Well, I thought Trinity was just OK... the general census I'm getting from people is that if you didn't like blade 2, you'll LOVE blade: trinity... now... I LOVED BLADE 2....thought it was easily the best one in the series and felt that Trinity just didn't live up to the coolness of Blade 2... Blade doesn't have much to do...the plot goes nowhere FAST and the guy playing Drake is frigin' lame... sure, Snipes has a few good lines, Biel is hot and Ryan Reynolds is funny as hell, but overall I felt it lacking... I do think they should make a Hannibal King flick though, as Reynolds really stole the show....

MATT

p.s. I really really disliked Parker Posey in this flick...she was annoying and her character was redundant.

It wasn't a fact I chose to omit, it was an irrelevant fact that had nothing to do with my points. I was not discussing the nationality of directors. I was talking about Amercian distributed & made (yes, the directors are from other countries, but these are American movies) movies almost always have extremely poor hand to hand fight scenes shot in the same manner. Both of the first 2 movies had an moor Asian approach to shooting the fights where the camera was panned back to let the audience actually see the actors & the action.

As for the music, yes, I hate that type of music, but it was much more jarring & in your face in this one. But maybe it was just that in the first 2 the fights were actually good, so I didn't notice the music as much. In this one the fights were so repetitive & poorly shot, the music just felt like it was loud to over compensate for the poor fight sequences.

Without beating a dead horse I have to add my two cents (although I agree mostly with Sessa17):

This movie is such a waste. I really thought that David Goyer was going to pull it off so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. This is a very poorly directed film and on more than one occasion I thought I was watching Mutant X (TV show).

I'm not sure why everyone agrees that Ryan Reynolds and the Nightstalkers were funny and cool. His jokes are all recycled and forced. I didn't laugh once at his idiotic and profanity laced comebacks. (Look, I'm not a snob, I loved the sarcastic little girl's line in The Last Boy Scout: "Eat Shit you Fucking Redneck".) And why did they have to annouce everything..."We're called the Nightstalkers"...."We call it the Day Star(?)"...."They call him Drake"....IMO this comes across as very poor writing (which surprised me because I believe David Goyer is a good writer) again IMO this information should be cleverly revealed during the course of the story...

So my question is who of the Nightstalkers is cool? The annoyingly cliched weapons expert onscreen for a few minutes? The driver, who is able to breakthrough the weakest police roadblock since Smokey and the Bandit 3? Or the blind scientist? This is a cool group? Why don't you all watch Blade 2 or for that matter Predator or Aliens and then come back and tell me what a cool, kick-ass group is.

I'm glad to see that Whistler and Blade have no problems wasting cops/FBI (not revealed to be Familiars)...this acutally makes them cross the line and become bad guys...again they needed a way to escape (or get captured) where they did not hurt "good" humans.

Overall, this is a huge dissappointment. I will always believe that the first Blade was a fantastic and underrated action movie. Blade 2 on first viewing disappointed me but I liked it. I watch that movie on DVD repeatedly and it get better each time. I agree that some of the CGI sucks but Blade 3 makes Blade look like Alien and Blade 2 look like Aliens (and no Blade 3 is not Aliens 3 it is more like Alien Resurrection)

I must say Jessica Biel is hot but her weapons are ridiculous and that she can fight multiple vamires is equally ridiculous.

It's sad when a writer breaks his own rules. And lastly without picking on anyone when I hear "I don't go to Blade for the story..." this is completely ididotic. Are you doing into a movie theater to watch a music video? Are you paying your hard earned cash to watch images edited together that don't connect through some thread? I read comics, books, newspapers, watch TV shows (some that people will think are crap) and the number one reason I do is for the story.

I saw this movie last night. Now mind you I had read several reviews before seeing it so I knew that I was in for some 'campy fun' and thats what I got. It was good fun, no story, just 'ass-kicking' entertainment.

Now I do have a problem with AICN in their review they claim that Abigail has the heart-wrenching scene in the movie, but there is no follow up. WTF?! The baby scene is intended as humor for the audience and the shower scene is her 'background', is the wide shot necessary? No, but its there.

I would really have liked a better darker story, but I think with what the director has promised with the two (2) different disks there is some hope.

Does anybody remember the original Blade? I mean its a classic in my book and it has same types of fighting - Blade just mows down people, left and right - the only guy that gives him any real fight is Deacon Frost after he got his super abilities from La Magra.

I can't believe the bitching about the fight scenes..jeezuz. I sat down and watched Blade and Blade 2 - and I am a firm believer than Blade is a classic, Blade 2 was a bit of let down and Blade 3 was just as good as you could expect a third movie to be. At some point, you get to the point where the mystery surrounding the vampires ceases to exist - Blade 1 worked because you are introduced to the culture, etc. Going through 3 movies, you already know of the universe - whats left is just basically ass-kicking.

If I'm one of the people you are referring to, did you read why I was bitching about the fights? It has nothing to do w/ Blade mowing down vampires with little resistance. It has to do with the awful filming of the fight sequences. Zoomed in close-ups where you can barely tell what was happening, there would be a quick movement & then a vampire would go flying. That was every single fight. The first 2 movies did not have that. The fights were shot very well the second film especially where Del Toro made an effort to have each fight with a differenct style & the camera panned back so you can actually see that it was Snipes doing most of his own work.

Perhaps you shouldn't make yourself the self proclaimed ultimate blade fan, then you might not take every critical review of this film personally.

Isn't the point of a message board to discuss things & share opnions? The guy said he couldn't believe people bitched about the fight scenes, I explained why. How is that taking it personally? I made the Blade fan comment to emphasize my point, one would think one who is a huge blade fan would love the 3rd film, but I didn't. I've been in counltess Blade threads where no one seemed to love the first 2 as much as I, thus I made the statement.

Actually, I'm a huge X-men fan and I didn't much care for the film. I'm sure being a Hellblazer fan will be no reason not to hate the film.

Being a big Ghost Rider fan, I'm sure I'm not going to automaticlly love the movie and I didn't automaticlly love blade even though it was with the Nightstalkers.

Just because you are a fan of something doesn't mean you have to eat every thing that they are apart of. And mentioning how big of a fan you are doesn't automaticlly make your opinion any more valid then the next guy.

The second film also had the crappy fight scenes and lack luster story, This one atleast had a supporting cast that carried the film when snipes decided to snooze through it.

No I'm not talking about being a fan of the source material. I'm not a Blade comic book fan, never was. I'm just a huge fan of the first 2 movies.

I never said it did, I just did it to over-ephasize a point, but I do think, when some is a enormous fan of somethin, watched the movies dozens of times, then their opinion does actually carry more weight than someone who posted something like "I saw the first 2 movies once, they were ok but this one really sucked (or was great)." But maybe that's just me.


I disagree on this, I thought the fights in the second one were very good. Well filmed & each looked different which is something very few movies ever do. And I though the supporting cast was much better in the second film, who didn't want to see more of the Bloodpack & Nomak was great character with a great brooding performance. The cast in Trinity I just thought would be awful when I heard all the casting, but they all really surprised me me.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. But in my opinion, it was awful, far worse than the other two. The script was VERY weak, the acting was sub-par, and the special effects were okay at best. Casting Parker Posey and Ryan Reynolds should go down as two of the biggest mistakes ever. Even all the side-characters were bad, no depth anywhere.

I'm sorry, I really wanted this to be a fine conclusion to the trilogy, but it left me going "WTF?!" I find it very hard to believe that Goyer wrote the other two, because he seemed to just throw this one together. All-in-all, I give it 1.5 stars out of 5.

DOES.NOT.COMPUTE! Reynolds picked up the slack that Snipes just didn't even bother with. If there was a reason to see this film, it is for Biel and Reynolds.

Yeah, I agree. I didn't really know who he was before this, but after seeing this movie, if they were to ever do a Deadpool movie, he is perfect for the part.

I'm with Sessa, this was a disapointment. It was just a messy movie, poorly paced, with poor momentum in the fight scenes. Still, some of the fight stuff was entertaining, but the story was definately the weakest of the three, mainly due to villains who didn't really seem to be powerful or scary. After the last two films built up all this big vampire conspiracy, in this one it just seems like it's Parker Posey and her posse. Not to mention Triple H is a terrible actor.

I do agree the main Nightstalkers were fun, but the blind chick was downright awful. Ugh, what a performance. Plus, I found the whole movie looked just bland. Partly due to the set design, partly because of the rather boring color palette. Overall, just not as impressive, though in the end I'm still happier with a new Blade movie than none at all. Watching Biel kick ass was definately fun, and Snipes was fine in the role in my opinion. I'd say the real problem with this flick was Goyer, he just did not bring the directing talent that Norrington or Del Toro brought to this franchise.

I am a HUGE Blade fan so no matter what people said about this movie I was going to watch it anyway.

I can safely say at least to me that while a decent/average film on its own it pales compared to the other. Pales. Particularly on a special effects/fighting level (but bottom line that can be attributed to Goyer's inexperience and so to make up for it he had to change the style of the film). You can't top films like Blade 1 and Blade 2 with a first time director expected to surpass those two. The guy has never made a film before, and while it's not a disaster, what did you expect?

The dialogue is terrible (I mean REALLY bad, which shocked me because Goyer wrote the first two as well) and the fighting and set design was mediocre. Part of this I attribute to Goyer not being an experienced director, and part because there's really no way they could top the fighting of the first two, especially with Snipes getting older (notice that he always wore long sleeves to cover up the fact he's not as ripped as he used to be and didn't seem as agile as the first two films? Let's be real, he's getting older; the finale fight was VERY VERY slow and boring)...

I TOTALLY AGREE with what someone said earlier <quote>
Snipes just slept through the role & clearly did not even get into shape for the movie. He is F'n ripped for the second film & this one he wore a turtle neck the whole movie to cover up his build. He never once projected the cool he had the first 2 films. </quote>

The Dracula character was also severely underused; it's like they had a villain as an afterthought which was a major mistake. He wasn't very scary or menacing.

Bitching about fight scenes aside, there's another explanation; having more fight scenes would have made this movie too much like the first two (seriously, what fighting did he do in this movie that you didn't see in the first? it was more of the same....so I think they decided to solve the issue of not being able to exceed the quality of the first two and minimize repetition by having less fights and taking a risk by having more comedy in this one instead. It's a very different film than the first two and certainly much less polished.

I'm surprised so many people dislike the second one; the fighting was pretty amazing especially how Del Toro knew how to pull the camera back and have more widescreen fights a-la Hong Kong style as opposed to zoomed in quick cuts like most directors do to mask poor choreography.

Other points:

The bright sides were an interesting two new supporting characters in Biel and Reynolds.

MUCH less fighting the first two (for a variety of reasons, as discussed above).

Only a shallow core of a story, I don't think Goyer really had a lot of room to take the story, and frankly, there is no need for a fourth even though they changed the original ending to make it open for one just in case.

I am a big fan of both Blade & Blade 2, but I was very disappointed in Trinity.

Does anyone know why Goyer scrapped his original storyline of Planet of the Apes-like world were Vampires have taken over Earth? I think that would have been more interesting. (IMHO)

For the record, i think that comment was directed at those who were complaining about the Vampires being just canon fodder and easy kills, to which i agree with chanster, they've pretty much always been like that.

Saw the movie tonight and thought it was terrible. The franchise definitely just took a nose dive.

Most of what made this movie bad has already been mentioned, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the stupid gold chains that Dracula wears throughout the entire movie yet. That was just one of the things that I couldn't get over. The guy has lived for hundreds of years and now he's all about the bling-bling? Even when he transformed he was still wearing them...just bad.

