Sessa17

I COMPLETELY agree. To all the people bashing 2, aside from the bad CGI which even Del Toro said is the worste part of the movie, what on earth is bad about the movie. The fights were great, Del toro made a clear effort to make each look different. The Blood pack was awesome, every single one of them, if your complaint is you wanted to see them more, then that is the point & shows just how awesome they were. The idea of the reapers was cool, it looked great & Nomak was cool. I just don't get all the Blade 2 bashing.

beefjerky

I thought Blade 2 was entertaining, but the Blood Pack was completely useless. They made them out to be some super group of killers that have been training for years, and they all get wiped out in a few minutes. I was expecting Donnie Yen to kick some major ass, and he just DIES.

DRG

The first Blade had the perfect blend of horror and action. Blade 2 had some great potential, but they blew it. Too much 'comic book action' (vs the kickass action of the first movie). In general, I was just bored during the action scenes (a la Underworld).

Even though I am looking forward to Hellboy, I've found Giullermo Del Toro's work to be highly overrated thus far. I admit I still need to see Cronos, which many still consider hiscrowning achievement. But Mimic? Great buildup that leads to a dull conclusion. The Devil's Backbone? A good film, but nowhere near as good as some of the hype it gets. As for Hellboy, he gets points from me just for using actual makeup fx for the characters instead of making them all CGI. My fingers are crossed.

MrN

I also wanted to mention how of a cheat the return of Whistler was. Sure, his death was off-screen but it was handled with weight.

Del Toro's touch can be seen in his fascination with innards but the fight scenes were so fake looking with cartoon figures. Admiting the CGI was bad doesn't let him off the hook.

spainlinx0

When I go back and watch the first film, it never reaches the high point that the first club scene provides, and it really weakens the movie upon further viewings. As soon as you see it, you know the best has already passed. I like the movie, but like another poster said, it loses that steam, and you start to get a little bored. The second film has such a completely different feel to it that you almost can't compare the two. However the second one is just so much fun, and the fight scenes are so visceral that I just can't help but enjoy myself. Also, I thought the wrestling moves were kind of funny so they didn't bother me at all.

Giantrobo

I don't they were useless. But they did get caught up in the "We gotta kill everyone off" death trap MOST directors/writers fall into.

I thought they were totally cool. I wish we could've learned back story on all of them.

John Spartan

Here's the problem with Part 3: They got the one principle crew member of the other films who was expendable and put him in charge of it. Him being David Goyer, the writer of parts 1 & 2 and now the director of 3. I've read that Blade 2 had an AWFUL script with nothing in it and basically Del Toro filled it all in and gave it breadth that just wasn't on the page at all. All of the design work, the kung fu/comic/horror influences and bizarreness was apparently Del Toro's doing.

It's clear looking at parts 1 & 2 that they are the work of directors with very specific visions and that the films wouldn't be much without them.

As for the difference between Blade 1 & 2, imagine that they are people. Blade 1 would be a heroine chic, Dolce&Gabanna pretty boy, while Blade 2 would be a grungy, goth type. Both are good at what they do, but they are very different. Only thing that stays the same is Blade himself and kung fu. That said, Blade 2 would've been helped a lot if the Bloodpack hadn't gone out like a bunch of punks.