Thrills? Yes. Style? A little. Substance? NO!

Rating: 5/10 (23 March 2002)

There are two kinds of vampire movies: those that present the vampire as a dark, soulful, mysterious, troubled being, and those where they're just fodder for ass-kickings from uber-cool vampire hunters. "Blade II" is, like "Blade", definitely in the latter category. It's also the kind of film that works solely as a cheap thrill, enjoyable for the moments watching it in the theatre without any lasting impression.
"Blade II" is full of one thing, and that is Wesley Snipes killing lots of vampires. Not just everyday vampires, mind you, but a new breed of super-vampires called Reapers. The Reapers are such a threat that Snipes is joined not only by old friend Whistler (a returning Kris Kristofferson) and new assistant Scud, but also by a vampire task force, a motley crew who look interesting enough but not-so-surprisingly provide very little help to Snipes in any of the film's multitude of fight scenes. They also make lots more Reapers very fast, which also helps because it provides a lot of fodder for the film's multitude of fight scenes.
Now that it's been established that the core of the movie is composed of fight scenes, the question becomes are the fight scenes enjoyable? Exciting, thrilling, and absurdly unrealistic (director Guillermo del Toro replaced the live actors with computer-generated body doubles so they could do what no real actor could  its just a shame that the transition from live actor to CG body is so obvious), the one-on-one fight scenes are a sight to behold (particularly when Blade uses wrestling movies in a climactic battle, after running up walls and jumping what looks like 20 feet in the air), but, like in any other film, anti-climactic sequences where Blade takes on large groups of Reapers single-handedly without batting an eyelash get old very fast. Seeing vampire after vampire vanish into CG smoldering ash and bones is impressive the first time, but after seeing it time and time again, one will leave the theatre in a sort of trance, the only thoughts on their mind being, "Too many computer graphics..."
This is really a shame because there's some beautiful direction and unexpectedly good story in "Blade II". Del Toro, following up his acclaimed "Devil's Backbone" and considerably less acclaimed "Mimic", has crafted a beautiful dark atmosphere. An interesting mixture of technology and gothic architecture, it fits the film and its characters perfectly. Scenes in an underground series of tunnel-like enclosures have great use of shadow, even giving a sense of mystery to something as obvious as a roving pack of Reapers seen in the background creeping along the ceiling and walls of a corridor towards a character. David Goyer crafted a much more significant and engrossing story (when all is revealed at the end, its surprisingly smart) this time around, albeit with some occasionally really dumb dialogue. It really kills the dark tone of the setting and movie if the audience (myself included) is laughing at the protagonists' lines (Whistler was especially bad at this, lashing petty insults at the vampires at every opportunity). Unfortunately, since the action takes precedence, very little of these two great traits come off as more than afterthoughts.
"Blade II" is a little too action packed. As enjoyable as seeing Wesley Snipes killing lots of vampires is, when that seems to be the only draw it's enjoyable for all the wrong reasons. The film's other aspects are good and would've been really great had they been developed, but these were shelved for action that is good enough for a quick thrill but cheapens the film so it doesn't leave a lasting impression. Is this a terrible thing? Not really, but it's a little disappointing. If quick thrills are all you are interested in, "Blade II" is a good fix, but if you want more substance in a film look someplace else.