OK, But could have been better

Rating: 5/10 (27 March 2006)

Blade is supposed to be a Dhampyr (child of a male vampire and living woman). This is a well established legend and the story of the comics. Why on earth they go about changing the 'bible on vampires' making it some fluke of a 'biting gone bad.' Whistler was well done, and Blade was done true enough to the original character. As an action film it is more than satisfactory.
I couldn't stand that they were working a 'cure.' As if anything that could make the blood suckers would or even could be based in science. Heck, the vampires weren't even half the beast they should be. I am not a purest to fantasy, Vampire can but don't have to be weak to crosses, rose wood, or garlic, but either make something new or don't; don't butcher an ancient and complex mythos like the Vampyr or Lycanthorp. In "From Dusk til Dawn" they establish that these creatures are vampire like and may have established the legend, but that they can't know. In "John Carpenter's Vampires" and it's sequel they establish they are creating a mythos, but it is still mythic. Blade makes the same same mistake we would see in Underworld, but at least they were not adapting something else and changing it to the nth degree. In fact you could almost say they did try to make a new story, but the comic book for Blade was well established before they ever tried to make a movie as a fantasy based vampire story (except for that one guy who dated black cat but that was really complicated).
The biggest disappointment was the "Blood God" who went down faster than sororal cheerleader after 5 pint in a chug-fest.