From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 154 reviews in total 

33 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

Not nearly as bad as people say it is

Author: Barry Iverson from Washington, USA
9 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

OK B-Movie, terrible plot...

Author: Rasmus Petersen (swacs@hotmail.com) from Kolding, Denmark
29 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

For a DTV, it's PDF!

Author: Robin Warder (r&pwarder@gbd.com) from Orangeville, Ontario, Canada
5 October 1999

*** This review may contain 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

a terrible film from start to finish.

1/10
Author: cygnus x-1 from roanoke, va
25 January 2000

i'm always wary of sequels (especially direct-to-video sequels) and hesitantly rented this film. now, i wasn't expecting it to even come close to the original (which is one of my personal favorites), but god forbid i wasn't expecting it to be THIS bad!

First of all, the director does nothing but rip off Sam Raimi's old evil dead directing style, but in a second rate style. the most inspired bit is the beginning movie-within-a-movie that has a cameo by the great Bruce Cambell.

the special effects, while appropriately gory, look really cheap and dumb. also, all the point of view camera angles of everything from hat bills to fans got on my nerves and made me sea sick.

the plot is really poorly done and the film doesn't seem to go anywhere. the acting is okay with an odd turn by Robert Patrick (the evil terminator in T2) who seems to be slumming big time in this film.

steer clear of this one and instead go to the well done third film called the hangman's daughter. act like this film never exists.

rating:1.5

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Cheesy B-horror fun!

Author: Jesse-45 from Florida
6 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Fun Movie - But Where's The Plot?

6/10
Author: Gislef from Iowa City, IA
6 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Fangoria Geeks: Lighten up!

Author: matthew wilder (picqueur@aol.com) from matthew wilder
29 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

It will leave an impression

1/10
Author: Fredrik Carlsson from Sweden
15 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Regardless if you like it or hate it I'm pretty sure this movie will leave an impression.

This is the kind of movie that leave you befuddled not knowing whether you should laugh or cry.

Horror sequences are predictable yet utterly stupid. There are major gaps in the plot. One of the more obvious being the main plot: Going to Mexico to rob a bank. It's basic movie trivia that you commit a crime and then you go to Mexico to escape the long arm of the law.

The dialog makes clumsy attempts at being clever, Tarantino-ish if you will. Unfortunately it all just falls flat. Tarantino has an odd gift for allowing actors to fluently deliver the dialogue no matter how cliché it might be. This lacks here. Instead just about every sentence spoken sounds contrived and forced.

Action sequences are horrendous. Vampires and cops alike line up in order to die in a gruesome manner. We're talking really lining up. Not in the sense that everybody dies but in the sense that there seems to be a veritable queue. The camera focuses, slightly off-focus on one killing, then moves on the next.

I think this movie is a bit of a hit and miss. I got the sense that they tried to create something and failed miserably. If you watch it, try to think of it as a movie that doesn't try to be anything. That way you at least won't have any expectations of it.

In the end however this movie is probably best remained unseen.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Awful

1/10
Author: kismit from Canada
18 March 2000

This film has essentially nothing in common with the original. Barely a B flick it was done on a shoestring budget.This would not have been fatal as the original was not exactly Waterworld but this script could have been written by a 12 year old, and in about 1 day. Shame on the creators of this dog. Assuming the goal is to make a profit from the film why did they not make any effort with the storyline? If you only have a week to shoot because it is direct to video that doesn't mean you can't find a writer to put some life into it beforehand. Take a look at Evil Dead 2 for an example of quirky low budget material that is still making money.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Horrible

1/10
Author: jakob__haeger from Sweden
19 August 2003

When I saw Quentin Tarantino`s and Robert Rodriguez`s From Dusk Till Dawn I was around 12 years old. And even today I think that that movie is one off the coolest ever made.

But in 1999 I rented From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money, Directed by Scott Spiegel and written by Scott Spiegel and Actor/writer Duane Withaker.

The first film is so cool because the first half is a gangster film, and then it just changes into a vampire film. This sequel also tries to do the same thing. But it fails.

The original had George Clooney, Quentin Tarantino, Danny Trejo, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and Salma Hayek. The most knows actor in this film is Robert Patrick from The X-files. Also the crew is nothing like the original. Tarantino and Rodriguez is Exec. porudcers, but nothing more. The man at the helm is Spiegel most known for....well nothing.

The SFX? THERE IS NO SFX. I mean the blood is so bad in the film, the could just as well used red paint.

The direction is some of the worst I`ve ever seen. The camera angels is so f***ed up. They have placed the camera inside the mouth off a vamp. The script is so bad that I laugh out loud. Some of the dialouge is so bad, it coould be of been written by a ten year old.

I mean really what can you expect from a film where the main cast consists of Robert patrick and Raimond Cruz?

0/5 - Stay away!!!!!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history