Thursday, 22 April 2010
Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“The new comedy, Funny People raises the bar on both Apatow and Sandler movie. Both of them nicely switch their roles around. While Apatow has been making mature movies with Knocked Up, The 40-Year Old Virgin, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, this is way mature than any of those. Sandler, on the other hand has been making a lot of immature movies (no offense, Adam, I love your movies). He now takes on a more dramatic role. Sandler plays George Simmons, a comedian who figures out he has ALM, a rare type of cancer. He hires a less famous comedian named Ira (Seth Rogen) to be his personal assistant. Ira feels bad when George only tells him about his disease. But George soon tells all his comedian friends to unexpectedly discover his medicine actually fought the disease off for the moment. He sucks in his ex-girlfriend, Laura (the fantastic Leslie Mann) with his disease. They soon fall in love even when he's not sick anymore. Laura's husband, Clark (Eric Bana) figures out. The movie is both sweet and funny, and such cameos as Eminem, Ray Romano, Andy Dick, Sarah Silverman, Aziz Ansari, and many more keep the laughs coming. This is definitely a movie worth checking out.”
I agree with this guy on the Adam Sandler fron but not so much to Apatow one…
Haters: again taken from IMDB
“When I went to see this movie, I was expecting a comedy. With the impressive line up of comedians in this film I thought there would be a lot of humor. However, this film left me wanting to run for the nearest exit. The trailers lead you to believe this film would have you rolling on the floor with laughter. I found myself utterly bored. And it was difficult to find ways to keep myself awake during the film.
I do enjoy a lot of Adam Sandler's works. I am not that fond of this film. This film has too much drama that drags on and on. The only funny lines seem to be used as fillers to wake you up when the film starts to lag. I do not understand why they would have such an all-star cast of amazing comedians with a story line that is so lack-luster Where is the comedy? Well at least it wasn't a total loss...the popcorn was good.”
This review is titled “too much drama, not enough comedy” I couldn’t have put it better myself but I think this review is overly harsh.
What I thought:
Funny people is a very strange Judd Apatow film, its not really feel good at all. That has to be down to the subject matter, I mean how many laughs can you get out of death? It’s not that there’s no laughs to be had its just not very feel good comedy. You join George Simmons a successful comedian in a bit of a transitional stage in his career and he has just found out he is dying from cancer.
On one point the lover’s review is so right; the best thing about Funny People is a career best performance from Adam Sandler. It’s astounding that an actor who makes a career out of playing idiots can pull a performance like this out of his hat. It has its moments its just not as laugh out loud as other Apatow films. Makes you wonder what he will tackle next? 40 year old virgin was sex, Knocked Up was pregnancy and Funny People was Death.
Watch this knowing that it is Judd Apatows and Adam Sandlers most dramatic turn yet and you’ll enjoy what is actually a very poignant movie.
Lovers: Taken from a customer on Tesco DVD rental
“This is a good Bond film, better than all Brosnan's film hands down, although Quantum of Solace isn't as polished as Casino Royale. The villians and the bond girls aren't as memorable as in Royale, but Craig and Dench are on top form, with Dench being given a welcome extented role. The action scenes although good, are just a carbon copy of the latest Bourne film, which is a shame as Bond doesn't need to copy the Bourne films, as he has his legacy to look up to. Don't expect any invisable cars, cheesy one-liners or any raised eye brows, as this Bond is more like the Terminator rather than a posh, martini drinking spy. That said, the story is really good and continues Bonds investigation of the dark organisation that killed Vesper. And know doubt, Bonds investigation into this organisation will play an important role in the next film which I look forward in seeing. I hope they get a Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight) to direct the next one, as I think he'll introduce some new intersting concepts to the Bond franchise. Overall solid entertainment.”
Well I say lover but even this person recognises the faults in this film which I will explain lower down.
Haters: Again taken from Tesco DVD rental
“First off don't believe the hype! Although this film does follow on from Casino Royal it just isn't in the same class. I say this with a deep sigh as I wanted this to be another great outing for Bond. In the press releases we are told Daniel Craig did most of his stunts but, you can't tell as the film makers have taken the Borne Identity school of action filming and plonked it in the middle of a Bond film. The cutting is so fast you can't tell what the action is let alone who is fighting, not what I expect of Bond. The other let down is the plot or rather lack of one. Dame Judi & Daniel were good with what they were given to work with, which wasn't much. All in all I was very disappointed and I can only hope Mr Bond's next outing isn't during a writers strike...”
