|Page 1 of 16:||          |
|Index||155 reviews in total|
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.
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,
it seem as if the director Scott Spiegel is tryin' too hard to make it
his friend Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films, including cameo by Bruce
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
expectations at all, even though From Dusk... being one of my
all-time-favorite. It's actually impressive that Tarantino & Rodriguez
wanted to executive this movie.
Check it out, I'm on my way to rent the 3rd one... Peace Out!
*** 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,
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,
2" eventually makes up for these miscalculations and becomes a
fun direct-to-video quickie. Whatever flaws it possesses are redeemed by
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
nonetheless. It's directed by Scott Spiegel, who co-wrote "Evil Dead 2"
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
When i watched the first FDTD, i thought it was far from a masterpiece but an excellent movie. Then i couldn't wait to watch the sequel. I didn't believe what this site was saying about this gruesome sequel so i bought it for 13 dollars. I couldn't rent it because they didn't have it, probably because it was so terrible! The special effects are laughable and the acting is worse. Scott Spiegel has no idea of how to direct movies and his camera angles? What is up with that. All in all don't waste any money on this movie... It is TErrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on a 1 to 10 scale i would give it a -500. Don't watch this and don't be like me and but it.
The original was a pretty "bad" movie, but it had a style that made it worth watching. This sequel was junk, plain and simple. Annoying camera angles (inside the vampire's mouth cam, inside the skull cam, etc). The sad thing is that Bruce Campbell and Tiffany Amber-Thiessen were listed top on the list of actors and showed up for a total of 5 minutes! Save your money and don't rent this movie.
A friend of mine got me a copy of this movie and I must say I was psyched.
Bad idea. The second I put it in, I saw what looked to me like a made for
TV movie. Then a smile returned to my face when I saw Bruce Campbell. Once
again the smile left my face when Tiffany Amber Thiessan begins screaming as
Bruce gets his head bit off by obvious rubber bats.
Bored yet? I was. For a movie that had so much potential it lost it. The movie was loaded with horrible special effects, bad directing, a medium which looked like Digital made for TV, and bad acting on everbody's part. Was the director trying to spoof eighties camp horror flicks or is he really that stupid when it comes to scaring people?
There was only one pleasing thing about the movie and that was a great line said by Robert Patrick.
In short - if you just want to see Robert Patrick or Bruce Campbell, rent it. Actually, if you're a movie buff and you like to analyze all movies, see it. But if you are the average fair weather film goer - stay away.
|Page 1 of 16:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|