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
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 16: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 157 reviews in total 

What the hell where they thinking...

Author: egs from Woodstock
22 March 1999

Okay, I loved the From Dusk Till Dawn, funny as hell, gore, sex, and Tarintino. They should have never made a sequel, I'm scared to see the third one the hang mans daughter. I mean cheap acting, special effects, I mean the script is week as hell, why the hell they even put the Titty Twister in this one I have no clue, I mean, he could have met a vampire at some other bar. The titty twister is a classic place, from the first movie, you don't need to go back, and why the hell the same bartender is there I have no clue. All I can say is if you're in the mood for some Vampires, stick to the first one, at least there's a lot more blood, and the VAMPIRES AREN'T USING GUNS...horrible film, a big Disappointment

Was the above review useful to you?

*1/2 out of ****

Author: clay-8 from texas
20 March 1999

What was up with the music? It was embarassingly "keyboarded". The big problem with this movie is the fact that it didn't take place in an interesting spot. this film has too many characters to keep track of and a dozen continuity mistakes. Take for example the scene where those two guys (don't remember their names) leave the bank and run into the cops outside in the alley. That door was closed a long time ago, yet when they run back to it, it's just now closing. This film was worse than "Vampires". As for the special-effects; they weren't that bad if you ask me. I thought the bats looked real at the beginning. The elevator scene was the best in the movie. Too many ideas used way too many times. A loser of a film.

Was the above review useful to you?

Boring but gory.

Author: Jack withrow from Ontario, Canada
17 March 1999

An excellent waste of good ol' Bruce! Only being given a teaser role in the film was the only real thing making it worth renting. A few chuckles at the dialogue and some gory scenes can't hold this sequel to a not-so-great movie. Oh well. They should have got a few more horror-related actors in this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

This movie is really bad

Author: Jp Hudon from Montreal
8 March 1999

Texas Blood Money just isn't even worth being called a movie. The special effects are cheesy and the film is not as good as the first one (which still wasn't an excellent film). Even if Quentin Tarantino's and Robert Rodriguez's names are on the cover, their influence in making this movie seems to be almost inexistent (some camera shots are interesting..).

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: linkan-3 from utah
6 March 1999

I'm really disappointed. The first FDTD flick was fantastic, and a sequel directed by Scott Spiegel, starring Bruce Campbell - that sounds pretty darn great to me. But boy was I disappointed. I've loved Scott Spiegel since I saw his horror/comedy The Intruder about ten years ago. He's still using lots and lots of POV shots and weird angles. But that's not enough, the story is... well, nothing really.

Was the above review useful to you?

What's the plot of this thing?

Author: Orhan Cevher ( from Istanbul, Turkiye
22 February 1999

I'm a real dusk till dawn fan, since I first watched it on the big screen. And when I learned that there will be one prequel and one sequel, I was very happy. After that, I learned that Bruce Campbell will be in the cast, that also made me happy 'cause I love Bruce. But when I watched the movie this Saturday, I was totally disappointed, I mean, this is the most meaningless, plotless and unnecessary sequel I ever seen. I think Dimension films made a great decision by NOT releasing this crap to the theaters. What's this movie trying to tell anyway? The vampires can easily rob the banks? We know they can kill people easily for sure. And for God's sake, how in the earth that the vampire from the first film (the barman) resurrected after the melting sequence?

And for the last, if you still want to watch this thing, watch it like something else, not the sequel to the Big Smash Hit. I hope the prequel (Hangman's Daughter) will be much much far from this...

Was the above review useful to you?

A horrible sequel that should not bear the name from Dusk to Dawn.

Author: justin-29 from Madison, New Jersey (USA)
27 January 1999

The director of this terrible sequel was trying to hard to be like Robert Rodgriuez. He used too many point of view shots that made the viewer sick (i.e. a POV shot from the inside to the phone wire) the script was that of a cheap HBO movie and looked like it wasn't even filmed on film. They probably used a cheap video camera. The acting was horrible, they only decent acting was by the T-1000 aka Robert Patrick. The main question I had throughout this movie is "Why do Vampires need to rob a bank?" and "Why do Vampires need to use guns?" Horrible movie, not even worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

This is a far cry from the original movie. Poor special affects, script and cast.

Author: Bob Blevins
14 January 1999

If you haven't seen the original, then this would be an average B movie that basically just fills up 1 1/2 hours of your time. Poor storyline, special effects are pretty weak, undesirable actors and as a sequel just plain awful.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

not bad

Author: callanvass
2 December 2003

not bad sequel is nowhere near as good as the original but is a okay timewaster and is lacking in gore but it is mildy entertaining and fairly watchable although has some cool characters it's just barley better then average rent this if you have nothing better to do ** out of 5

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not quite up to the original, but watchable.

Author: capkronos ( from Ohio, USA
9 July 2003

An ex-con (Robert Patrick), a wanted fugitive (Duane Whitaker), a down on his luck rodeo clown (Muse Watson), a dim-wit security guard (Brett Harrelson) and a tattooed Mexican badass (Raymond Cruz) team up in a plot to steal millions in a bank heist south of the border, but have more on their hands than they bargained for. While staying at the "El Coyote" hotel, rabid vampire bats attack some of the characters, turning them into bloodsuckers. By the time they reach the bank, most of the robbers have been transformed and face off against cops, who surround the premise.

It's another over-the-top gorefest (with pacing and tone similar to the original), with a bare minimum of plot, but enough gore, noisy action, pyro FX, stunt work and explosions to make it all tolerable. Spiegel's flashy camera (he started with Sam Raimi) is all over the place for no apparent reason, but some of the overdone (but imaginative) POV shots are pretty cool. It was filmed in South Africa and L.A.

Quentin Tarantino's stamp is evident during a philosophical discussion on porn. He co-wrote the original story with the director and was executive producer (with Robert Rodriguez).

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 16: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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