I agree with this one but not on the same points…
What I thought:
First things first, it’s not as good as Casino Royale, its clearly influenced by another certain amnesia suffering spy and finally this is a bond like no other. This is a bond where you feel every punch, where every explosion thunders down the speakers but that pretty much it! Quantum took what was effectively a rebirth of James Bond and made it into a script that is effectively an excuse for a fight or explosion every 5 minutes!
It is a real shame and a real waste of all the talent involved, it was time for bond to grow up but is that really what everyone wanted to see? If I want kinetic camera work and fighting that looks like it really hurts I’ll watch Bourne. I want a bond that us charming and suave not brooding a gloomy! I want gadgets that are impossible not a free running bond leaping across balconies. Like Casino Royale before it its just not bond, but unlike Royale which at least was a good film this is not even that.
It’s not terrible the action is brilliant but if they are going to make it a revenge flick they needed to make more of it.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Louis Leterrier would love to do a second Hulk movie but feels a little movie called The Avengers might get in the way (more about that further down!)
Russell Brand talks about the Drop Dead Fred remake, I really like Russell Brand but I don’t think he will do this justice but that’s because I love the original so much.
Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy (ahem) Firefly (underrated) Dollhouse (Don’t go there) is set to Direct the Avengers!
A little rumour about an added scene to Iron Man 2…
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
A script review for a third Riddick film, Sounds promising if they can bring back the feel of the first one?
Joe Johnston talks about the casting of Chris Evans as Captain America. Hopefully he’ll do the character justice though his performance is one of the redeeming factors of the otherwise dire fantastic four movies.
A second chance of meatballs? My sons certainly hope so as they loved the first one, to be fair so did I
Matthew Vaughn (The Director of the brilliant Kick-Ass) may take on another comic book, penned by Jonathan Woss!!
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“Night of the Living Dead is a true classic and without a doubt Romero's best and most influential film.
Of course, being simply influential alone would not simply allow this movie to get a full-fledged star rating if it didn't pull through with it some quality at all, which it does in spades. In Night of the Living Dead, there is good pacing, surprisingly good acting from a list of no-name actors, and the most important part that sticks with the film to this day, the sense of dread in the film. In this movie to this day you get that feeling of hopelessness, people get attacked for no reason and nothing can save them. Whether it's family-togetherness, love between a couple, or even the law-enforcers at the end, this was all tapping into the uncertainty level people were having at the time and still today it has meaning. Topping this off with Romero's (at the time) large use of gore adds to the overall uneasiness of the film. Finally at the film's current times, there is a great subtle final nail in the coffin attack with the sad fate of the character Ben. Being the only sole voice of reason is shot, which, at the time of filming brought harsh realities of such other African-American leaders who were brought down unfairly such as Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, even if this wasn't the original idea Romero had.
Overall, no matter how cheesy some of this movie make look to modern eyes, Night of the Living Dead is a classic for offering horror without a shred of hope, forever influencing every horror movie in it's wake.”
There is no arguing how influential Romero’s movies are but this is probably my least favourite one. I’ll explain a little further down.
Hater: Taken from IMD
“I have no idea how this film is so highly rated. My only guess is that at the time it was released some 40 years ago it must have made such an impact. Young people then (now old people) must relate to it in such a way that reminds them of their youth and thus they give the movie such a great review. The truth however is this movie is absolutely HORRIBLE and further proof that you can't trust the ratings. Total waste of time. Not scary. Bad acting. Just ridiculous. If you are under the age of 40, skip this piece of garbage. Bad. Bad. Bad. Very bad.”
Now this guy is being a bit harsh though I do see where he is coming form.
What I thought:
Now the difference in age of an average film viewer can be very drastic and now zombie movies keep coming out and keep getting bums on seats you are bound to get a younger audience re visiting the old ones. Most pivotally Night of the Living Dead, now most people know why it was important so I’ll skip the details but to these younger eyes Night of the Living Dead does look horribly dated, not to mention de-sensitized youths high on the likes of saw and hostel not having their blood lust fulfilled.
You should never judge an old film from a modern perspective you have to take it for what it was at the time. Night is an effective psychological thriller not really a horror. What can you do against such never ending relentless flesh eating killers? Romero’s films have always been about the fight for survival in what is ultimately a hopeless situation and this one laid the format. If you do love modern horror this is not for you, if your a zombie movie fan it’s an absolute essential and finally if you’re an appreciator of film its worth a re visit everyone once in a while.
For me the age barrier comes in, now I hate 99% of modern horror it’s just not scary and is that not the point? That said there are a few old classic horror movies that despite being influential also are not scary in the slightest. Dawn of the Dead is thoroughly effective but night is a little bit too low in production value for me to take seriously, that’s why its my least favourite possibly, I say that as I have yet to see diary and survival…
Monday, 12 April 2010
Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).
I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.
Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!”
I love the movie, almost as mush as this guy, I’m happy he likes the shaky cam and for pretty much the same reason as me.
Haters: Taken from IMDB
“The Bourne Ultimatum is the worse of the franchise. It is a shame that Ludlum's last Bourne novel has been transformed to a motion picture that has as much clarity as a bug being squished on a cars windshield. The plot is perhaps the thinnest of any of the Bourne movies, and the audience is at best bored with the whole experience. But the most annoying, madding, is the cinematography by Wood, is like a film being filmed by the Road Runner on Crack, jumpy, blurry, and headache inducing. The film may have been worth viewing, if the audience could see what was going on. But with the shaky cam of this debacle being bad enough, but even the action scenes were filmed way to close in for anyone to follow what was going on in this picture. See this if you must, but bring your aspirin.”
To be fair to this guy there is a much worse review on their and it is very scathing but I don’t want to go there with people so opinionated they cant see past their own nose! Once again it’s the same old complaint about the camera work, which is all very well but only a problem if its your problem.
What I thought:
The Bourne Ultimatum for me is about two scenes, each scene is so tense I was biting my tongue and proves what a craftsmen Paul Greengrass is with action. The first Waterloo station, bustling in all its glory and utterly convincing in the way it is shown. It’s just a shame the brilliant Paddy Considine couldn’t be in it longer. The other scene is the fight in flat then in a small shower / bathroom thing; its nail biting and you really feel the pain. Gritty and real once again showing bond a thing or two.
I’ll add a link to the really bad review and let you make up your minds for yourself; personally I think it’s a load of old crap! I’m sure the usual cinema public don’t like be perceived as sheep but there you go.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“The Bourne Supremacy is the sequel to the successful Bourne Identity spy thriller. This movie, directed by a new director, is given a different yet extremely exciting feel to it. The casting is still great, with Matt Damon bringing a deadpan portrayal to the Bourne character. Hes very good in this role, which commits a great success to the whole of the movie. Supporting players Brian Cox and Julia Styles, along with newcomer Joan Allen, all provide stellar support for Bourne. The action is intense and really well done, and the plot is thrilling and will surprise you quite a bit. The camera-work is extremely fast paced, and overall it has a gritty, captivating style. With all of these elements together, you got one great action thriller that in many cases even surpasses Identity! Movies like this are hard to come by, in todays times with many action pictures that just don't work and become tedious. Ill give this near perfect- *** and 1/2 outs 4 Star's- definitely see The Bourne Identity before this- don't fret: you will be very entertained. “
I agree with this review on several counts, Paul Greengrass brings his kinetic camera work to the Bourne trilogy and it is utterly brilliant! The supporting cast get stronger roles than they had before and makes for a more intriguing story. The action is intense and nail biting and it does surpass identity!
Haters: Taken from IMDB
“I watched the Bourne Identity on DVD the night before going to the cinema to see this. I looked forward to it but...
Twenty minutes after the start I had to leave the cinema. I felt very ill and it wasn't the curry we ate earlier. I am sometimes a bit sensitive to hand-held camera shots but this was aweful. EVERY frame was jumpy - and it wasn't the guy in the projection room dancing.
My teenage son went with his mates to another cinema the same evening and had similar problems - though he stuck it out to the end with his eyes closed several times.
By the way: my son and I watched Matrix Revolutions from the fourth row ona big screen. We had no probs with that.
Producers please don't do this again.”
Well now, almost every bad review about this Bourne entry is about the camera work. I think it’s fair enough maybe that kind of movement isn’t for everyone but I don’t think its right to damn a film to the point of telling people not to see it. Like I said its not for everyone, that means that some people will not only be more than happy to watch it but enjoy it more. I personally feel it captures the fighting and the action brilliantly. This is a review for someone who went to see Matrix Revolutions four times!! What does that tell you?
