Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

fluffset I don't know why, when I'm done watch this movie, I go to IMDb like usual to give my good rating for this freaking good movie and ended up shock with this rating: 4.0 (10/2/2016) and I wonder why its so low. So I digging up and they said this movie have a bad actor, mindless action and everything. I don't know what to say but I love this movie so much as how much I love the first one. I think it looks really great, with modern western style. All the vampire did a really good job here to scared me to death. Maybe because there is no George Clooney or Salma Hayek that make this movie not really popular. But in 2016, this movie looks so classic and I'm sure will be one of those rare material that's hard to be make by people in this age of 2000s. I dunno what to say but the feel, the atmosphere and the action is so good and was carefully made. If you love the first one you will love this one too. One of the best horror action from 90s. It deserved around 7-8 actually.

FlashCallahan Five criminals get together to rob a bank in Mexico. On his way to their rendezvous point, one of them gets into an accident, and stumbles upon the Titty Twister Bar. This little detour sets up the terror that awaits the outlaws and the officers on their trail....I don't know whether its the fact that I saw the brilliant original the night before, or the lame cameos at the beginning, but as soon as the title arrived, I know it wasn't going to be good.The film has very little to with the original, and I don't even know where it rests on the Tarantino/Rodriguez movie timeline, which makes it all the more frustrating.Patrick is there for the pay check, and the rest of the cast just try to to be too cool for school.The script is a massive problem too, whenever there is a Tarantino type scene, its cringeworthy as it just doesn't ring true.Action is boring, and on the whole, it shouldn't have been made.

wes-connors We begin with an "elevator scene" proving directors Scott Spiegel and Quentin Tarantino are very familiar with Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" (1963). This new version could be called "The Bats". It turns out the opening scene has no real connection to the story following. There will be further stabs at Mr. Hitchcock, herein. Passively enjoying sex with a beautiful woman, while watching television, rowdy Robert Patrick (as Buck) discovers his old "butt buddy" Duane Whitaker (as Luther Hecks) has escaped from prison... Despite a testicle-crunching visit from Texas lawman Bo Hopkins (as Otis Lawson), Mr. Patrick decides to round-up Mr. Whitaker, rodeo clown Muse Watson (as C.W. Niles), muscular stud Raymond Cruz (as Jesus) and sleepy guard Brett Harrelson (as Ray Bob) to rob a bank. Vampires seemingly related to the first "From Dusk Till Dawn" (1996) movie get involved. It turns out vampires need money, too. This film is good at showing Mr. Spiegel's directorial chops. Alas, it is far too showy; the best examples of this are the dizzying push-ups and safe-cracking scenes.**** From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (3/16/99) Scott Spiegel ~ Robert Patrick, Duane Whitaker, Muse Watson, Raymond Cruz

Maniac-9 The original From Dusk Till Dawn was a fun little genre movie that really was a fresh take on the Vampire genre since it was at first a heist/running from the authorities movie but then became midway a vampire killing flick. Which is also what they attempted to do here just not nearly as convincing as the first time. And while Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino might have their names attached to this movie as Executive Producers I don't know how much actual involvement they had with this project beyond just giving the red light to Scott Spiegel to make his own sequel to their film.I mean if you're bored late night flipping thru the channels looking for something to watch there's worse things you can watch but not nearly as epic as the first movie.