step down from the first movie

I think it was more a step in a different direction, than a step down. Introducing the reapers, blade teaming up with vampires, these were great plot points for a sequel to make it fresh and exciting, which it was.

If anything, the 2nd one is the grittiest of the lot, and pretty damn gory horror too (and I watch loads of horror/exploitation etc).

At first I hated it, because I loved the coolness of the first, and because this was different in every way, I thoroughly disliked it. But if you go back now, much of it seems a bit 90s. Blade II, on the other hand, will never age. It has that great classic gothic horror feel to it and if you watch the film with a decent surround system at night it's pretty creepy in places. The reapers are terrifying.

Blade II is superior in every way to the original. I would even go as far as to say it's a work of art, and the narrative certainly flows alot better, keeping focused on all characters, at all times.

This is primarily down to Del Toro's superb direction, whose main influence is Cronenberg with a touch of Argento/Euro fantasy horror, and I think this really works well in it's favour. Norrington is way more mainstream.

The original is good but is a little too 'trendy' for it's own good, 90s trendy, hence why Blade II wins hands down because it abolishes most of that in favour of making a kick ass, creepy, VERY gory (for a comic book adaptation) and deeply atmospheric and beautifully shot HORROR.

So basically, Blade is a very slick, polished, kick ass cool (in a 90s way) vampire flick with some great humorous moments.

Blade II manages to be both kick ass and slick with an almost European/Argento look to it (which is why it's really grown on me), but leans way more towards the vampire gothic horror genre, using great make up and prosthetics for the gore sequences.

So basically, the vampires in the 1st one were cool and sexy (in a 90s fashion). The vampires in the second (reapers) are practically zombies (and damn creepy ones at that).

The less said about the third the better.

SILENCIO....

I like both movies but I have to disagree with something. Blade II is in no way grittier than the original. In the second film, we see Blade doing these weird cgi flips and the camera angles are also flashier. The action sequences in the first film are much more gritty, especially that opening action scene in the club where Blade takes out the vampires. That scene was loud, fast and intense. Compare that to the flashier opening action scene in the second film with Blade jumping out of a building flipping as the camera follows him down. Or him flipping in the air and landing on a vamp's bike. This looked highly stylized. The first film had some cgi, but for some reason it looks better. When Blade is evading the cops in the hospital and does that huge leap from one building to the other, it looks so real. At least it looks more convincing than those elastic cgi people in the second movie. That's not to knock Blade II as I feel it's an awesome action movie, but I'd put it just below Blade.