Ten years ago, in 1989, a comic book superhero film was making it';s mark on our cinemas. It was dark, sinister, haunting and gothic, but it wasn't "Blade" - it was "Batman". Why am I talking about "Batman" then? Well, essentially "Blade" is "Batman", but without the batmobile, and with blood instead.
The plot? Well, unlike "Batman", it's all about vampires intent on drinking blood, taking over the world, and drinking blood, and the hero Blade is all out to stop them, with the usual impressive silver-sword weilding, kung-fu kicking, and garlic ...erm... garlicking.
Blade, like Batman, is an orphan, as his mother was attacked by a vampire before his birth. This is why he is so intent on revenge, and also means he has all of the vampire strenghts of super-physical capability, but none of the weaknesses of being allergic to silver and direct sunlight, and he can eat garlic too, but we don't see him do this.
This is all well and good, but he has a disadvantage of suffering from the vampire's blood-lust, which he tries to keep under control with help from his mentor Whistler, who provides a syrum to help him. (The equivelent of Alfred, but with longer hair), but of course this isn't perfectly safe and he ends up drinking the blood of Karen Jenson, a doctor he rescued from a vampire attack. Surprisingly, as the lead female role she is stunningly attractive (we are told) and perfectly qualified to develop a new syrum that will cure Blade of his vampire side for good. Now isn't that a coincidence?
"Blade" is a vampire film with a lot of blood, a lot of gore, and a lot of blood. The emphasis is very strongly on action, with little concern with following any existing vampire story or plot development, but let's be honest, isn't action what any comic-book film is all about?