I'm going to a screening of Blade 3: Trinity tonight at the Grove (West LA), but I haven't seen either of the first films. If you're seen them, and can give me a BRIEF summary of the plot of these films (if that's even important), I'd appreciate it. I've gleaned that Snipes is part Vampire & he's helping the police hunt down other "bad" Vampires. So let me know, my peeps!

Well lets see...Snipes is a half vampire set out to kill other vampires because they killed his mother during Snipes' birth (sort of). He doesn't really help the police, does he? I don't remember that, I just remember him randomly running around killing vampire, which is cool because of all of the special effects, but there really isn't a cohesive plot to speak of. I think I may see it just for the sheer action in the previous movies.

I decided to help you out. Here is the plot of the first one according to Internet Movie Database:

quote:

---

When Blade's mother was bitten by a vampire during pregnancy, she did not know that she gave her son a special gift while dying: All the good vampire attributes in combination with the best human skills. Blade grew up to be a vampire hunter for revenge on his mother's death. The vampires, who managed to infiltrate nearly every major organization, need Blade's very special blood to summon La Magra, the blood god, in order to reign over the human cattle, as they call us.

---

And here is the second one:

quote:

---

A rare mutation has occurred within the vampire community. The Reaper. A vampire so consumed with an insatiable bloodlust that they prey on vampires as well as humans, transforming victims who are unlucky enough to survive into Reapers themselves. Now their quickly expanding population threatens the existence of vampires, and soon there won't be enough humans in the world to satisfy their bloodlust. Blade, Whistler (Yes, he's back) and an armory expert named Scud are curiously summoned by the Shadow Council. The council reluctantly admits that they are in a dire situation and they require Blade's assistance. Blade then tenuously enters into an alliance with The Bloodpack, an elite team of vampires trained in all modes of combat to defeat the Reaper threat. Blade's team and the Bloodpack are the only line of defense which can prevent the Reaper population from wiping out the vampire and human populations.

---

Hope that helps any.

Thanks, my man!

Your welcome, just tell me how it was afterwards, so that I can know if it is worth my time.

It doesnt look that good. It looks like just another plotless sequel to make money. As you said it is really just a guy rampaging around killing vampires. But I would be curious to know how it turns out.

I had a lot of fun with it! Keep your expectations low, and you'll enjoy it. The guy from Van Wilder was totally funny, Jessica Biel is hot as usual, and Blade is cheesy in a good way.

Thanks for your comments RayRay, now I most certainly will go see it.

Ya, what the heck, I might see it as well. I didnt see the first ones but RayRay, you didnt either and you enjoyed it.

itis exactly what u make of it...a somewhat cheesey action movie.I liked it...i enjoued the first two.This oneis right on par with the first 2.Exactly what others are syaing...dont expect too much and u will be pleasantly surprised.

The moment you all have been anticipating, my official review after watching the third installment of a somewhat bland trilogy:

Blade 3 is by far the best in the series, mostly because it has one thing that the previous two have lacked, humor. This is mostly due to Ryan Reynolds but also because of Snipes' tough-guy persona. Dominic Purcell made a good Dracula, but I must say that I also loved him in the TV series John Doe as well. The action is great as usual, and features plenty of "Oooos" and "Aaaahhhss". There are a couple of holes in the plot, but those can be overlooked.

My score: 70/100

Thankyou for the recommendation RayRay. By the way, it got an overall 36 by the critics, which shows how much I really care what they think.

Well, is that grade on how good the movie is, or how much you liked it and were entertained by it. There is a big difference.

I don't think that it is fair to have two different rating scales, one which is to determine if a movie is "Good" and another for entertainment value. Why can't they integrate and become on thing. If I were to rate the movie based soley on one or the other the "Good" rating would be much lower and the entertainment rating would be higher. IF one goes into the movie wanting to pick it apart, they will be able to, but if they come in to be entertained, they will be fully satisfied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
I don't think that it is fair to have two different rating scales, one which is to determine if a movie is "Good" and another for entertainment value. Why can't they integrate and become on thing. If I were to rate the movie based soley on one or the other the "Good" rating would be much lower and the entertainment rating would be higher. IF one goes into the movie wanting to pick it apart, they will be able to, but if they come in to be entertained, they will be fully satisfied.

---

Think about it, do you really enjoy a movie like Schindlers List? You can realize the greatness in a movie without being entertained. Or, you can enjoy a movie, but at the same time know it was terribly made but the action scenes were just good. I think there is definitely a difference.

Elijah, you haven't even seen "Schindler's List!"

Perhaps a better example would be a documentary such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" which I didn't exactly "enjoy" but would give a pretty good rating due to the informational and educational value or it.

Or perhaps "The Exorcist." I thought that the movie itself wasn't very good, but would still rate it pretty high because it scared the living SH*T out of me!