|Page 3 of 16:||            |
|Index||154 reviews in total|
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.
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.
"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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
|Page 3 of 16:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|