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 10 of 16: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 154 reviews in total 

Count Floyd could beat these guys!

2/10
Author: Animus from United States
20 April 1999

Before I rip this movie, let me say I actually liked the original, at least the last 30 minutes of it. This movie has some good actors in it, too bad the story is so bad. It seems that in the Dusk Till Dawn world, vampirism takes a single bite and happens in under 5 minutes. That might explain why the vampires here are so lame. They get strength, they get batform, but they also get the worse case of cross aversion I have EVER seen. These vampires run screaming from anything that has a "t" shape in it. They would explode from seeing a road sign with intersecting street names, they can be driven off at the sight of a first aid kit. COME ON! Vampires this wimpy cannot survive for more than a night, guess what, they don't. Wait for the MST3K guys to do a number on this one folks, DO NOT pay to see it.

Was the above review useful to you?

there actually is a use for this movie . . .

Author: BenFold5
9 April 1999

The sequel wasn't needed in the first place. Everything was outta wack. There is one good use for this movie tho'. There are many people i know that totally disrespect From Dusk Till Dawn or think it's too trendy so they don't watch it. If they see this movie then see FDTD, they will see it in a whole new way. I think that this movie didn't show any interest in it (AT ALL) except for when Bruce Campbell (a god) was on the screen and at the end when there was the Evil Dead animation going on (bliss). I know the camera angles were stupid and all, but it's the only thing that kept you watching. but what do I know?

Was the above review useful to you?

Part One is 10 times better

7/10
Author: Martin de Witte from Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
3 April 1999

After seeing this movie I was very disappointed at Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. They delivered a masterpiece with From Dusk till Dawn but I think they better could never release this one... And if you want to see it: make sure you see part one first, otherwise you simply understand nothing of that vampire stuff.

Was the above review useful to you?

All things considered not bad;

Author: jazzman-12 from champaign il
31 March 1999

For starters it sure beat the hell out of Batman & Robin, Not to mention 5 or 6 other blow-em up action pics that Hollywood has put out in the last 2 years. This movies strives to be nothing more than what it is, a B-movie. What's wong with that? Bottom line an enjoyable film that delivers what it promises. My only major complaint, some camera shots bordered on the absurd i.e . the safe dial, the rotating fan, and the interior view of the vampire's mouth.

Was the above review useful to you?

Much worse than expected......

Author: mr white-5 from STONY BROOK, NEW YORK
29 March 1999

This is much worse than I ever expected it to be. Scott Spiegel, whose work I have enjoyed up till recently, has penned such flicks as Clint Eastwood's THE ROOKIE, and Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN. He is also the man responsible for giving Quentin Tarantino (my idol) his start in the business. Unfortunately, he cannot cut it in the director's chair.

The effects, especially the incredibly noticeable fake bats, are ludicrous. The cinematography, which I suppose was considered creative or perhaps experimental when the film was being shot, was abominable (POV shots do not work with someone who is doing pushups, or even household appliances, i.e. a rotating window fan, no matter what people tell you). The artistic shots of the film (a cattle skull with snake/spider crawling over it) are disappointing, and I suppose trying to immitate those of Tobe Hooper's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (recurring shots of a full moon).

Moreover, the advertisements for a "teaser-role" for cult horror icon Bruce Campbell, were little more than completely false. When I heard this, I figured that Spiegel would be giving B.C. a significant cameo, after they worked together on EVIL DEAD 2. Of course, this is not true. Bruce Campbell does little more than simply walk into frame, say a few words (very few) and die. There has not been a greater example of false advertising since Bruce Lee was billed as starring in the absolute fake GAME OF DEATH.

The plot, if any, is an extremely weak one. The only good work by any actor is that of Robert Patrick, who as usual, never ceases to impress.

Overall, the film was a disgrace to the name of the original. I do not mean to put down Scott Spiegel's previous works at all, nor do I mean to insult his ability to write a good screenplay. This film unfortunately does just not live up to his potential, and definitely does not exhibit his flair for screenwriting.

Was the above review useful to you?

A Total Disappointment

3/10
Author: Stash Surowiec from Wallington, NJ
28 March 1999

I couldn't wait until the sequel to one of my favorite Quentin Tarantino flicks would be released. As soon as it hit the shelves of my local video store, I grabbed it, ran home and stuck it into my VCR. After about 20 minutes into the movie, I got bored. But I still kept on watching, and waiting for something cool to happen. The direct-to-video sequel begins with a bunch of Texan criminals attempting a bank heist in Mexico. Everyone, except the leader (played by Robert Patrick), slowly turn into vampires after being bitten by others. And finally, when the movie ended, I said to myself "That's It???". I couldn't believe how stupid it was. The people who made this film just ruined it. And I wonder what was Robert Patrick thinking of when he decided to star in it? That is how I came to the conclusion of giving "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money" a 3 out of 10 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

Cheesy acting, bad f/x, no plot, what more could you ask for?

Author: Slick-33 from New York
23 March 1999

Yeah, it was bad. But so what. It's not like it's going to win an Oscar. Robert Patrick was pretty spiffy as a Texan. Okay, so the special effects looked as if they'd come out of a school production of FDTD, but when you watch a direct to video movie, you get direct to video effects. Now only if The Hangman's Daughter is half as terrible as Texas Blood Money, then we have a full fleged camp horror trilogy, Running a close second to the Evil Dead series.

Was the above review useful to you?

What the hell where they thinking...

Author: egs from Woodstock
22 March 1999

Okay, I loved the From Dusk Till Dawn, funny as hell, gore, sex, and Tarintino. They should have never made a sequel, I'm scared to see the third one the hang mans daughter. I mean cheap acting, special effects, I mean the script is week as hell, why the hell they even put the Titty Twister in this one I have no clue, I mean, he could have met a vampire at some other bar. The titty twister is a classic place, from the first movie, you don't need to go back, and why the hell the same bartender is there I have no clue. All I can say is if you're in the mood for some Vampires, stick to the first one, at least there's a lot more blood, and the VAMPIRES AREN'T USING GUNS...horrible film, a big Disappointment

Was the above review useful to you?

*1/2 out of ****

Author: clay-8 from texas
20 March 1999

What was up with the music? It was embarassingly "keyboarded". The big problem with this movie is the fact that it didn't take place in an interesting spot. this film has too many characters to keep track of and a dozen continuity mistakes. Take for example the scene where those two guys (don't remember their names) leave the bank and run into the cops outside in the alley. That door was closed a long time ago, yet when they run back to it, it's just now closing. This film was worse than "Vampires". As for the special-effects; they weren't that bad if you ask me. I thought the bats looked real at the beginning. The elevator scene was the best in the movie. Too many ideas used way too many times. A loser of a film.

Was the above review useful to you?

Boring but gory.

Author: Jack withrow from Ontario, Canada
17 March 1999

An excellent waste of good ol' Bruce! Only being given a teaser role in the film was the only real thing making it worth renting. A few chuckles at the dialogue and some gory scenes can't hold this sequel to a not-so-great movie. Oh well. They should have got a few more horror-related actors in this one.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 10 of 16: [Prev][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