MovieChat Forums > Blade (1998) Discussion > Is this movie worth watching and does it...

Is this movie worth watching and does it stay true to the comic books?

posted 11 years ago by MarvelFan123
14 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I've been a Marvel and a comic book fan for a very long time; I've read various titles such as The Amazing Spider-Man (1963-1998), Tales of Suspense (from #39), Incredible Hulk, Journey into Mystery, Wolverine (1982 mini-series) etc.

I've also watched many Marvel movies especially the ones that aren't associated with Marvel Studios but there is one trilogy that I haven't watched yet and that is of course the "Blade" trilogy. I know that "Blade" is a vampire hunter in the Marvel Universe who is half vampire and half mortal and has made his very first appearance in "The Tomb of Dracula #10" which was published in 1973; he then got his first solo story in "Vampire Tales #8".

I must ask one question though, in fact, I have two questions to ask. Is this movie worth watching because it has received 55% in the Rotten Tomatoes website (which I assume is below average) and so far, it has a rating of 7.0/10 on this particular website. I also must ask if it stay true to the original source material because so far, some Marvel movies have gone overboard and didn't stay faithful to the original source material. (I will not be touching Spider-Man 3 again)

Please provide honest/appropriate answers because I'm a serious Marvel and comic book fan. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these two questions :)

[–] war-path 11 years ago

Yes. This movie alone is worth watching. I despise the sequels, but if you do end up liking this movie and want to see the sequels, feel free to do so and critique or like it. Although there were some notable changes to the screenplay of this movie from the comic book source material, regardless of that, it felt very true and dignifying to Blade the vampire hunter.

This movie is very badass. The blood and gore you'll see in this movie, be prepared for it. If you didn't see that much of it in the comic books, get ready for it in the movies. If it seems unnecessary, well, just think about this. How else would a warrior fighting against vampires of this malevolence end up looking like? It can't be that easy and polished.

The spirit of Blade was captured quite well on the big screen, no matter what.

[–] MarvelFan123 11 years ago

Thank you for your opinions. Much appreciated. Can I ask though if you don't mind? Why don't you like the sequels Blade II and Blade: Trinity? Were they not as faithful?

And if you have the time, please check out my topic on Punisher: War Zone (2008) if you're a Punisher fan because I actually need some help on that particular character as well. Thank you.

[–] war-path 11 years ago

You're very welcome.

I personally don't like the sequels because either visually or story-wise there were inconsistencies and a step back in visually appealing set pieces and ambiance. For the most part, it's not so much that it wasn't faithful to the comic book source as it was that my complaints are very technical and storyline based.

Like in Blade 2, I definitely couldn't get into the whole movie due to the extreme lighting and colors being used throughout the movie. It was very off-putting and so uninspiring. It made the movie seem boring to me. That's a big no-no, especially as a follow-up to something as magnificent and intense as Blade part 1. I hate how Whistler was brought back into the sequels, which you see blatantly in part 2. It makes me want to compare this movie to the first one even more than I already care to. It makes me cringe because we saw him kill himself in part 1 and it made sense and added so much more conflict and sadness to Blade and his quest in ridding the world of vampire scum. To ret-con it and have him mysteriously abducted and to have survived his suicide by being turned into a vampire, it was just a slap to the face of what the first movie had in store for Whistler and the weight of that scene. I also despised that Karen Jensen wasn't even brought up or appeared at all. No closure to her, and yet they brought back Whistler into all of this?

Other things that pissed me off were the underground rave club scenes that felt like it was making an unnecessary homage to the first Blade movie with it's bloodbath underground night club scene and the increased amount of CGI in the fight sequences that it looks way too obvious that it is fake and very staged. I didn't like Blade's armor throughout the movie and there was way too much of the promoted soundtrack being infused into the movie that it didn't blend in well. In part 1, while risky to do, it fit and blended in so well with the movie at the right cues. The storyline itself wasn't too bad, though. I give props to the writers for having Blade form an uneasy alliance with a group of vampires in order to hunt down a new menacing mutated form of vampires. But considering the technical and stylish issues I had with the movie and other flaws to the storyline, really dampened my liking of this movie thus making me not enjoy it and not supporting it.

Blade Trinity, has similar problems to part 2, storyline and technical aspects being the problems. While Blade Trinity had somewhat of a better look and feel to it, in my opinion an improvement over Del Toro's style from part 2, this 3rd installment suffers mostly from the terrible storyline. Not only did I feel it was totally unnecessary to make Blade face off against THE prince of darkness himself, Dracula, they had to include a younger hipsterish trash talking bastardization of The NightStalkers as Blade's new allies to stop the most terrifying vampire menace of all. That, and bringing Whistler along only to have him get killed yet again, and no one taking time to reflect on that, it's a very aggravating film to include as something as part of the Blade movie universe. More and more injection of the promoted soundtrack into some scenes of the movie were starting to make this movie seem like such a music video parody in and of itself.

Considering I would still find this more enjoyable and easy on the eyes than part 2, I still despise it about the same as part 2. The sequels were inconsistent and such a mess that it shames part 1.

I would love to check out your topic on Punisher:Warzone and anything Punisher related. I'm a huge fan of him as well.

[–] Suriname86 11 years ago

Yes this is actually the last really good vampire movie before Twilight raped and desecrated vampire mythology for all other movies. Wesley snipes was s badass blade. To be honest the effects didnt really hold up and look a bit cheesy now but its still a good storyline and decent acting.

[–] Vorpaledged 10 years ago

Actually there are two great Vampire movies that were released just before the horror that is the Twilight series. Let the Right One In and 30 Days of Night! Let the Right One In being exceptional and one of my favs! 30 Days of Night was gory and done really well!

[–] Suriname86 10 years ago

You're right. "Let the Right One In" (The Swedish film, not the cheap knockoff "Let Me In") was an amazing film. And 30 Days of Night was very entertaining. I was thinking moreso that the vampire franchises that have popped up post-Buffy and post-Blade have been crappy, not so much individual films here and there.

[–] elpequenelson 9 years ago

What about "What we do in the shadows"! It's a false-documentary-comedy about a group of vampires in New Zealand trying to adapt to the nowdays. I highly recommend this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416742/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[–] lilwith 9 years ago

Couldn't be more right

[–] carademadera 8 years ago

I don't see ,twilight movies as vampire movies ,I just see as people with super power in school ,like x-men in school, Its better that way , I don't ruin any movie experience by hating it ,If something is not super great at least I pretend is something else ,,(except if the movie is terrible boring) but twinlight is not so boring ,I can at least imagine myself having in the character place having the power to read minds in school .I watch movies because of the experience .

[–] carademadera 8 years ago

snipes was a good vampire in this movie ,you can really believe he is a trained vampire,dedicated and determined ..best character he played, If at least he could take a helix er to come back and play blade on another marvel movie like in avengers or something ..like A cameo doing something cool or bad ass. would be not bad

[–] salimy3k 11 years ago

OK, since I'm a Marvel fan from waaay back in the 70s (I avoid them like the plague now after that Spidey-clone disaster story-line from the mid-90s) let me tell you: Blade is the BEST Marvel adaptation by far IMO. Why? Because it's the ONLY Marvel movie that's BETTER then the comics it's based on. I used to collect all the Nightstalker/Tomb of Dracula/Blade and let me tell you - Blade in the comics was never as bad-ass or confident as he was in this movie and the reason is simple: Wesley Snipes is a major comic-book fan WHO UNDERSTANDS THE APPEAL OF THE CHARACTER HE'S PLAYING (Unlike many of the people working in the movie industry like say, Zack Snyder who is so retarded he still can't understand what Superman's appeal is and why people love him so much) - The thing that I LOVED about this movie is that unlike all those old bumbling vampire hunting movies like 'Dance Of The Vampires' where the Vampire-Slayers are human, Blade is more than a match for the vamps as he is half-vamp himself and thus has all their skills and none of their weaknesses (The opening scene where he cleans house at a midnight rave was so bad-ass the first time I saw it because I had NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE - Plus all the Kung-Fu action sequences in this movie were to me at least, more impressive than the over-long training scenes in 'The Matrix' a year later!

It's not entirely true to the source material (The villain Deacon Frost is played by a young American man instead of the old German guy he is in the comics) but get this: It actually WORK IN THE MOVIE'S FAVOR as Stephen Dorff was a brilliant counter-weight to Blade and even won the 1998 MTV Movie Awards for Best Villain (Back when TV didn't suck and still played music videos). In fact, the comics started copying a lot of the movie's stylings (from Blade's tattoos down to the clothes he wears) as it was so innovative.

In the comics, Blade was a one-note character: He just jumps from one town to the next killing vamps - After the movie, they gave the vamps more personality and a better supporting cast - basically they upgraded Blade because of the film's success. Part Two is good as well (but more of a pure action movie) while Part Three should be avoided at all costs!

[–] uber_mensch2012 9 years ago

Exactly. everything salimy3k just said. Blade has always been my favorite and i'm a dc guy. i lost all faith in comic movies. started strong, i grew up with batman, and saw it get worse and worse with each movie (after the sequel). blade and spawn is what got my hopes up. then xmen and spiderman came along and i noticed, it became more about filling the seats than the art. the feel of it got "clean" and "family friendly". and thats where dc is succeeding. the dark knight trilogy and the newest superman were more like blade whereas the marvel universe (even tho its making gobs of money) is more like batman forever.

i guess the reason i felt i would comment is it's a different world. when i was younger, there were many specific demographics. and kids loved what teens and adults loved because it was the grown up thing to do. now, that ship has sailed and its gone. you get animated kids movies with adult themed jokes so the adults aren't put off. you get the iron mans, xmen, spiderman, and the avengers that aren't too "mature" so you can fill the seats with the younger crowd, even tho that's not the demographic. come to think of it, the only movie i can say has blood (and i mean rated r amounts) in it for sure is blade.

marvel has to do better, and deadpool will be the make it or break it moment.

so blade was awesome but not for it's time, but in general. its perfect as is and will be in 50 years. it forged a mold instead of filling one. and it gets better with age. same as the dark knight trilogy.

as for the sequels, the second was as good as batman returns was to the first batman. more money and production, tried to fit the mold while making it different enough to be it's own movie. some people hated it, i didn't mind so much, except for the cgi. that won't age very well, and the wrestling moves. looks tacky.

and blade trinity is like the batman movies after returns. watch it once, ask yourself wtf was that, and do your best to not think about it as no good could come from it

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whyruhere 9 years ago

awesome movie