Blade has been 'Marixed'.

Rating: Null/10 (23 April 2002)

Blade 2  The original movie, Blade, wasn't anything to write home about unless all you require is 'cool'; 'cool' protagonist in a long black leather coat; lots of 'cool', shiny silver weapons that go well with the black leather... Lots of 'cool' action sequences, i.e. martial art fights, hero doing feats only a half human/half vampire hero could possibly do. Oh yeah, and lots of *really* 'cool' gore. Heavy metal music, blood, blood and, yes you've guessed it, more blood. This was Blade. Blade 2 is, as one might expect, more of the same. Unfortunately, the film is worse than the original in several ways, albeit slightly. In Blade, when a vampire was destroyed, there was a subtle difference in the way the creatures disappeared; some of them burst into flames, some of them splattered, some of them turned to dust, etc. In Blade 2, the creatures disintegrate in exactly the same way each time; a way which stank very much of an over-reliance on computer generated imagery. This made the deaths look cheaper, more fluid and slick perhaps, but less visceral and impactive, like a 'made for television' version of Blade. The resurrection of the character Whistler is an awful contrivance. By bringing Whistler back to life, the filmmakers have undercut the drama of the having him die in the original; not to mention the fact that Whistler had both *wanted* to die and done the job himself! Why would the vampires keep him alive? This makes no sense. Not to use as bait to get to Blade, since they kept moving him around, all over Europe, making it (as Blade himself said) very hard for him to track him down. Whistler was a key adversary, and he was wanted dead. The vampires had good reason to kill him and kill him they did. To have them then decide, in Blade 2, to keep him alive at great expense, and transport him around the world from location to location, is nonsensical! So all one can make of this is that it was deemed (by studio executives) a safer bet for the financial success of the film, to have Chris Kristofferson back  forget about art, Hollywood is about making money! What they don't realise is that better movies make *more* money still! It has been said that Blade 2 has been 'Matrixed', which is a very apt observation. There is even a team, similar to the one in The Matrix, of anti-heroes - the vampire squad that was being trained to take out Blade, each with their own 'cool' name! I mean, 'The Priest'! *Please*! Loads of extra martial arts, al la The Matrix, loads more black costumes, al la The Matrix, more fast music and destructive mayhem, al la The Matrix. This is all about 'fashion filmmaking'  merely looking at what is going down well at the moment and copying the style. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is big, Angel is big, the Matrix is big (and a sequel is due out soon)... so lets just jump on the bandwagon. The director could have stuck with the unique look of the original and remained a trend *setter*, instead he has sunk to becoming a mere trend follower. One interesting aspect of the movie is the *computer generated* Blade and enemies; these shots, although they were noticeable as CG images, mark a significant leap forward in what can be achieved in superhero films. With the forthcoming Spider-man, I am intrigued by these developments. Maybe the techniques aren't refined enough yet for the sophisticated viewers of special effects that we have become, but they soon will be. Then directors of escapist films in the superhero genre will really be able to translate the action that was previously only possible in comic books/graphic novels, onto the screen. Overall, Blade 2 is fine for the average, undemanding fan of blood splattered action films. For the more discerning cineaste, it is a straightforward exploitation of the fans of the original, with no originality, no standout performances, and a hackneyed plot. Look closely, and you'll even notice that Wesley Snipes looks bored by the proceedings.