From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 165 reviews in total 

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:


Author: slipster-2
5 August 1999

I can not believe that this Scott Spiegel has or ever will make a movie since "Texas Blood Money." Where do I start? First of all it had nothing to do with "From Dusk Till Dawn." It was in no way a sequel, it simply shared a similar setting and subject. The acting was horrid, and the director was trying to be original with camera shots, but it came off as sickening. Inside the mouth of the vampire cam? Come on. I just started laughing. I loved "From Dusk Till Dawn" but "Texas Blood Money" was the worst movie I have ever seen, and that's including Carrot Top movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

From Dusk Till Dawn 2? Is that how long I slept?

Author: Stephen Philpott from Charlotte
14 March 1999

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

It will leave an impression

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?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Horrendously Bad

Author: Foggy-7 from Boston, MA
19 August 1999

While the premise would make for an interesting movie, this gore fest is short on story and long on inanity. The acting is all around wooden, and the blood and guts gratuitous. In the most ridiculous plot point, a solar eclipse allows the vampires to continue attacking after sunup.

Most disappointing was touting Yasmeene Bleeth and Bruce Ashwood as stars of the movie. Both are involved in the first few minutes, as stars in a vampire movie that one of the characters in our vampire movie is watching.

The only redeeming point of the movie was the brief discussion of whether or not adult movies need a storyline. (They do.) Too bad they didn't concentrate on making a convincing storyline for this.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Horrible directing, acting, and FX. Why Quentin, why?

Author: Jeff Okrepkie ( from Tempe, AZ
7 May 1999

This was one of the most horrible movies I have ever seen. I never thought it was possible to over direct, but Scott Spiegel somehow pulls it off. Every shot is made to look like the coolest shot ever done but they are not even close. The shots from inside the vampires mouths' are an incompetent attempt at trying to be cool. The acting was mediocre, but the script sucked (thanks again to Spiegel) and the FX were disastrous. Why Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino associate themselves with this movie is mind boggling. No wonder this movie went strait to video. If you ever want to see an example of what not to do see this movie. And finally what in the wide wide world of sports did the scene with Tiffany Amber-Theissen have to do with any thing? It was pointless and a waste of time. Overall the movie sucked.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:


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?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Horrible Movie

Author: BigGuy from United States
17 April 1999

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Weak Sequel, But Still Fun

Author: gavin6942 from United States
21 February 2016

Luther who wants to get the old gang back together and arranges to meet Buck at the El Coyote in Mexico. Buck starts rounding up the old team which consists of C.W. Niles (Muse Watson), Jesus Draven (Raymond Cruz) and Ray Bob (Brett Harrelson).

Bilge Ebiri of Entertainment Weekly rated it D- and wrote, "Without the genre-bending goofiness and engaging characters of the first Dusk, all that's left is cheap splatter effects and clichéd Western/horror homages." Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club called it "a gigantic waste of everyone's time, money, and energy." Youssef Kdiry of DVD Talk rated the film 4/5 stars and wrote, "I really enjoyed this movie. It was violent, sexy and politically-incorrect." I love the vast difference of opinion. And it is warranted, because on its surface this is not a very good movie. It certainly is nothing compared to the original. But you have to give it credit for keeping everything light and fun, and for the myriad of guest stars from Bruce Campbell to Robert Patrick and beyond. Even Tiffani Theissen? Geez. Much more fun today (2016) looking at this in retrospect.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

the weirdest rating ever...

Author: fluffset from Malaysia
10 February 2016

I don't know why, when I'm done watch this movie, I go to IMDb like usual to give my good rating for this freaking good movie and ended up shock with this rating: 4.0 (10/2/2016) and I wonder why its so low. So I digging up and they said this movie have a bad actor, mindless action and everything. I don't know what to say but I love this movie so much as how much I love the first one. I think it looks really great, with modern western style. All the vampire did a really good job here to scared me to death. Maybe because there is no George Clooney or Salma Hayek that make this movie not really popular. But in 2016, this movie looks so classic and I'm sure will be one of those rare material that's hard to be make by people in this age of 2000s. I dunno what to say but the feel, the atmosphere and the action is so good and was carefully made. If you love the first one you will love this one too. One of the best horror action from 90s. It deserved around 7-8 actually.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Trashy fun

Author: NateWatchesCoolMovies from Canada
11 January 2016

Robert Patrick Week: Day 6

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money is shamelessly grimy B-movie trash. The first Dusk Till Dawn flick is a chaotic horror classic, and this one takes certain ingredients from it and attempts to give it its own hard boiled heist flavour, to a certain degree of success. It's less crazy than the first, less of a horror, and unfortunately not as good a movie. It doesn't deserve the critical beatdown it's got though, and is still a rambunctious bundle of late night cable TV fun. Robert Patrick scruffily portrays Texas career criminal Buck, who gets himself a rag tag posse together to rob a backroad casino and make off with a bunch of loot. Only problem is, Razor Charlie, a straggler from the events of the first film, is hitch hiking along the highway, and turns their world upside down. We never actually see any action take place in the infamous, amusingly named Titty Twister bar, but rather a bunch of shoot em up carnage alongside dusty highways and dingy motel rooms. Hot on Buck's trail is Sheriff Otis Lawson (Bo Hopkins) who aims to bust his crew for good. Buck's crew consists of several welcome character actors including Duane Whitaker, Brett Harrelson, Muse Watson and Raymond Cruz as the grumpiest Cholo in the state. Watch out for neat little cameos from Tiffani Thiessen and Bruce Campbell as well. A healthy helping of gore, some cracking little shootouts help this one to be an albeit inferior sequel that's still enjoyable and commendable for not being a lifeless retread. Fun stuff.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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