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 11 of 17: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 165 reviews in total 

*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:

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 2 people found the following review useful:

Damn Good B-Movie!

Author: George Mountzouris from Australia
22 September 2013

Don't listen to all the negativity, this film is not nearly as bad as it is said to be. I did not expect big things from this film, but I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it is actually quite good!

I am a big fan of the original 'From Dusk Till Dawn', which is a great film, so I was interested in seeing what the sequel would be like. The director, Scott Spiegel, experimented greatly with some unorthodox shots and cool cinematography. It definitely sets the tone for the film. The acting is decent, especially from Robert Patrick, who I liked in this movie. I thought he was good as the main character. There is also some good acting in parts by Duane Whitaker, who did a good job as the 'leader', Muse Watson, and Bo Hopkins, who I liked as the Sheriff. The premise of the film is simple, and yet it's thanks to fun performances by some of the cast, and the work of Scott Spiegel, that the film works as a pretty cool art film. I appreciate the experimental work of Spiegel, for the trickery he shows with the camera. The music is pretty good too, although not on the level of the original's soundtrack.

In my opinion, this film suffers from two things: the fact that it doesn't know what type of movie it is half the time, and some sub par acting by some of the cast (not mentioned above). The film at times feels like it's making fun of itself too much, and although it's a good thing that the film isn't taking itself seriously, I feel that the crew got a bit too carried away in some scenes. Some more seriousness in tone in some scenes, and less camp would have benefited the film as a whole.

Overall, this is a good film, for a B-Grade sequel. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It's a lot of fun, and if you're in the mood for a good vampire flick, and especially if you're a fan of the original and feel a need to return to the FDTD universe, it's definitely worth a look. I was under the impression that fans of the original are disappointed by this movie, but I do not agree with that at all. Fans will be pleased with this effort, if you don't go into it expecting a product as good as the original. This film was never going to be of the same quality as the first, but this should not stop you from appreciating it for what it is.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Is It Really THAT Bad? Oh Yes, it is!

Author: Seth Landers from California, United States
28 July 2013

This movie was disappointing, predictable, and misleading. Before I begin reviewing this, I just want to inform you that I'm a big fan of the first movie and that I had moderately neutral expectations on the second one. In order to describe how poorly pathetic this sequel is, allow me to organize my thoughts, by numbering sections with a conclusion, without spoiling anything.

1) The Script. My god, did the writers finish writing their material in a week and then start shooting the film on a first draft document? I felt that the idea was rushed and the script itself was undeveloped. They should have just left the first one alone.

2) Deceptive Advertising. Tiffani-Amber Thiessen, Bruce Campbell, and Danny Trejo make very short cameos. Please don't allow this movie to fool you into thinking they are the main stars. Also, the Titty Twister is only shown ONCE and for no more than five minutes, even though they marketed to make you think that it's the majority of their locations.

3) Repetitive Shots. Every once in awhile, you'll see these redundant yet irritating POV-like camera angles that weren't even unnecessary, but the stupid Mr. Spiegel really thought that they should be done. I don't know if his vision was trying to be original or artistic, but it just doesn't work.

4) Disloyalty to the Original. This movie is loaded with gratuitous violence with no logic or purpose. Were Tarantino and Rodriguez wasted when the writers pitched them the idea? The two probably weren't on set and made money just by having the filmmakers use their title. I mean, damn, there are sequels and then there are crappy, effortless sequels such as this one.

Bottom line, this movie stinks and has no redeeming qualities. The story was not properly written, the characters are hollow, and it is nothing compared to the original! Avoid this movie, unless you're curious about how things went downhill or you wish to waste 80 minutes of your precious life.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 17: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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