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 159 reviews in total 

Are you afraid of rubber bats?

3/10
Author: 78 from Vancouver, CANADA
24 May 1999

I was absolutely terrified while I watched TEXAS BLOOD MONEY.

I was terrified that somebody killed the most talented cast member (Bruce Campbell) off in under 90 seconds.

I was terrified that nobody noticed the massive plot holes and continuity errors between the first and second films.

I was terrified that Scott Spiegel tried so hard to emulate Robert Rodriguez's style to the point of absurdity.

I was terrified that most of the action happened off-camera to try and hide the fact that there was no budget.

But most of all, I'm terrified of little, rubber, dollar-store toy bats were used for most of the 'horror' scenes. Oooh. The terror, the horror, the visible strings.

Don't even rent this if you're desperate.

2/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Watch at your own risk.

Author: Eric B. from Austin, Tx.
22 May 1999

I knew what type of movie this was when i rented it. Cheesey and full of violence. That's what I got. What bugs me the most about this movie is that two of the stars ( Bruce Campbell and tiffani-amber theissen) get killed in the first 30 seconds of the film. What a waste.

Was the above review useful to you?

From Dusk to CRAP!

4/10
Author: JImmy-9 from Toronto
10 May 1999

I expected to see a movie emulating the original. Tarantino & Rodriguez producing, you can't go wrong. can you? This sequel was TERRIBLE! The plot wasn't too bad, the special effects were kinda lame (but this is straight to video so it didn't matter), but what I found the worst was the DIRECTING! Probably the second or third WorsT Directing I've ever seen! So many repetitive camera angles and shots that never worked. Mainly the vampire teeth shot digging into a persons neck. Pure stupidity if you asked me. And the director used that shot way too many times.

Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's pretty damn disappointing.

Was the above review useful to you?

Avoid this Movie

2/10
Author: Justin Huthmacher from Philadelphia, PA
7 May 1999

I loved From Dusk Till Dawn but this movie doesn't deserve the name. Most people expect sequels to be worse than the original, but this was horrible. Poor special effects, poor script, poor acting..... you get the picture.

Was the above review useful to you?

It only gets worse.

3/10
Author: Doug Galecawitz (dougg@evilnet.net) from Lisle, IL
1 May 1999

If this wasn't a sequel to such a good movie then this would just be a bad B movie. But because it is such a disgraceful follow up to From Dusk Till Dawn it turns into a major bomb and horrible B movie. Bad writing, normally good actors putting in poor performances, no explaination as to how Danny Trejo is alive after dying in the first or how the bar The Titty Twister was rebuilt after being blown up in the first. Ther is a poor excuse for a plot, and the nudity is toned down considerably. Avoid this movie at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

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?


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