|Page 5 of 17:||              |
|Index||166 reviews in total|
I am a really big fan of the first part of "From Dusk Till Dawn". Today I
bought the english version of part 2. I thought: "Yeah, part one is great,
"Texas Blood Money" will surely be cool too. I has to be good, cause it
costs about 30-40 US-Dollars." But it wasn't. The story is absolutely weak,
the actors too and the special effects are one of the worst I've ever
seen!!! They only run/drive around and kill all people they can in such a
cruel way I have never seen!
What did Quentin Tarantino do? The first part is such an excellent, great, fantastic movie but the sequel is so bad. Why. Does he only want some more money, cause of the first success?? I am totally disappointed. But I think I will buy part 3 too. Some people said it's nearly as good as part 1. I hope so...
As you can tell by the summary line, I'm no big fan of the Tarantino
scripted original, but it shines in the face of this effort. This second
sequel, made back to back with the third, attempts to cash in on the
profitability of the original movie. In a nutshell, this movie stinks!
Really badly. No care or continuity has been taken in the writing. The
endless use of pointless P.O.V. shots really grate the viewer (although,
sure the crew had a much worse time having to waste their efforts on such
shots as an elevator button P.O.V., etc.) The effects are abysmal.
But you've probably already seen this movie. You know how bad it is. What I'd like to know is how can we convince the industry not to waste their money on poop like this?
Admittedly From Dusk Till Dawn was a hard act to follow. There are few
horror fans who would disagree that it is a very good movie. However, that
is no excuse for the 90 minutes of my life that were savagely taken from me.
Forced to watch a film which lacked any forms of good dialogue, story-line
or directorial skills.
To begin with the overuse of point of view shots becomes absurd too quickly;
dog POV, push-up POV, telephone cable POV, fan POV, behind bats teeth POV.
At first it's amusing as if it were a spoof. But soon you find yourself
reaching for the eject button.
If you do last any longer you'll find totally unexplained plot details, such
as, why the hell are vampires robbing a bank with humans? And how does Danny
Trejo suddenly turn up towards the end of the film after being slaughtered
in the first reel.
Despite the talent on offer here, everything you could think of is a let
down and an example of how to not win any support from the audience. I think
the key to this failure is the abysmal writing and directing from Scott
Spiegel. Let's campaign for this guy to stop. If he hasn't already.
Dusk till Dawn was a fairly competent film full of everything you need in a good action flick including a bizzare twist i.e. all the locals in the bar are vampires.Dusk till dawn 2:Texas blood money though was a whole different kettle of fish.It is a poorly thought out ploy to cash in on a successful movie.Don't get me wrong i'm a huge fan of bad films and commend them if they are in any way inventive or resourcefull,this wasn't.Texas blood money also made use of annoying camera shots it persevered with every point of view shot possible.We had the shot from the pov of a man doing press-ups,we had the shot through the red eyes of a bat and to top it off the pov from a fan moving left to right.Overall it is a highly frustrating film that should never have been made,their certainly shouldn't have been a third installment.Never see this if you haven't,and if you have i feel for you and hope the counciling is going well.
I was thrilled to discover this movie was out,overjoyed to see that the hot-looking Ms. Thiessen would be stepping into Salma Hayek's shoes [or bra as the case maybe] and completely disappointed when she didn't appear in the rest of the picture. This horrible mess of a movie I guess is supposed to be showing events that happened the same night or the week before the last movie.Bank robbers become vampires then decimate the entire city police force in one night.This movie didn't have the flair of the first movie,but sure overused the point-of-perspective view of the camera.
What were they thinking? This movie was awful! The first one was an A+ and this one was an F- in my opinion. The third movie looks way better than this movie. It was poorly made. It didn't have hardly anything to do with the first movie and at least the third movie talks about Salma's character and Danny's character. Take it from me, don't waste your money on this crap, Save it for "From Dusk Til Dawn 3," then you will get your money's worth.
From Dusk Till Dawn is a hell of a movie, but this sequel is "the awful
movie of this year!" If you have a chance to do something else than
this film, then -believe me- do it, cause that's better for
This movie can be summed up in the words of my favorite cartoon character, Bart Simpson: " I don't know if it is physically possible, but this show both blows and sucks at the same time."
This is a terrible sequel to a very cool film. There isn't much good to say about this film, the casting isn't that well done, the writing doesn't have the Tarantino-type flare that might be expected. I do believe there is one reason to watch this film however, check out the point of view shots that Scott Spiegel uses while filming this film. I have never seen point of view shots like this ever in a film. Only redeemable quality for me.
One of the worst sequels I've ever seen. I loved the original FDTD and was thrilled at the idea of a sequel, but this movie was pathetic.
|Page 5 of 17:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|