I can't believe the hate coming at this movie. Sure its a dropoff from Blade 1, and maybe a bit Blade 2, but its still better than most of the action films churned out nowadays

Blade, in my book, is pretty much a mordern day genre classic. It has a cool story, with likeable characters - Whistler is a bad ass in this fim, Blade is conflicted, the Doc is only a little annoying, and Deacon Frost is a hip villian who really doesn't resort to over the top type of lines to get his point across

Blade 2 was definitely a step back in my book. I know there are a lot of Del Toro fans on this board, but the movie suffers from a pretty hackeneyed plot. IF they had established the Bloodpack as a cool group of individuals, then sure. The only person that makes a mark is Perlman from the group. Nyssa is pretty much a token semi love interest. I have only seen really one movie where a group is established well in a semi-short time - and it is of course Aliens, which is why it remains a classic.
My other problem, as mentioned before, is the CGI. Yeah, it lasts only a few seconds, ubt it is smack dab right in the middle of fights and it really distracts. At least Blade only used CGI to really show "fatalities" in the first one - the notable exception being the Stretchy Deacon Frost which wasn't that bad. The story was predictable - and not very exciting. I could care less about Nomak's relationship with his father - when I am watching the movie on DVD, I usually just FF through the parts where they sit and do Hamlet. And yeah I know Goyer wrote Blade 2.

As for Trinity, its got problems. I think the story jumps around a bit - but if you really look at it Parker Posey plays the same character as Deacon Frost - an ordinary vampire trying to start a vampire apocalypse. I guess you could criticize her character as unoriginal because it is a copy of Deacon. In terms of action, the lack of noticeable CGI in the middle of fights really was a plus in my book.

Is it fair to judge a movie on its predecessors? Well yeah I guess so..But I think Trinity is in the the same group as Terminator 3 - it was an enjoyeable film on its own, but not so good compared to the original. (In Terminator's case, I really think T2 is the standard, I don;t Terminator has aged very well )

T3 and Trinity seem to establish that the movies might be able to live on without the principals - Snipes and Schwarzeneger. I enjoy the Blade and Terminator universes, and hope to see future films from both of them. Sure they may not measure up to the high marks in the series, but they can hold their own. I enjoyed Trinity and T3 by themselves and didn't need the feel to say a movie is crappy because its not as good as the best ones in the series.

Was it me or did Clint Howard make a cameo in this film?

"I'm surprised so many people dislike the second one; the fighting was pretty amazing especially how Del Toro knew how to pull the camera back and have more widescreen fights a-la Hong Kong style as opposed to zoomed in quick cuts like most directors do to mask poor choreography"

The fighting in part deux was ok. What was so cool was the awesome editing during those fights. If it weren't for the edits the fight scenes would have sucked ass. I'm talking about the CG fights of course.

As for Blade 3...overall I thougth it was decent. For sure my least favorite of the trilogy, but in no means horrible. I agree that the main villain was not even close to menacing. Deacon Frost kicked more ass, and this dude was fricken DRACULA. I guess I should be used to how weak the vampires are in the Blade franchise, but I still can't get used it.

Just got back from seeing this.

Its interesting. I liked it...but I didn't think it had the same feel as the first two films.

The tone was just different....and I really enjoyed the comic relief.

Ok, lets make a growing list of all the places this film was trying to go


-Friendless Blade needs to open up, trust and be part of a team.
-Dracula searched for to:
*destroy blade
*evolution step of vampires
*purify man
*be the ultimate weapon
-Blade must stop dracula because
*Dracula poses a threat
*they can create a ultimate vampire virus with his blood
*he has the girl that opened up to him
*revenge for killing rest of his new team


the story was going all over the place it was hard to even keep it straight.

I thought it was a pretty mixed bag, but there were some weird things that stood out:

It was established in Blade II that vampires can see in the dark. So why did they need flashlights and glowsticks in Dracula's tomb? Similarly, Abigail knocks out the vampire lair lights. They can see in the dark, you can't. Smart move.

Whistler got pissed about Blade killing a human in front of witnesses, because it jepardizes the mission, yet he has no problem blowing away cops.

While Posey was pretty crappy, it was nice seeing her and John Michael Higgins in a movie together again. It's like a little "Best of Show/A Mighty Wind" reunion.

Ryan Reyonlds stole every scene he was in, even if he was basically playing the Xander role, albeit an ass-kicking Xander.

Actually Blade 2 had problems with the consistency of Vampires Using Flashlights. Remember when Nyssa was checking out the upper level of House of Pain, right before she gets grabbed by Nomak? She is using a flashlight..

I don't think Blade or Whislter knows they are cops or at least - real cops. They could be familiars.