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
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 16: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 158 reviews in total 

Oh dear..A sequel that goes from awful to even worse..

Author: Aidan McGuinness from Dublin, Ireland
4 March 2002

I enjoyed "From Dusk Till Dawn" but noted with fear that this movie had only a 3.3/10 rating on IMDB. Was this mark justified? After seeing the movie I can safely so "No". Why? 3.3 is too high.

What's wrong with this movie? Everything. Firstly there's a complete lack of a plot - Buck (Robert "Doggett of the X-Files" Patrick) rounds up a gang of old-cons to do a robbery with his old friend. "Ocean's 11" this ain't. The characters he rounds up are all uniformly dull, stereotyped and uninteresting. So are their acting abilities - Patrick does nothing memorable here. The only decent actor is Bruce Campbell (who presumably is here as a courtesy to Spiegel who directed him in "Evil Dead II") and he's killed off in two minutes in an utterly pointless opening sequence.

A word about the direction. Argh. What the heck is Spiegel doing? It's painful. It's obvious he's an amateur because he keeps trying to be inventive - mounting a camera "inside" a mouth, on a safe dial, on a fan that's about to chop someone up, etc. Instead of being effective, and cutting, they're just painful to watch. And as for the "action" sequences... Spiegel's lazy writing and direction (and his desperately weak attempt to pay homage to "The Birds") makes for the most boring action movie I've seen in ages. Characters spend half-an-hour being killed off, by which time your interest level has died with them.

The movie tries to be a bit camp, tongue-in-cheek, such as their discussion on porno characters having no depth being a - possible - nod to their own lack of it. But that doesn't excuse the fact it's just crap. The film was banned in Ireland due to it's excessive gore content. I don't agree with censorship on principle but when you're faced with this boring, derivative, unimaginative muck it's possibly no bad thing... 1/10 (the one being because Spiegel at least tried - and failed - to do something with a camera). Avoid!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Not nearly as good as the first one!

Author: Jol ( from Nicosia, Cyprus
30 July 2001

This film is still good although it is no way as good as the first film. I think Whitaker had some good ideas although I think the lack of money to make the movie might have taken the "bite" out of the film.

The film is roughly about some slick, mean bank robbers that rob a bank and confront some Mexican police in the process. Trouble is....two of the bank robbers are vampires leading to a grand, and shall I say, bloody finale.

The special effects are below par but still gruesome and all in all I would say that this film is worth watching once.....and thats it!

By the way, what the hell is the T-1000 doing in this film?????

Was the above review useful to you?

Bad characters with bad dialogue are the downfall...

Author: Aphex97 from Nether Realm
14 April 2001

What made From Dusk Til Dawn a great movie? George Clooney as the ultimate badass! Tarantino acting perfectly as the crazed psycho! Harvey Keitel as the insightful protector! Great actors expertly casted with excellent dialogue made From Dusk til Dawn a great movie!!! Clooney and company's characters were very cool and very interesting...

So whats interesting about a bunch of losers hicks from Texas? Nothing.

Where's the plot? There isn't one...This is simply a vehicle for more vampire gore (which in my opinion wasn't the best part of the first movie anyway).

Why is the best actor (Bruce Campbell of "Evil Dead" fame) killed off in the opening sequence? For that matter...What, exactly, is the point of that opening sequence?

This movie has some cool moments. The big showdown between the cops and the bank robber vampires is pretty cool. Robert Patrick is pretty cool throughout, and the cinematography is interesting at times, but these good moments are heavily overshadowed by the complete lack of plot, horrible dialogue, and generally unlikeable characters. Not a complete waste of time but close...

My rating: 4/10 mediocre with serious flaws

Was the above review useful to you?

What Did You Expect?

Author: kbarnes-3 from Buffalo NY
8 April 2001

For what it was, a sequel to an offbeat genre mixing gore-fest, "Texas Blood Money" served its purpose. Keep the action going and mix in a few tasteless jokes and you have a modern day, straight to video, exploitation flick. I suppose what made me laugh more than the inept fx and semi-amusing dialogue is the fact that people would rent this thinking it was going to be anything close to the original. Robert Patrick? C'mon, follow the clues people. Yes I enjoyed it. No, I didn't expect much. Yes I will be renting "From Dusk Till Dawn 3."

Was the above review useful to you?

poor film

Author: mc_newyork
3 March 2001

a good cast but the film lacks the imagination of the first film. One of those sequels that are just made for the sake of it without any thought going into it. a gory film with lots of vampires and killing but with no good story basically a bank robbery with vampires.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: captbruce from USA
13 November 2000

I rented all 3 "From Dusk Til Dawn" movies to get the overall story. I had, of course, seen the original and wanted to get into the sequels since I'd heard about them being made, but that's the last I'd heard about them. Well, my review of #3, "The Hangman's Daughter" can be found with that movie, and as for this...a TOTAL waste of film. TOTAL waste of actors who seem talented (although I've only seen Robert Patrick's and Cruz's other work really)but are stuck in this horrible movie. It's so bad I won't even get into the plot, but let's just say it happens some time after the first one, has a very weak tie to the first one (Micheal Parks' character's son), and is just bad from conception to execution. It looks as though it was made just to capitalize off the success of the first and was put together in a jumbled, hurried mess, something I would hope two great filmmakers like Rodriguez and Tarantino would be above and not shove shotty material down our throat...BUT THEY DID.

The only thing I can say good about this movie is the special and CG effects. But the first-person camera the director, Spiegel, utilizes WAY too much and it's annoying as hell anyway? Useless. If they thought of the concept for "Hangman's Daughter" first, they should've stopped there. If they thought of this first, I'm glad they got the bugs out here to make "Daughter" a far superior movie. Avoid this monstrosity at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

My hate for this stupid flick.

Author: sedatemeplease from IL
1 November 2000

You know, some movies are just a waste of film. This was one of them. Let me list why this movie was pure c**p: 1. Crappy plot. I'll just leave it at that. 2. The killing of it's two biggest stars, Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead) and Tiffani Amber-Theisen (Beverly Hills, 90210). 3. With the exception Robert Patrick (who is only exemped because of his roles in "The Faculty" and "Terminator II: Judgement Day"), everyone in this movie blew. 4. Stupid, stupid dialouge. ("I just dropped in for a quick bite" and "She sucked me dry"? Oh, please.) 5. Horrible special effects and make-up. A total disappoinment after FDTD number one. The list could go on and on, but I only have so many characters in my review. So, please please please please, for your own sake, don't waste your time and/or money with this total peice of monkey c**p. It's just not worth it.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: Kel from PA
29 June 2000

The first one was so mush better than this. This movie had nothing at all to do with the original. It is a good thing George Clooney wasn't in this movie otherwise he would look really stupid. This is just a dumb movie. Don't rent it unless you completely want to waste your money. 1/10 Rated R for violence, sexuality and language. Nothing Recommended

Was the above review useful to you?

What is it with made for video movies?

Author: newsteadadam from Keene, NH
29 April 2000

Sometimes I just wonder why they even bother. This direct to video sequel to the excellent movie From Dusk Till Dawn has bad special effects, bad acting, and a bad story line. The only thing that links this movie to the original is the Bar. Stay away from this baby. Its not worth a dollar.

Was the above review useful to you?

The opening and the end credits are the best parts.

Author: Shohmyoh from Canada
20 March 2000

The opening and the end credits are the best parts. That's about it. The opening is good cause it has Bruce Campbell in it, After that the movie is usually boring and has a few memerable moments, but not very many. The movie simple seems to drag for the most part and I was thankfull to see the end credits start to roll.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 16: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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