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 3 of 16: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 157 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"This movie is very low quality."

2/10
Author: DigitalRevenantX7 from Australia
20 June 2008

"This movie is very low quality." I wasn't much of a fan of the original "From Dusk Till Dawn". Despite the involvement of some very talented people, the result was a combination of two films that did not fit together. The first half was a clichéd getaway flick, the second is nothing more than an extended barroom fight scene that does nothing for the vampire genre. As for "Texas Blood Money", I was even more disappointed.

"Are you trying to cornhole me? Get back!" While the story is a lot better than that of the original, what kills the film is the direction. Scott Spiegel shoves in a whole heap of really silly camera angles. We get shots from inside tequila bottles, pools of blood, the point-of-view of a man doing push-ups, inside skulls, even from a sliced open neck. These shots are not only silly, they are very distracting. And there's a lot of them, more than 70 of them to be precise.

"What in the hell are vampires doing robbing a bank?" Besides the weird shots, the script is poorly written. Characters become vampires within seconds of being bitten. There are a couple of really dumb scenes, the first being the two lawyers being attacked by bats, (I cannot believe that bats can cut through an elevator cable in seconds) & one where the bank robbers talk about porn flicks, which fails miserably. Then there's the cross thing… "I just dropped in for a quick bite." The really stupid thing about this film isn't the crappy script or the cheesy effects, it's the vampires themselves, specifically the way they react to anything even vaguely cross-shaped. While it is not as bad as the shotgun-baseball bat crucifix in the first film, TBM throws up several crappy crosses: the handle on the vault, a pair of sticks & the red cross painted on the back of an ambulance. It is things like this that ruin what could have been a decent horror film. Saying that, the showdown at the end makes for pretty good carnage.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

No one should ever mess with a Tarantino flick like they did here.

2/10
Author: (thezombieking15@yahoo.com) from United States
7 August 2007

After seeing From Dusk Till Dawn, I had to see the sequel. Praying that it was as good as the original, I was poorly disappointed. This film stands alone from the first in the worst way possible. The bar from the original is now rebuilt, and looks completely different, and it's only shown for maybe a minute. Some scenes, involving some vampires (in the forms of bats) were the worst i've ever seen in a film. The amazing blend of story and amazing action from the first FDTD is completely absent here. The characters here are completely 2-dimensional, and all they do is try to swear in clever ways, which is more disturbing than fun. The only really enjoyable part of this entire movie was seeing Bruce Campbell in a funny little scene near the beginning. Watching this movie may actually RUIN the way you think about the original. Stay away unless you haven't seen the first, and still, it might be a massive waste of your time. Head to the 3rd From Dusk Till Dawn instead. it's actually fun.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Crappy Sequel To A Great Film

3/10
Author: Bensch from Salzburg, Austria
7 February 2007

Scott Spiegel's "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money" of 1999 is the rather crappy, but bearable attempt of a sequel to the great "From Dusk Till Dawn" of 1996 directed by Robert Rodriguez and written by Quentin Tarantino. "Texas Blood Money" has hardly any of the great aspects the original has. The movie is pretty poorly written and directed and while Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" had an excellent cast, most of the acting in this movie is pretty forgettable. Danny Trejo, who also was in the original and who always fits into his role perfectly is an exception, of course. Furthermore it was cool to see Duane Whitaker (who played the crazy hillbilly pawn shop owner Maynard in Pulp Fiction) in a bigger role.

Four criminals, cool Buck (Robert Patrick), latino thug Jesus (Raymond Cruz), redneckish Texan C.W. (Muse Watson) and nerdy Ray Bob (Brett Harrellson) go to Mexico where they are to meet their fellow gangster Luther (Duane Whitaker) in order to rob a bank. On his way, however, Luthor runs across some of the bloodthirsty staff of the infamous Titty Twister bar.

Unlike the original "From Dusk Till Dawn", in which the whole vampire part began in the second half of the movie, "Texas Blood Money" has vampires turning up quite from the beginning. Hardly does it build up any suspense, and most of the gags are foreseeable and unfunny. The movie is miserably written, and the directing is not much better than the script. Some of the performances are OK, but most of them are pretty low-key. T-1000 Robert Patrick delivers an acceptable performance in the lead, some other performances are terrible, although I don't know if that can be blamed on the actors, or if it is just the poor dialogue. The 'Titty Twister' bar has hardly any resemblance to the 'Titty Twister' from the original, while the bar in the original had a great, hellish style, the bar in this movie just looks like a below average cheapo strip joint. Some of the cool things about the movie, were the (very small) part of Mr. Evil Dead, Bruce Campbell in the beginning, Danny Trejo and one pretty hot Latina chick (I guess it was Maria Checa). Furthermore, the movie doesn't scant with blood and gore, and the constant violence and splatter make it a bit entertaining, at least.

"Texas Blood Money" is a rather crappy and cheap flick and certainly no worthy sequel to a movie as great and funny as "From Dusk Till Dawn" was. It not a movie that has to be avoided at all costs, however, and since it is quite gory in some parts it can be enjoyable if you have enough beer watching it. Otherwise, never mind. 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Terrible Film Don't Bother

2/10
Author: Daniel Taylor from Nottingham England
14 June 2002

A sequel that boasts none of the wit, originality or quality performances of the original. Don't watch this ever even if you're bored or want to see it out of curiosity.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Where From dusk till Dawn 1 succeeds, from dusk till dawn 2 fails

2/10
Author: Jeroen Smeets from Utrecht, Netherlands
18 September 2001

From dusk till Dawn is a great movie, and with this sequel I thought it would be at least good as well. But the movie wasn't even close.

Where in part 1 the switch in genre from action to horror is successfully made, there isn't any switch at all in part 2!

Part 2 is to me a very bad horror movie. It's nothing compared to part 1.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Laughable

2/10
Author: Roberto Rodriguez Romero (rarr007@yahoo.com) from San Salvador, El Salvador
29 December 1999

Whenever you want to WASTE your money and 90 minutes of your life, go watch this piece of "comedy". If you expected to see anything better or at least interesting after the "From Dusk 'till Dawn (1)" you're WAY wrong!!! Some criminals come out with a plan to steal money from a mexican bank, however, their leader is attacked by a couple of blood suckers, and he begins to spread the "disease" among his companions, without forgetting the idea of stealing the dollars from this bank. Now, why would a vampire need cash? Besides, the special effects are far from acceptable. If you rent this movie, please watch it with some friends, you'll have tons of fun criticizing this so called "movie".

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

one word...... terrible

3/10
Author: Shu-5 from Brookings, SD
18 October 1999

This movie was horrible. I couldn't believe how bad it was. I was expecting a great sequel to a great movie. But, I didn't get that. All I got was a terrible sequel with terrible acting, and terrible directing. Now don't get me wrong, I loved From Dusk till Dawn. In fact it's my favorite movie. But this can't even be compared to the first. It shouldn't even be associated with the first. Granted it didn't have the superb directing of Tarantino and Rodriguez, or the acting of Clooney, Tarantino, and Kietel. Bruce Campbell and Tiffani-Amber Thiessen were the only thing that made me keep watching. But they appeared for what, a whole five minutes. In fact I can't believe that Tarantino or Rodriguez had anything to do with this movie. Scott Spiegel, who is that?. Sorry Scott, your movie was TERRIBLE.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

How can you screw up a Quentin movie?

5/10
Author: MovieInYourFace from Minnesota, USA
3 April 1999

I love you Quentin, but what were you thinking with this low-budget movie? You wrote the thing, you should have pitched in to make this movie more... digestable. Mr. Scott Speigel... what were you thinking with all of the corny camera angles. The overuse of the objectives made me look away from my TV. I guess the only positive aspect of the movie was the two minutes of Bruce Campbell in the intro.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The vampire thieves

3/10
Author: mario_c from Porto, Portugal
15 April 2008

What a disappointment! This film really doesn't honour its title or the original movie where it's based. The main topic of the plot is similar to the original, but all the rest is terribly different, on a bad way! The first 45 minutes are not so bad, but after the point where LUTHER (one of the robbers) becomes a vampire it really goes down! The plot ends right there, because it turns just into a "killing vampire festival" with awful special effects and no great interest, at least for me! But worse than the low quality special effects was that cheap imitation of PSYCHO's bathtub killing scene! Yes, the famous scene of PSYCHO is imitated but this time the killer is a bat! Ridiculous!

The links to the original film are very small and insignificant. The major one is when LUTHER goes to the "Titty Twister" Bar and becomes a vampire, but even that one was terribly short and spoiled.

Besides, there're some humoured wannabe lines that just end being very stupid, like that one near the end: " – Tell me something Buck. What the hell were vampires doing robbing a bank? – You got me! I suppose vampires need money, just like anybody else!". Of course I was wondering myself why they still want robbing the bank after they become vampires (LUTHER and Jesus). I found it a bit absurd, they still want the money; but that "explanation", even trying to be humorous, is really ridiculous and unnecessary!

Overall, I was expecting something much better! I have to say it has a nice soundtrack though, especially in the first 45 minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Nothing like the first, but very watchable!

6/10
Author: Brian T. Whitlock (GOWBTW) from WILMINGTON, NC
16 January 2006

Though Quentin Tarantino's character was killed in the first movie doesn't mean he couldn't do a second. This movie was a bit of surprise to me at first. The first thing was a horde of bats attacking some lawyers(Tiffany Amber-Thiessen and Bruce Campbell,"Evil Dead" movies) that scene turns out to be a movie without a title. There you have five bank robbers consisting of a wanted man(Duane Whittaker), an ex-con(Robert Patrick), a nit-wit security guard(Brett Harrelson, Woody's brother), and rodeo clown(Muse Watson), and a mucho loco hombre(Raymond Cruz). The crazy quints make their way in a classic Lincoln Continental and head South of the Border. Of course the wanted man happened to run into trouble, of the fanged kind. The infamous road stop of the first movie is back, and it appeared it got a new crew out there. The same guy from the first movie Eddie(Danny Trejo), is back. And this time his fellow buddy, gets Luther(Whittaker) and he turns all but Buck(Patrick) into vampires. Buck may have his limits but being undead, isn't his cup of tea. What does he do? He joins the Texas Sheriff Lawson(Bo Hopkins) into the battle of the undead. Even the vampire quad got the power of the undead, it appear greed corrupted Jesus(Cruz) more than anyone. The robbery was made, but Buck ended up with the loot, so one question comes to mind, Who's going to help spend the loot? His buddies are dead, and Buck isn't worried about anything, FOR NOW! Very watchable, and it'll take some time to get it in. Rating 2 out of 5 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 16: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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