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 2 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 155 reviews in total 

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What's to say...vampires attack would be thieves.

1/10
Author: Dannie-4 from Beaver, PA
1 February 1999

Terrible. None of the wit, charisma, or surprise of From Dusk Till Dawn. They should be ashamed to use the same name. Not even a good "bad" movie, and I appreciate decent "B" movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Strictly a make-work production...

3/10
Author: MrGKB from Ohio
20 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

...that utterly fails to live up to its quirky progenitor, "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money" is only worth the time spent watching it to vampire geeks, of whom only the most indiscriminate will be pleased, and/or Tarantino/Rodriguez completists, who will remain bemused as to whether or not these renowned auteurs even bothered to read writer/director Scott "Evil Dead 2" Spiegel's script before bankrolling this mess. And I can assure you it's a mess.

From its opening fake-out with Bruce "Evil Dead" Campbell to the final boredom of its closing reel, "FDTD2:TBM" fails to add anything of note to the genre whatsoever. It's only stylistic flourish, if you can even call it that, is camera shots from oddball perspectives, such as the inside of a decomposing vampire skull, none of which add anything to the lackadaisical storyline. I promise you, the less said about this abortion, the better; it practically defines the word "fodder." I'm sure everyone involved had "fun" making this dreck, but I'm equally sure that they all knew they were just taking a paycheck, and I'm also pretty sure none of them are bragging about their participation.

Do yourself a favor, gentle reader, and pass this one by. You won't miss it for even the briefest of seconds.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

THE MOST DISGUSTING SPECTACLE SINCE BEGINNING OF TIME

1/10
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:

The macho cowboys are back.....

1/10
Author: PL-2
13 July 1999

Another bad sequel...what a surprise! The macho cowboys are back !But this time, George Clooney is not there! They are ready to kick some vampire butt to finally take some money in a bank. The first one was great....not the same thing with the second one! I give it ** out of *****

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 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?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Horrendously Bad

1/10
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?

1/10
Author: Jeff Okrepkie (jefe5150@aol.com) 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:

Removed from the context of its predecessor, it ain't a bad b-movie.

5/10
Author: pickman (daiogoro@hotmail.com) from Minneapolis, usa
9 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 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 12 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 2 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [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