I guess the title sums it up really, I was disappointed.

I'll try to not spoil anything (and I hope that anyone who replies doesn't either), but...

Plot - Basically ok, but not nearly developed enough. There's some bizarre romance thing that comes from absolutely nowhere without any build up. And Kris Kristopherson (sp?) was wasted.
Dialogue - Missing the humor and depth of 'Blade'.
Cinematography - Overuse of CGI. Unlike 'Blade' which made good use of CGI special effects, 'Blade II' seems to be an excuse for them to happen. I actually cringed a few times.
There was way too much attention paid to the vampires eating in gory detail that was just un-necessary and un-convincing. The fight scenes are messy and generally filmed too close, so that instead of the "Wow - cool move" effect, the viewer is often just trying to work out what he's seen. The locations were lacking in both depth and breadth compared to the first movie.
Sound/Music - Nothing special.

To sum up - Yep. It's a sequel.

And I totally disagree.

Everyone I've talked to has either thought it was a fair movie or thought it was absolutely incredible. I am of the later group.

I thought the visual style was fantastic. The new director has brought a completely new look to the "dark scary places" of Blade.

Yes, it was more gory, but hey, that can be fun too. Just because the first one wasn't, does that mean the second can't be even more visceral? Do you want a cookie-cutter sequal that doesnt' change anything up at all? That would be pretty boring.

You didn't mention a thing about the action scenes. This implies that you had your eyes shut Just kidding. Seriously, didn't you think the action was great? Granted, the wrestling-type moves seemed a bit much, but the more I think about it, if a creature is going to jump on you, lying on the ground, from 150 feet away, what says he can't do that thing where he slams his elbow into Blade's chest? It seems likely to me. Other than that unusual element, I thought the action was some of the best I've ever seen.

I must admit, I cringed at only one use of CGI, when Blade was fighting the intruder in front of the bright lights and they were fliping all over the place. Looked too fake, but it was still somewhat cool.

And you could see the unlikely romantic interest throughout the film. It was hinted at at every possible point. I thought it created a great conflict in those two characters. I didn't expect what eventually happened with her character.

I say see it in the theaters. See a matinee. It'll cost a few bucks more than the video rental will, but if you think you'll see it at all, you might as well see the film on the big screen, whether you like it or not.

Granted, the wrestling-type moves seemed a bit much

You got that right. The suplex toward the end was just absurd.

Overall, I liked the first one better, but thought Blade II was a good sequel.

I will side with you on this one. But it was very entertaining. The fights reminded me of Bruce Lee films with the sped-up look but the plot had holes you could drive a semi truck through. Like why didn't they use the suits that block light (the ones they wore while attacking Blade's compound)? Why did the origin of the new vamps suddenly mean "you betrayed us and sent us in to die!" (ie, they didn't mind the mission before they found out how he was created but it makes no difference)?? And why the fuck does every Hollywood film have to toss in a love/romance angle? It was so damn predictable too. Like "oh wow, she litterally let her hair down, showed a little cleavage and they stopped lighting her to make her look pastey... I guess she must have fallen in love in the last 15 minutes." That is why the movie "The Third Man" was so great (Orson Welles). At the end, you thought that they were going to toss in a "and the man and woman walk away happily ever after.." but they didn't.

All that said, I expected very little walking in to the theater except to be entertained - and I was. The fights were good. And I just loved when he went over to his car - just to say hi. Brought a tear to my eye.. (seriously)

Hehe, gotta admit, that's one sweet ride

Okay, so people actually liked the first one? I'm a big comic book fan and I really tried hard to watch Blade and I just couldn't. I got about 2/3 of the way through and just turned it off.

It amazes me that there was enough interest for there to be a second one. And it amazes me even more that people actually went to see it.

Wow! I loved that movie!

Oh well, to each his own. I loved it, you didn't. It depends on the person.

What was it about the movie? I suppose if I were a fan of the comic book or comic books in general, I might be upset at liberties the movie may have took, but I'm not. I didn't quite get what you didn't like. Just curious.

It had nothing to do with the comic. (In fact, I'm not really very familiar with Blade except as a not-terribly-major character in the otherwise pretty good 70s Marvel series Tomb of Dracula, where he was, more or less, a Shaft/Superfly ripoff. In particular, I never read more than a few pages of``his'' eponymous 90s series towards which the movie was largely oriented.) It was just an awful script and awful plot with awful direction, mediocre acting, and obviously cheated-on production values. I figured as much when I rented it (which I did based solely on the fact that it was based on a comic and that it looked as if it had A-level production values), but I figured that with established names like Wesley Snipes and Stephen Dorff and Kris Kristofferson attached to it that it would at least be passable. But it wasn't. Note that it was still about 100 times better than any other Marvel superhero movie ever made. (I have high hopes for Spider-Man, though. If only it featured Gwen Stacy and they killed her off....)

By the way, if anyone would like to see a good superhero movie, check out Unbreakable. It's not based on a preexisting comic, but it's probably the best superhero movie ever. And if you don't quite like it at first (I didn't) wait a week or so and start thinking about it. Maybe read an analysis or two and then watch it again. It's phenomenal.

Wow... I felt ripped off when I saw Unbreakable. It was great until the ending. I said "No. No. They are NOT doing this! They are NOT taking this great movie and making it a comic book in the last 20 min." Up until then, it had a good "Sixth Sense" feel (I wonder why ) to it.

It was a superhero story the whole way through. It's just that (Sixth-Sense-like) they don't quite resolve it to that until the end. (Actually, the ending was the least superhero-y thing in the movie.) In fact, it was a comic book the whole way through. The typical superhero comic tropes were there throughout. The cinematography came as close to emulating comic book panels as is possible. The use of colors and shapes were identical to many classical superhero comics. They even point a lot of it out in the dialogue. Jack Kirby would have been proud.

And why did the fact that it was a superhero story piss you off? Did it break with the story in some way?

Maybe it was just the bad guy's outfit. I've got several hundred comic books, so I've nothing against them. I just thought the bad guy was campy.

I've got several hundred comic books

Well, that's your problem, amateur. I've probably got tens of thousands. And the bad guy was just like every non-super superhero villain, from the Joker to Lex Luthor (or should that be from the Green Goblin to Kingpin?)

Well, I disagree with you on Blade (I just liked it), but I definitely agree with you on Unbreakable. That was a fantastic movie.

I thought Hudson Hawk was one of the best comedies ever. So I guess my vote gets tossed out!

Haha! I thought I recognized that title I had to check on imdb, though.

To tell you the truth, I've only seen about 30 minutes of that movie, but it was quite strange.