What I thought:
I loved this Bourne film, I thought that the new direction it had been taken was perfect and only built upon what had been established in the first film. It’s a nail biting thriller that does keep you on the edge of your seat and a great film to revisit.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Lovers: taken from IMDB
“Always seen the books but never read them - now I will. This is a great cloak and dagger spy story that really works in this format. Matt Damon is not the perfect Jason Bourne, as he just seems a bit 'young' to forfill the role of bond like super-spy. However is acting skills are classy enough that he carries it off well. The story is very fluid and the action is well-paced. Easy to follow and yet never boring, it really shows how a great story is the best place to start with a movie. Done in a very tasteful manner that makes it believable and engaging. I consider myself a 'fussy' movie viewer, but this really was entertaining, even the second and third times!”
I agree I like the bourne movies overall, though I do have a problem with this review. He mentions that he has never read the books then goes on to say how Matt Damon is not the perfect Jason Bourne?
Haters: again taken from IMDB
“I figured this was a can't miss movie. Doug Liman is a great director and it seemed like the cast was pretty strong. However, what a standard, paint by the numbers, average at best, spy thriller. Do we really have to wait two hours for the happy ending that we all know is coming in the end? The scenes of Europe were nice, but hardly enough. Added to the problems of this movie is the fact that Matt Damon is just not that strong of actor, he seems to be void of any real charisma. The guy is plastic and unless you are a 14 year old girl, not worthy of your time. In this movie we get to see him kind of interact with a romantic interest, however it is tacked on and less than steamy. Talk about going through the motions. The bad guys have no redeeming qualities, the good guy is a saint, yata yata. What shocked me was why this movie was getting such high marks, it was "Ronin" without the action. Once again, mediocrity is praised as good and good is praised as great. Well, this movie was not great or even that good. Sadly lacking”
Well now a rather harsh review here I think, what’s so wrong with a happy ending? Despite being predictable I felt like our hero deserved some emotional payback. The scenes of Europe; the whole film was in Europe!? Now we come to the problem of acting, Matt Damon I think does really well in this film; he is not playing Bond and does not need charisma. He showed confusion, guilt and vulnerability; a bond with a conscious if you will. I wouldn’t really say there were any romance in it, just one love scene if you can call it that and a rather sickly sweet ending.
What I thought:
The Bourne Identity is like an origin movie in reverse and like any origin story it suffers from having to set up our characters motives. Most of the time you just want to see your main character hit the ground running, saying that Identity is a great film just not as good as what Paul Greengrass does with the trilogy. Identity is a great action movie with hold your breath moments and cool characters and it single handily dragged Bond into the 21st Century!
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Lovers: taken from IMDB
“OK i gotta say this film totally kicks a*s!! i mean i love ALL the blade films,and its not often a sequel is good but blade 2 was excellent and a third to be successful...amazing!!this film was different to the other 2 yeah,but it had to be!it seemed to me that it had to do something different to the other 2, so it was more real world,real life and it definitely got away with it. Wesley snipes played blade just as good as ever,with an extra bit of humour to gave it that bit more. ryan reynolds,an assett to the film,not the typical "super-hero" guy,more down to earth yet kicked butt in his fights,jessica biel,fantastic as there was a woman who was equal to the men and just owned the part! an awesome film,could watch it time and time again. very impressed for a third film! the writer did a great job in creating a new blade film with different,more realistic scenes and storyline. BRILLIANT!”
From even someone who loved blade this is a bit too much praise for what is a mediocre film.
Haters: again taken from IMDB
“But trinity...wow. I'm surprised that Blade didn't have nipples on his costume with the immediate decay of the quality of the franchise. The responsibility lies completely on David Goyer as he finally was given the chance to direct he series he has written since it's inception. This film felt like it should have been on Sci-Fi channel or FX. Those good old days of Blade kicking ass are gone, replaced by Jessica Biel and Ryan Reynolds beating down brittle MTV vampires that couldn't hold a candle to Stephen Dorff's Deacon Frost. I don't even remember seeing Blade fight Dracula, with all the action geared towards his new sidekicks. That's like a Batman movie with Robin as the star. David Goyer now says he'd like to direct Thor......comic fans around the world should now panic as to what he sets his sights on next.”
