Originally posted by Naisy
Blade II was a pathetic sad excuse for a sequal of a originally fantastic movie. The special effects had been copied straight from other smash hit movies like the Matrix, the storyline was almost non-exsistant.
Blade II is indeed superior to the original.
The original was a fine film, but the sequel increased the action, atmosphere, violence, and gadgetry like a good sequel is intended to do.
Plus, the sequel had amusing, interesting characters. The original had but one interesting character-- the lead bad guy-- and he got pretty tedious after a while. Also, being cast by Brad Dorff seemed like a pretty lame MTV stunt to me. Like this trendy, LA teenager-lookin, wannabe bad guy is supposed to be convincing as an all-powerful supernatural force. I don't think so.
Besides, the sequel had
more of a story-line than the original. The whole philosophical quandary of hiring and alligning yourself with your classical enemy in order to fight a greater, more serious threat-- purely for temporary gain-- has been an ongoing military dilemma for mankind for thousands of years. And such a strategy's risks are clearly demonstrated ficticiously in the film's ending. The film did a great job of developing this co-plot into the action of the vampire-killing plot. Don't tell me Blade II doesn't have a story-line.
It is a superior film to the original in
every sense.
Reply to Topic
