The best of the trilogy

Rating: 7/10 (22 July 2012)

Let me start by saying this is by far the best in the franchise. Goyer makes a better writer and producer than a director calling the shots. Pun intended. What lacked in the first one, was a worthy foe to match Blade's force of nature and efficient dispatcher. Dorff just seemed like a trashy-chic vampire who spouts cliché'd one-liners in between over-acted fits of spontaneous, narcissistic rage.
This one has Nomak who isn't a villain for story sake. He's a tormented, estranged hybrid of a crack-head and vampire. He's an experiment of his father, Damaskinos's.A baddie by circumstance.
While the story is good enough here, I feel that a lot of little things add up to detract from the Blade series. First is the set design. Clearly this is where del Toro either skimped, or overlooked. The sets look so bland while the characters obviously were where the money was spent. Next, the Reapers look a little "barebones" and "neatly un-imaginative". del Toro spent too much into their anatomy and not enough anywhere else.
Third is the color palette. del Toro is such a renowned film maker and for good reason. His films look so rich and evoke emotion. The "blue days and amber nights" just don't pull it off. Look at "Hellboy" 1 & 2! Nobody and I mean nobody, does the amber filter like del Toro. It's so over used and now it's old hat. Nobody uses the color palette/filter as a tool for storytelling. Instead they "utilize" it strictly for aesthetics.
As I've said, "Blade II" is still entertaining, just that all of these flaws detract from the perfection it could have easily attained.