Am I the only one who was disappointed?

Rating: Null/10 (2 April 2002)

I don't know how it happened, but this just let me down. Sure, I liked the first movie, I like Guillermo del Toro, and I like Bradstreet's design work. Heck, I even like the soundtrack, but the movie just wasn't any fun for me.
First off, del Toro directs it like a horror movie, which would be fine if the script was strong enough to hold it together. The problem is that the script is made for a dim-witted action movie, like the original. A picture like this shouldn't take itself as seriously as del Toro's dark and heavy visuals. The whole thing just winds up looking ridiculous.
Then there were the action sequences. They just didn't have the violent frenzy of the first movie, and that thing with the CGI people just reminded me of Deep Blue Sea. What really bothered me was that Snipes never went all-out with the sword. My favorite part of Blade was the big swordfight at the end, but there wasn't anything at that level in this one.
The plot-holes were a bit of a distraction. Normally, I can accept a few and be okay with it, but this was bad. Whistler came back with an explanation that... well, there wasn't one. **** MILD SPOILERS **** How did he come back? Well, he was a vampire. Then Blade gave him a drug that made vampires explode in the first movie. The result: it turned him back into a normal person. Okay. And why did the vampires stop wearing the UV-proof suits that they had on when they met up with Blade? And if the explosive Blade stuck in that guy's head was so darned useful, why didn't he use it to take out the one who was an actual threat instead of waiting for Scud to pick it up? **** END SPOILERS ****
I did like a few things about the movie. The gore was okay, the villain was impressive, and it was interesting to see the cat from Red Dwarf playing a vampire. Still, all together, it was a disappointment.