Blade (1998)
Grade: C+
Cast: Wesley Snipes, Kris Kristofferson, Stephen Dorff, Awful CGI
Director: Stephen Norrington
Rated R for strong vampire violence and gore and language

Blade II (2002)
Grade: B
Cast: Wesley Snipes, Kris Kristofferson
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Rated R for even stronger vampire violence and gore, language, drug use, and brief sexual content


If you think you’re watching an average vampire movie as “Blade”’s opening moments unfold, just wait until you see the blood sprinklers in the nightclub. Wait…that’s the first scene.

I’m not lying about how “Blade” isn’t your average vampire movie (your average vampire movie would be considered “Wes Craven’s Dracula 2000”, probably, and that’s one of 2000’s five worst), but it is put to shame by its own sequel. “Blade” (1998) offers decent action, some nice small attributes, and a strange but satisfying almost Gothic look to it, but “Blade II” (2002) is much better in its ability to entertain the audience. Its creation of the vampire world is endless and kind of brilliant, and it keeps on redefining, almost scene after scene, what I consider the quintessence of cool. If Wesley Snipes gives up on acting (and that may not be a bad idea if they never decide to make another Blade movie), he could certainly make some sort of revolutionary self-help video—“Different Ways To Put Your Sunglasses On—And Look Damn Cool Doing It!”

The original “Blade” is entertaining for a long time, but just when it ought to be over, it adds another half hour to its running time. The first scene is very good, as “Blade” goes to a vampire nightclub and kicks some ass. But most of “Blade” is hampered by a feeling of been there, done that. If there’s anything great about “Blade”, it’s that it has a knack for throwing in nice small details, which may originate from the comic it’s adapting.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Why is Blade so special? Blade is so special, my friends, because he is half vampire, half human, possessing all of the vampires’ benefits but none of their weaknesses. In theory, this may not sound like a very good idea, because any time a main character (whether it be protagonist or antagonist) is invincible you are heading down the unpleasant road of boredom. “Blade”, though, comes up with some ways to bring out Blade’s weaknesses, and that’s where some of the cleverness lies.

Part of the problem with “Blade” has to do with the direction. He doesn’t really bring a whole lot of excitement to the affair, and it’s a little bit uneven. Kris Kristofferson (playing Whistler, Blade’s mentor), and Snipes are very subdued, while the villain (Stephen Dorff) is played extremely over-the-top, as if we’re watching camp. That would work if he weren’t the only one bouncing off the walls, but everyone else seems bored, making an awkward contrast.

There is some cool action in “Blade”, and that’s what saves it from being a failure, but what almost brings it back down is the most noticeable mistake: the special effects. They are not 100% bad (we get proof that “The Matrix” was not the first bullet-dodging movie, and it’s done well here)…but they’re probably 98% bad. I can’t think of specific examples, but the film even relies on a small character or two to be made up entirely of CGI, and they look awful. The big fat guy (or girl or something) Blade goes to for help and then almost kills (or maybe he does…the film is to forgettable to be sure) is a visual atrocity. Its sequel has great special effects, making comparisons to emphasize the badness inevitable, but even as a stand alone film “Blade” looks terrible in that aspect.

“Blade II” encompasses about as many ideas as have ever been thought up about the anatomy of a vampire. There is scene of such staggering detail that that scene alone has more creativity than the entirety of its predecessor, and the scene involves the examination of a dead body.

The dead body, though, is not exactly a vampire. It’s a Reaper. A Reaper, we are told, is a new kind of vampire, and they dine on not only humans but also vampires. The humans and vampires, pretty much sworn enemies, have to come together to fight against them and save man(slash vampire)kind. For the rest of the film, we are usually being introduced to new Reaper-killing gadgets, or new revelations about what a Reaper really is, or even betraying plot twists. When that stuff isn’t happening, “Blade II” is just plain cool. There’s no other word for it. The way the director, del Toro, angles the camera and manages the lighting so that the overall effect brings out all the coolness possibly residing in Wesley Snipes is really pretty great. Sure, he doesn’t have a real reason behind his movie, but it’s…aww man, it’s cool. Even the last scene illuminates with coolness (and humor).

“Blade II” is the “Godfather Part II” of ultra-gory vampire freak show sequels, only better. No, not better than “The Godfather, Part II”; just more of an improvement upon its predecessor than that film. “Blade II” features a more significant portion of action, a better story, a more creative attention to detail, better script, acting, and direction, and a whole hell of a lot better-looking special effects. See them both, but I can predict which one you’ll like better.


-Alex, October 2002