Only so much you can stomach... ;-)

Rating: 1/10 (16 April 2002)

My word, I would say that there's a fair lot of delusion, difference in taste and occasionally outright insanity (One entitled "The Caliban Institute"...) in these comments below...! A few I agree with, but not so many.
The imaginatively named "Blade 2" was certainly a slipshod film; a composite of 80 % violence, and 20 % very dull filler material. Plot horrendous, acting unable or unwilling to rise above the pyrotechnics; virtually all characters indistinguishable from one another... The only differences are the character-as-eye-candy prop (perhaps necessary in this visually repellent farrago of a film!) Nyssa; a few bizarre bits of late '80s British retro casting - Danny John Jules and a certain master Luke Goss - and neither chap is used at all interestingly. Plus, there is no sense of why Blade is any better than any of them, or more interesting. He is merely one monotonous thug among many.
Don't expect any hint of realism, despite the massive excess of violence... Few if any of the main characters seem the worse for wear despite however many times they are summarily butchered and seemingly dispatched. None of this is explained at all. I hear some sorts saying "It's escapism! Get with the game, Tomster!"... some escapism I say; I don't want to escape to a frankly dull world with practically nothing but violence without context, meaning or end. How could they have made it worse...? Perhaps a ludicrous, unsubstantiated "romance" slotted in there? Ring any bells, folks? ;-)
Of course, if you enjoy big screen depictions of violence and gore for the sake of it - even ones that aren't that well done - you may just enjoy this. If you have a predilection for nauseating images, you are as they say, quids in. But don't you tell me this is a good film. It is an awful, decidedly ugly one, that fails on all counts.