| |
|
COuple of things.
One.
Blade is a good film, in that it does exactly what it sets out to do. While some may scoff at the idea of an action-socky-cheesefest in which a buff Guy From The Streets knocks off vampires, there's little argument to be made that the film wants to be anything other than what it is, and to quote Wolverine...
Which brings us to:
What does this film want to be? More camp than a gymnasium full of boy scouts on a rainy weekend? A dark, noir-ish romp with cheeky nods to genre classics past? What?
Regardless, there is nothing in the trailer to indicate that it does anything well. At all. I wish that it were not so, but it's time to face irrefutable evidence - twenty-four pictures per second proclaming that Norrington's botched the job.
This, mind you, is entirely without reference to the source material, inasmuch as any project that tips it's hat all the way down to the fucking toes to "the classics" can be severed from its inspirations. Is it a good adaptaion? Who cares, as there's little indication it'll even be a good film. I agree that disregarding the source is a great idea - does it really matter, if the result is any good? Too bad this doesn't look it.
If it does make millions, bales of which can be stiched together to keep the sequential art machines going for some months, is that a good thing? Would the impression not be that this sort of faux-seriousness ecschewing tights in favor of neigborhood theatre costumes is what sells? I've got the storyboard right here, detailing the shot where the head of Warner Brothers calls down to the head of DC who calls the head of Vertigo - all done in Raimi-style fast paced Hudsucker-cam, "you know, for kids?" - who puts down the phone, jumps up dramatically and yells "Stop the fucking presses!" before commissioning scads of cheap Ell Ex Gee knockoffs. It ain't pretty.
Do you really want that? |
|
|
