Blade used to be cool. That's right, Blade - the comic and the original film were both great, action-packed and well-written. For me, Blade was a decent vampire flick compared to all the nonsensical vampire films that were either dull or without any substance. Sadly, the third instalment of the series seems to have joined this category (the second was just incredibly mediocre). It's as if Goyer suddenly decided he couldn't remember how to write a decent vampire story, and started looking to the worst examples of the genre for guidance. Snipes brings absolutely nothing to the role, and apart from baring his teeth a couple of times, they may have just used a waxwork to replace him. I realise he's supposed to be a hardened, bitter character, but there's a point where you need to see even a hint of a thought-process. When he witnessed Whistler's death in the first film, that was a great moment. Now he sees it again, and it's as if he decided, well I've been through this once before, so I'm used to it by now. As soon as Dracula (or "Drake"...) appeared on the scene, I couldn't believe what I was watching. Had the Blade films really run its course that quickly that they had to resort to a storyline so tacky that it didn't even make it into the Buffy series until they got desperate for ideas. And really, I think that sums it up. If you're the sort of person who thinks the idea of having Dracula in a Blade film is a good one, then you'll probably love this film. And on another note, why do all vampire films seem to have an obligatory scene where someone outlines which vampire "myths" are not real?
Review of Blade: Trinity
