Am I the only one who thought this was better than the original?

Rating: 9/10 (15 November 2014)

I remember when Blade II came out - everyone was saying how much better it was than its predecessor (that's not saying the original was bad - it was excellent, too). However, now I look at the other reviews, I see many pretty scathing appraisals of the film, so I thought I'd readdress the balance.
Blade II makes the bold decision to team the titular character up with those he has sworn to destroy - namely vampires - in order to hunt a new super strain of the undead who plans on feeding on both humans and vampires.
What follows are some pretty good action and fight scenes against a race of monsters who are well-designed enough to actually be pretty horrific. Besides some of the non-English speaking actors (who's lines are purely understood with the aid of subtitles) all the cast play their parts well. Wesley Snipes finds it easy to keep going as the half-vampire, Blade, but Ron Perlham deserves a special mention for generally being nasty to Blade and getting away with it (or does he?).
A good sequel should offer the same and more. Blade II does this. It's easily recognisable as a Blade film, yet takes the story in a fresh direction to the original, meaning it isn't simply a rehash of old ideas. I would rank it alongside other such great sequels as Terminator 2 and Aliens. It's just a shame they couldn't repeat the magic with what followed: Blade Trinity (but that's another - sad -story).