From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (Video 1999) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
164 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Not nearly as bad as people say it is
Deviant-79 June 1999
After hearing countless people tell me how crappy this movie is, and after reading tons of reviews that make it sound totally unbearable, I decided to watch it myself. You know what? They are all wrong. Most of the movie is at LEAST average direct-to-video work. Of course it isn't as good as the original, but this movie was just as gory, more action-packed, and had some very funny moments (they watched Mexican porno for a VERY long time in that motel room). I was not disappointed watching this movie, because I didn't take it seriously. I suggest you relax and give it a try, you'll laugh at how funny they tried to make this a good movie.
42 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
OK B-Movie, terrible plot...
swacs29 August 2000
Making a sequel to the original From Dusk Till Dawn seems impossible, and this joint shouldn't be seen as a sequel. The only things featured in the original is a few actors and nothing else. Anyways, the movie has many funny B-movie shots, overdone one would say, and it seem as if the director Scott Spiegel is tryin' too hard to make it like his friend Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films, including cameo by Bruce Campbell. The acting is pretty bad, the plot is even worse, but still there's some quite good ideas. But it's only a made-for-video film, so I didn't have any expectations at all, even though From Dusk... being one of my all-time-favorite. It's actually impressive that Tarantino & Rodriguez even wanted to executive this movie.

Check it out, I'm on my way to rent the 3rd one... Peace Out!
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheesy B-horror fun!
Jesse-456 April 2000
OK. This is probably my guiltiest pleasure ever! The acting is extremely awful, and the movie is filled with immature draggings of the originals material. But still I like this movie. A cinescape reviewer wrote that some horror fans desperate for something new in the genre, may forgive the film for its problems. I think I'm probably one of those horror fans.

Its more entertaining than a lot of recent theatrical releases. I think the gore is great, and the Evil Dead qualities: Sam Raimi-ish camera angles (overdone), demon-like vampire deaths make this movie even more entertaining. I think its really a great cheeseball B-horror movie.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For a DTV, it's PDF!
Robin-975 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I obviously didn't have high hopes for "From Dusk Till Dawn 2" after its opening reel. Like the infamous "Congo", it makes the grave mistake of killing off the multi-talented Bruce Campbell in the first five minutes, and also does the same thing to Tiffani-Amber Thiessen, despite the fact that all the ads for the movie had mislead one into believing that she has a sizable role in it. The fact that their death scene has absolutely NOTHING to do with the main storyline doesn't help much either, but amazingly, "FDTD 2" eventually makes up for these miscalculations and becomes a surprisingly fun direct-to-video quickie. Whatever flaws it possesses are redeemed by the enthusiasm of the cast and the filmmakers, who probably realized that they were making an inconsequential film, but seemed to have had a ball doing so nonetheless. It's directed by Scott Spiegel, who co-wrote "Evil Dead 2" and has been a long-time associate of Sam Raimi's, and he gets help on the script from Duane Whitaker, who has a major role in the film and is probably best known for playing the bizarre pawn shop owner, Maynard, in "Pulp Fiction". The two of them may not have the same polish as a Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez combination, but they both have an obvious love for the genre and at the occasional moment in the film, some fresh new ideas to add to it.

The original "From Dusk Till Dawn" was one of the most enjoyable genre efforts of the 90s, which unfortunately, received a lot of criticism from non-horror fans who thought that Tarantino's screenplay started off as a potentially interesting drama that sold out midway through, opting instead to become a over-the-top gorefest in the second half. Of course, most genre aficionados found those horror elements so entertaining that they didn't care at all about the detour in Tarantino's script. Of course, "FDTD 2" doesn't near measure up to its predecessor, but if there's one thing that it does to improve upon it, it's that it doesn't even try to pretend that it has the potential to be anything else, and just presents itself as a good ol' horror outing, mixed in with a fairly standard heist story. It also helps, however, that the characters are more sharply written and the dialogue is more witty than you'd expect for a flick of this kind. The fine B-movie cast somehow makes you care in spite of yourself, and by the time the movie reached its climactic bloodbath at the bank, I was surprised by how much I was into the film. But when all is said and done, what really matters is if the horror elements deliver, and Spiegel does just that, providing some very inventive death scenes and some show-off Raimi-esque camera work (including a neat point-of-view shot of a key going into a keyhole). Sure, the gore and the F/X aren't exactly up to the "Saving Private Ryan" level of realism, but it's not like they were that great in the original either. It's not the slickness of the production, but the enthusiasm and spirit of it all that matters. And since "From Dusk Till Dawn 2" has that kind of spirit and delivers what it promises, it comes across as a direct-to-video production that's pretty-damn-fun!
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun Movie - But Where's The Plot?
Gislef6 March 2000
I only caught the "edited" version on Sci-Fi Channel, but must admit that I found this to be a mildly entertaining film. It takes a basic ideas (vampires robbing a bank) and goes with it and runs.

The problem is that that's really all there is, and there's not much running track. Like the original, it tries to stay "reality" grounded as a caper flick, but given this is a shorter movie, this goes on _way_ too long before you actually get to vampires.

Once we get the first guy bit by a vampire, it moves along to "vampires rob a bank" and "vampires shoot it out with police." But...that's really about it. The writers seemed to have run out of ideas, and so we just get interminable variations on these two basic ideas. There is no real climax - the vampire bad guys are subsequently interchangeable, and the only really competent one (Jesus) gets killed before the formerly-dimwitted one. The ending is just one big shootout, prolonged by a convenient solar eclipse. Which is another pointless plot point - if you want vampires to be in the darkness, just keep them in darkness and have the sun come up normally. Adding the solar eclipse does nothing here. It's stuff like this which suggests the writers didn't know quite what they were doing.

As for the Raimi-esque POV shots, a little goes a long way - something that Scott Spiegel should have learned from the master. It's kinda fun the first twenty times, but after that...

Overall, I'd recommend it if you can catch it on the cheap. It's no classic, but it's mildly amusing.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Removed from the context of its predecessor, it ain't a bad b-movie.
pickman9 May 2002
The special effects really do suck and the actors aren't first string, however fans of cheesy horror movies shouldn't be discouraged from checking this flick out. This is genuinely stylish with some ambitious camera work and some nice art direction touches. I think the director and the cinematographer might have been having a contest to see who could come up with the wierdest pov shot while they were shooting the picture. Also there are a few moments that are funny and border upon being clever. The porno film massacre scene had me chuckling when the donut guy got blown away. I also liked the opening Bruce Cambell(Hail to the King!) and Tiffany-Amber Thiessen elevator scene. The important thing with this movie is to forget about the first one. The first one was a kinetic, over the top, vamp slaughter-fest that was fun but hardly horror. This movie is not great, but still has the elements of a real low-budget horror movie aspiring to be something better.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No one should ever mess with a Tarantino flick like they did here.
thezombieking157 August 2007
After seeing From Dusk Till Dawn, I had to see the sequel. Praying that it was as good as the original, I was poorly disappointed. This film stands alone from the first in the worst way possible. The bar from the original is now rebuilt, and looks completely different, and it's only shown for maybe a minute. Some scenes, involving some vampires (in the forms of bats) were the worst i've ever seen in a film. The amazing blend of story and amazing action from the first FDTD is completely absent here. The characters here are completely 2-dimensional, and all they do is try to swear in clever ways, which is more disturbing than fun. The only really enjoyable part of this entire movie was seeing Bruce Campbell in a funny little scene near the beginning. Watching this movie may actually RUIN the way you think about the original. Stay away unless you haven't seen the first, and still, it might be a massive waste of your time. Head to the 3rd From Dusk Till Dawn instead. it's actually fun.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you liked the first movie... Avoid this piece of crap
CoZMaCHiNE21 July 2002
I really liked the first movie. It was cool, it was violent and the twist was really fun and unexpected. This movie is nothing like it. Fact is that this movie just stinks. Please do me a favor, if you're thinking of renting this movie, think again. The very uncool camera angles and quotes like "Come here you sexy bitch" just makes you think that the movie is made by some sort of primate with the brain the size of a peanut.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fangoria Geeks: Lighten up!
matt-20129 May 1999
It goes the genre-blending of the original one better: it melds the heist movie, the vampire movie, and the good-ole-boy movie. The co-writer Duane Whitaker, who has made a number of witty and flavorfully scripted independent movies, is probably responsible for the Texas atmosphere, and the idiosyncracy of the gang of redneck layabouts who make up the cast. Despite the stripped-down special effects, you might feel grateful to the movie for being the first B picture in eons to feature actual characters. Robert Patrick is superb as the hero--who, in the fashion of the first film, seems convincingly about to be revealed as a hotheaded sociopath, then veers in a very different direction. Muse Watson as the safecracker C.W. and Bo Svenson, now ripened in late middle aged, is marvellous as the skeptical sheriff--he could play doubles with L.Q. Jones. The movie isn't much, but it has actors, characters and dialogue--three things that are by now extinct on the direct-to-video shelf.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews