From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (Video 1999) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
162 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Not nearly as bad as people say it is
Deviant-79 June 1999
After hearing countless people tell me how crappy this movie is, and after reading tons of reviews that make it sound totally unbearable, I decided to watch it myself. You know what? They are all wrong. Most of the movie is at LEAST average direct-to-video work. Of course it isn't as good as the original, but this movie was just as gory, more action-packed, and had some very funny moments (they watched Mexican porno for a VERY long time in that motel room). I was not disappointed watching this movie, because I didn't take it seriously. I suggest you relax and give it a try, you'll laugh at how funny they tried to make this a good movie.
42 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
OK B-Movie, terrible plot...
swacs29 August 2000
Making a sequel to the original From Dusk Till Dawn seems impossible, and this joint shouldn't be seen as a sequel. The only things featured in the original is a few actors and nothing else. Anyways, the movie has many funny B-movie shots, overdone one would say, and it seem as if the director Scott Spiegel is tryin' too hard to make it like his friend Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films, including cameo by Bruce Campbell. The acting is pretty bad, the plot is even worse, but still there's some quite good ideas. But it's only a made-for-video film, so I didn't have any expectations at all, even though From Dusk... being one of my all-time-favorite. It's actually impressive that Tarantino & Rodriguez even wanted to executive this movie.

Check it out, I'm on my way to rent the 3rd one... Peace Out!
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheesy B-horror fun!
Jesse-456 April 2000
OK. This is probably my guiltiest pleasure ever! The acting is extremely awful, and the movie is filled with immature draggings of the originals material. But still I like this movie. A cinescape reviewer wrote that some horror fans desperate for something new in the genre, may forgive the film for its problems. I think I'm probably one of those horror fans.

Its more entertaining than a lot of recent theatrical releases. I think the gore is great, and the Evil Dead qualities: Sam Raimi-ish camera angles (overdone), demon-like vampire deaths make this movie even more entertaining. I think its really a great cheeseball B-horror movie.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For a DTV, it's PDF!
Robin-975 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I obviously didn't have high hopes for "From Dusk Till Dawn 2" after its opening reel. Like the infamous "Congo", it makes the grave mistake of killing off the multi-talented Bruce Campbell in the first five minutes, and also does the same thing to Tiffani-Amber Thiessen, despite the fact that all the ads for the movie had mislead one into believing that she has a sizable role in it. The fact that their death scene has absolutely NOTHING to do with the main storyline doesn't help much either, but amazingly, "FDTD 2" eventually makes up for these miscalculations and becomes a surprisingly fun direct-to-video quickie. Whatever flaws it possesses are redeemed by the enthusiasm of the cast and the filmmakers, who probably realized that they were making an inconsequential film, but seemed to have had a ball doing so nonetheless. It's directed by Scott Spiegel, who co-wrote "Evil Dead 2" and has been a long-time associate of Sam Raimi's, and he gets help on the script from Duane Whitaker, who has a major role in the film and is probably best known for playing the bizarre pawn shop owner, Maynard, in "Pulp Fiction". The two of them may not have the same polish as a Quentin Tarantino-Robert Rodriguez combination, but they both have an obvious love for the genre and at the occasional moment in the film, some fresh new ideas to add to it.

The original "From Dusk Till Dawn" was one of the most enjoyable genre efforts of the 90s, which unfortunately, received a lot of criticism from non-horror fans who thought that Tarantino's screenplay started off as a potentially interesting drama that sold out midway through, opting instead to become a over-the-top gorefest in the second half. Of course, most genre aficionados found those horror elements so entertaining that they didn't care at all about the detour in Tarantino's script. Of course, "FDTD 2" doesn't near measure up to its predecessor, but if there's one thing that it does to improve upon it, it's that it doesn't even try to pretend that it has the potential to be anything else, and just presents itself as a good ol' horror outing, mixed in with a fairly standard heist story. It also helps, however, that the characters are more sharply written and the dialogue is more witty than you'd expect for a flick of this kind. The fine B-movie cast somehow makes you care in spite of yourself, and by the time the movie reached its climactic bloodbath at the bank, I was surprised by how much I was into the film. But when all is said and done, what really matters is if the horror elements deliver, and Spiegel does just that, providing some very inventive death scenes and some show-off Raimi-esque camera work (including a neat point-of-view shot of a key going into a keyhole). Sure, the gore and the F/X aren't exactly up to the "Saving Private Ryan" level of realism, but it's not like they were that great in the original either. It's not the slickness of the production, but the enthusiasm and spirit of it all that matters. And since "From Dusk Till Dawn 2" has that kind of spirit and delivers what it promises, it comes across as a direct-to-video production that's pretty-damn-fun!
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun Movie - But Where's The Plot?
Gislef6 March 2000
I only caught the "edited" version on Sci-Fi Channel, but must admit that I found this to be a mildly entertaining film. It takes a basic ideas (vampires robbing a bank) and goes with it and runs.

The problem is that that's really all there is, and there's not much running track. Like the original, it tries to stay "reality" grounded as a caper flick, but given this is a shorter movie, this goes on _way_ too long before you actually get to vampires.

Once we get the first guy bit by a vampire, it moves along to "vampires rob a bank" and "vampires shoot it out with police." But...that's really about it. The writers seemed to have run out of ideas, and so we just get interminable variations on these two basic ideas. There is no real climax - the vampire bad guys are subsequently interchangeable, and the only really competent one (Jesus) gets killed before the formerly-dimwitted one. The ending is just one big shootout, prolonged by a convenient solar eclipse. Which is another pointless plot point - if you want vampires to be in the darkness, just keep them in darkness and have the sun come up normally. Adding the solar eclipse does nothing here. It's stuff like this which suggests the writers didn't know quite what they were doing.

As for the Raimi-esque POV shots, a little goes a long way - something that Scott Spiegel should have learned from the master. It's kinda fun the first twenty times, but after that...

Overall, I'd recommend it if you can catch it on the cheap. It's no classic, but it's mildly amusing.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Removed from the context of its predecessor, it ain't a bad b-movie.
pickman9 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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fangoria Geeks: Lighten up!
matt-20129 May 1999
It goes the genre-blending of the original one better: it melds the heist movie, the vampire movie, and the good-ole-boy movie. The co-writer Duane Whitaker, who has made a number of witty and flavorfully scripted independent movies, is probably responsible for the Texas atmosphere, and the idiosyncracy of the gang of redneck layabouts who make up the cast. Despite the stripped-down special effects, you might feel grateful to the movie for being the first B picture in eons to feature actual characters. Robert Patrick is superb as the hero--who, in the fashion of the first film, seems convincingly about to be revealed as a hotheaded sociopath, then veers in a very different direction. Muse Watson as the safecracker C.W. and Bo Svenson, now ripened in late middle aged, is marvellous as the skeptical sheriff--he could play doubles with L.Q. Jones. The movie isn't much, but it has actors, characters and dialogue--three things that are by now extinct on the direct-to-video shelf.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It will leave an impression
Fredrik Carlsson15 April 2007
Warning: 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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you liked the first movie... Avoid this piece of crap
CoZMaCHiNE21 July 2002
I really liked the first movie. It was cool, it was violent and the twist was really fun and unexpected. This movie is nothing like it. Fact is that this movie just stinks. Please do me a favor, if you're thinking of renting this movie, think again. The very uncool camera angles and quotes like "Come here you sexy bitch" just makes you think that the movie is made by some sort of primate with the brain the size of a peanut.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrible Film Don't Bother
Daniel Taylor14 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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Where From dusk till Dawn 1 succeeds, from dusk till dawn 2 fails
Daewonnepon18 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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
kismit18 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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrible Movie
BigGuy17 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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No one should ever mess with a Tarantino flick like they did here.
thezombieking157 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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
pkcoombs15 June 2004
When i watched the first FDTD, i thought it was far from a masterpiece but an excellent movie. Then i couldn't wait to watch the sequel. I didn't believe what this site was saying about this gruesome sequel so i bought it for 13 dollars. I couldn't rent it because they didn't have it, probably because it was so terrible! The special effects are laughable and the acting is worse. Scott Spiegel has no idea of how to direct movies and his camera angles? What is up with that. All in all don't waste any money on this movie... It is TErrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on a 1 to 10 scale i would give it a -500. Don't watch this and don't be like me and but it.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
From Dusk Till Dawn 2? Is that how long I slept?
spareribs14 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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What's to say...vampires attack would be thieves.
Dannie-41 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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Strictly a make-work production...
MrGKB20 February 2008
Warning: 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.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrendously Bad
Foggy-719 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.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrible directing, acting, and FX. Why Quentin, why?
jefe51507 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.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
jakob__haeger19 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!!!!!!!!
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The best of the three to me...but many will disagree
edhuds0n18 October 2002
In reading some of the other comments, I know that my opinion is the direct opposite of theirs. Nevertheless, I found the first and third installments TOO over-the-top with the gore, sex, and profanity. While the 2nd one contains a fair compliment of these elements, this film bothered to interrupt the stream of vampire bites and exploding heads every now and again with some jokes and dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love a good vampire movie, but can I sit down with my wife and 14-year-old daughter to watch the first and third one???

I was not surprised that many thought the first version was a "masterpiece". After all, the first and third came complete with NONSTOP explosions, lap dances, topless lady vampires, gunfights, fistfights, and let's not forget the post-rape crime scene that came near the beginning of the original.

Texas Blood Money is much funnier than the original, but managed to have some cool action shots as well. In other words, you won't be bored unless you need twisting t*ts to keep you awake.

Hey, married guys that share your viewing privileges with your family. Go to the discount video store and sacrifice $1 and 90 minutes. You will see what I mean. It is worth a look.

6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews