No, it is *NOT* as good as the first, and here's why

Rating: Null/10 (5 April 2002)

There's a certain realm of bad movie that will carry away juvenile fans because of the high level of craft that goes into them. They might have great images, great effects, great cinematography--but inside, nothing's there. This is one of *THOSE* movies.
"Blade 2" was designed to be wall-to-wall action scenes and a genuine comic-book movie, and at that it succeeds brilliantly. Unfortunately, that is *ALL* it succeeds at, and I was struck by how very little the makers of this film wanted to achieve. Why did they think so small?
The characters are not as interesting as in the first movie, since the director and writer so clearly don't care about them. The dialog is truly dreadful, though there is very little of it, so that it won't get in the way of the pumped-up action scenes.
Aside from the action scenes, which are eventually boring due to the lack of any variation in pace, there is a terrific monster/anatagonist, mutant vampires called "reapers," with a tripartite jaw that opens from a cleft in their chin. The technical staff who envisioned and executed these beasts deserve to be commended.
Unfortunately, while the technical staff did their job well, the writer and director did not. This is very disappointing, given what a jewel-in-the-mud the original "Blade" was, and that David Goyer wrote them both. And the director, Guillermo del Toro, has talent.
Basically, this movie doesn't have the heart the first one did, and the director has never heard that less can be more. Will appeal to teen-age boys and others of limited apprehension and taste.
I'm aware there is a large fanboy contingent that will think this a great movie, but I assure you, those feelings will fade as you grow up.