I have to agree with this one, it’s a Blade film so why did we not see more of Blade?
What I think:
I have to say all things considered I don’t think it was a terrible movie, it would have been nice to see more of blade and it doesn’t really make sense that the human characters are all of a sudden kicking vampire butt. Though Ryan Reynolds is brilliant at these kinds of wise cracking roles and does throw an element previously ruined in its predecessors into the mix; humour. Though this one does seem like the MTV version of Blade, with new weapons that don’t really make any sense at all to ipods shamefully being plugged! The most annoying thing for me is the hyper reality I have spoken about before, in this film when Drake (Dracula) goes for a stroll amongst us lower mortals there is an element of this. It is done so badly it’s almost painful to watch and looks more like a really poor pop video.
There are redeeming factors; the action is once again very entertaining. Ryan Reynolds is a very funny guy and a sequence when Dracula lays waste to the Nightstalkers and a blind mother is done quite well, not scary but looks good. All in all this franchise is a good one for no brains action as the films go on, it’s always good revisiting the first one and nice even if isn’t done as well to follow the character.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Lovers: A rather blunt opinion from a user on I MDB
“I would like to express my bewilderment towards people who do not enjoy, or even like, the action genre, yet choose to see these movies just so they can criticize them for their shallow plot lines and general brainlessness. Moreover, it greatly annoys and perplexes me that these people then use their "expertise" to rate these movies poorly, and thus enforce the impression that we are, in fact, dealing with a lousy piece of movie-making, when the actual truth is that these people prefer films of completely different genres.”
This guy is being as bad as the people he puts down here, I think he just needs to realise that movies a lot more relative than he thinks. He does have a point though; Blade 2 is very entertaining and completely dumb all at the same time!
Haters: another blunt point of view from those lovely users at IMDB
“Of course, if you enjoy big screen depictions of violence and gore, even ones that aren't that well done, you may just enjoy this. If you like some pretty nauseating, excessive images, you are as they say, quids in. But don't tell me this is a good film. It is undoubtedly an awful, decidedly ugly one, that fails on all counts.”
Again a very extreme view, impressive word use though! Nauseating, brilliant!
What I think:
I think Blade 2 first and foremost is not as good as the first film, its more about all out wall to the wall action in this one than anything else. The first blade film had a very distinct style to it, dark and foreboding look coupled with hyper reality moments whenever you entered the vampire world. This was dropped in favour of a slicker vehicle. Much like Blade himself who blows kisses to his car it’s all about style, from a long coat that now has red interior (see what they’re doing there?), to a team of vampires fitting all stereotypes! Even in the shots, mouthing “What the f*ck” or catching the shades does the style very much change.
It gives you an idea of the movie you’re watching; style over substance and if you do like you action bloody and violent then Blade 2 is up your street. Personally though I prefer the darker approach, the style adds to the kick ass action and makes the characters much more watchable. In this film you don’t really care about any of the characters. Thought credit must be given to Luke Goss who plays his character of used and rejected son very well only wish he had more screen time. For a Guillermo Del Toro film this is a big disappointment it has to be said.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Lovers: Taken from an IMDB critic hater (as all the critics hated it)
“Seriously overall if you want to go as an critic and start to play ''the big critic guy'' you won't enjoy this movie at all! Please Ignore the critics and go watch this movie YOU WILL BE BLOWN away!! Perfect Note... Loved It!! Louis Letterier did an amazing job directing this one!!”
I mean he does have a point to a certain degree but how far does that stretch! Seeing this with a friend of mine we were both surprised at the running time. I think we were right to be surprised this movie by definition should be epic that would usually include an epic running time; to be able to fit in epic battle sequences with characters you care for, special effects but above all a story that spans time and large distances. This is a badly constructed remake that only really does one of those.
Haters: Cosmo Landesman (Times Online)
“You know what they say: whom the gods wish to destroy, they have make films like this. Directed by Louis Leterrier and featuring a fine cast —including Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson — this 3D action adventure is meant to be an exciting epic set in ancient Greece, but comes across as silly cobblers. It just goes to show that not even 3D can save a bad film. Stuffed with special effects and numerous battle sequences, it’s a film that has no magic and no personality of its own. Sam Worthington is a dull Perseus, out to challenge the tyranny of the gods. Heaven help anyone who sees it.”
