elaborate action scenes, and more of them. I thought Nomak was a more interesting and far more formidable villain than Frost, who was basically a wimpy 90's hipster who stooped as low as just calling "stupid". The dialogue is also a bit better. I recently re-watched all 3 movies and couldn't help but feel the dialogue in the first movie was a bit clunky and generic; it was a bit in the sequel too, but less so. Yeah the CGI was atrocious, probably more so than the first movie, but that didn't ruin the overall experience for me.
Then we have the 3rd movie. Eek. FAR less action, a jumping-the-shark idea in having friggin DRACULA as the villain, lame ideas ("Nightstalkers"? Seriously?), loads of lousy side characters, an overabundance of comic relief, and a really annoying and obnoxious soundtrack. For every weak moment of the first Blade movie, the 3rd had five more that were twice as bad
If you are a 100% fan of Judas Priest, proudly copy this and make it your signature!
I found the first movie way too pretentious for a comic book adaptation, especially the bombastic, irritating and seemingly endless blood ritual at the end was way over the top with bad stop-motion/cgi and fake looking costumes on top.
Blade 2 on the other hand is a slick, fast-paced no-nonsense action flick with good effects. No more but also no less.
"Oh, what have I drunk?" - Socrates
At least we all can argue which is better between 1 and 2 while being in agreement that 3 is hot garbage.
________________
IT'S ONLY A MOVIE SHUT YOUR DAMN PLOT HOLES!!!
Blade II had better action but you can't beat the element of surprise that was the original Blade. There had never been an action or superhero movie that cool before and that opening scene. WHEWWWW! That's why Blade is considered a favorite more than Blade II by many but I can see why a lot of people like Blade II better. Del Toro did an amazing job. And the villain, Nomak was 100x better than Stephen Dorff who didn't look like he could beat my kid sister at Pong. Plus Blade II went out with a bang. I just wish they had stopped there if they weren't gonna do the trilogy right with that awful Trinity movie.
They should have stuck with the storyline that became Daybreakers. That movie was bad too but it was a lot of better than Trinity and it would have been 10 times better with Blade.
[deleted]
The final fight with Nomak is what made part two better than part one. All that hype surrounding the blood god and Blade disposed of him in less than 15 min.
A boat that floats on water can also sink in it.share
I prefer Blade over Blade II for sure, Frost alone makes Blade the superior movie. But one thing I like about Blade II are the vampires scared of the new threat and getting their a$$es handed to them.
I'm not reading your manifesto, keep your damn posts short!
Frost could've been so much better. I don't know if it was just the way he was written or if it was Stephen Dorff's acting, but he was a bit underwhelming to me. Other than the comic book, the best Deacon Frost I've seen was in the Blade animated show.
A boat that floats on water can also sink in it.share
They are both UNIQUE and great...
Blade has more of a somber moody comic book feel to it. Very stylish and "hip". The action though, never catches on. The 1st fight was one of the most memorable of all comic book movies, yet we get fewer and slower fights till the end fight with the "blood God" that really left me just waiting for a whole lot more. The movie overall was great but this makes me not have it that far ahead of II.
Blade II is an all out comic book action fest. From the 1st scene to the last one, each had their own style and feel. The arc of the story and the tragedy at the end with the son looking for revenge is totally awesome. The CGI at times is impressive (the mouth effects left me gasping when I saw it at the theater) and also "cooky" at other times (the infamous Blade Nyssa fight) yet we have to understand the movie was made in 2002 with $54 million (not bad back then but neither that good either) even though the original back in 1998 was 45 million. Now compare Blades II budget to say XXX that same year which was 78 million, so not a bad effort from Del Toro on a restricted budget and yet get all that in on that great movie.
Nomak was a way bigger threat than Frost.He was also screwed by his father and you kinda understood him a bit better,but he was a killing machine.
shareNorman Reedus. That is all.
Team Daryl
The only reason why anyone would put Blade II above the original is if they were Del Toro fanboys. This was a pale imitation to the original Blade.
shareCause this one is actually fun.
The original BLADE shoots it's entire fun load in the first 15 minutes then continues as a dull bore for the remaining 90 minutes or so.
There. It's on the Internet. Thus it's official