I have to say I’m more in this person’s side and I’ll explain in the next bit why.
What I think:
“Titans will Clash” probably the worst tagline I have ever heard, should have known then that the actual thing itself was just a load of old Titans clashing! By no means is this a terrible movie, it’s worth seeing for some pretty good action and set-pieces but don’t bother paying the extra money for 3D. Reading about this movie before it came out, it was decided to add 3D later in post production and by the god’s does it show! It just doesn’t add to the picture in any way! Avatar was filmed in 3D and looked amazing. This 3D is rather shamefully a money spinning idea!
As a remake it’s a horrible disappointment! The original was charming and exciting and despite the fact it looks dated I would have rather have been watching that one. Let’s take one scene in particular, the killing of Medusa; Louis Leterriers vision starts well and descends into the depths with Hades. A special effects extravaganza that has no time for scares and a creepy atmosphere just a lot of death and people falling about! The original was scary as hell; the shots were perfect with the sound of Medusas tail throwing a sense of foreboding over the whole sequence.
I could go on about this forever so a few last points; no one should hire Sam Worthington again until he is willing to do some actual bloody acting not to mention a different accent!!!! The Kracken for all its CGI goodness doesn’t really feel at any point threatening and our Hero just seems to walk up to it and show medusas head! So to sum up, Liam Neeson IS a god, 3D in this instance is a shameful money spinner and no Mr Leterrier; Ray Harryhausen would not be proud of this!
Thursday, 1 April 2010
I have decided to take Beeonfilm in a new direction by dividing my reviews into three sections. These sections are Lovers, Haters and what I thought. The idea being that you get a better all round idea of what everyone thought of that particular film. Instead of describing it to you here is that format fitted to the first Blade film…
Lovers: Taken From an avid fan on IMDB
“This film is superb! Wesley Snipes Plays Blade the vampire hunter with pure class, he kicks butt in such a fluid and violent way that would make Bruce Lee proud. The movie is a fast paced, thrill ride of action and superb stunts. The first action scene and last are outstanding and Wesley looks like a Terminator as he runs around wiping out all suck heads. The script is pretty good and there is sharp dialogue too. Wesley should have done more action films than he has, i know he is a very good actor and in this he is not streched as much as in his more comic or drama roles but as far as action stars go he is the best actor of them all, only Bruce Willis, Stallone and perhaps Tom Cruise (if he counts as an action star) come close. Also aswell as Wesley being quality, Steven Dorff is also very good as the bad guy. It was an unexpected surprise that someone of small stature compared to Snipes should come across as menacing, but he does. Overall the film is sharp, stylish and i hope the sequal is done with the same sort of pace”
Now I can see where this guy is coming from, all the blade films are action packed and fun to watch. I probably wouldn’t go as far as to say superb but its fun.
Haters: Taken from a plot revealing hater on IMDB
"Blade seemed too unbeatable. He also beat the Blood God too easily. I can accept that sunblock protected Frost's skin from the sun, but what about his eyes? And when did he suddenly gain the ability to dodge bullets? Although Blade is heavily outnumbered by vampires every time he fights them, he's never attacked by more than one vampire at a time while others patiently wait their turn. It's an old cliche, but it's so obvious here it ain't even funny. Maybe I missed something but weren't the council members an essential element in the process of raising the Blood God? Yet even though one of them was killed by Frost's girlfriend the ritual goes through without any problems. Blade killing his mother with a bone? etc. Some scenes in "Blade" look like they've been heavily "inspired" by The Matrix, but since it came out only 6 six months later I can't really say it was a rip-off.”
Extremely interesting points of view in this one, I have always been troubled by the fact Deacon Frost can magically survive in sunlight if he wear’s sun block! He also points out the other obvious plot holes. Personally I just think he’s nit picking in what ultimately is an entertaining film.
What I Think:
Blade is a great film; it has kiss ass action with over the top bad guys. It also has an element of hyper reality which is used brilliantly to show the difference between the vampire world and our world, it was strangely dropped from Blade 2 and put back in rather unceremoniously into the third Blade but that’s for another time! It was the first comic book film to have above average production value and the first really well received, so in a sense it started what has become a money making machine! As far as the vampire genre goes Blade trumps must of them on entertainment.