Baghdaddy So the first point I have to make is...how is Razor Charlie (Trejo) around in all these movies!!Anyway, onto the movie. The plot is set 100 years prior to the film's predecessors, as an outlaw is about to be hanged he is saved by a young girl dreaming to be his protégé. Johnny Madrid (Leonardi) captures Esmeralda (Celi) as he escapes, and continues to flee.On the way, he comes across Ambrose Pierce (Parks) whilst attempting a stagecoach robbery, and from there the scene is set once they all stop off at a bar in order to take some rest!The acting is, once again, not that great, but the story is slightly more thought-out than its prequel and set in a different time period. The action is still awesome, with the survivors being forced to work together in order to survive. The music is apt, based on the Latino theme, whilst the cinematography is decent, but of course the vampires look quite hideous. I guess that was the actors intent, but I was hoping they would look more menacing then just pure ugly! Furthermore, the sex scenes within the movie are still pretty damn good, no one can complain when an orgy is taking place at a bar! Finally, my final negative point is the randomness of their escape, which definitely was too fairy tale for me!Overall, I still enjoyed this film and I am a big fan of the franchise. I would like to see more thought put into the acting, and the make- up of the vampires, but at least this was a deeper delve into the explanation as to just how the Titty Twister came to be!

siderite If the first film was original, well acted and fun, the second was just fun, the third is none of the above. Set in the Wild West in the times of Pancho Villa, it does only one thing right: it prepares the mythos that will be used in the series, not that they knew there was going to be a series back then.It does a better job of getting elements from the original film: the unlikely band of misfits that get caught in the vampire bar, more violence and many character side stories that can keep the viewer watching. Alas, all the characters in the film are unlikable and rather badly scripted. The acting was not stellar, either, but I can't call it bad.Bottom line: a watered down version of the wonderful From Dusk Till Dawn, but without any fun in it. Taken itself way to seriously and I can only call it a boring failure.

RickHarvey From dusk till dawn 3: the Hangman's daughter, it basically a remake of of the first From dusk to dawn. The difference being that it based 100 years in the past . What starts out as a western ends in a gory vampire fight. Just like Crime thriller turned Gory vampire fight. After the very disappointing sequel, the producers decided to make a prequel in which it tells the story of how Santanico Pandemonium came to be. Is this story a good one? Well it can certainly hold your attention for the whole length of the film.If there one positive to take out from this film then it the fact that it has the same feel as the original. The second film failed due to fact that it was a totally different vampire film. The script is average, the acting is good enough and the direction is good. The shootouts are well executed and the effects are again decent. if anything, the woman who played Reece was poor.Overall this a enjoyable film, nothing spectacular but after the very bad sequel, i guess you don't care.

cappados After seeing the PATHETIC From Dusk Til Dawn 2, wasn't expecting much , but I was pleasantly surprised. I won't spoil the movie for anyone but this story (which is actually the prequel to the excellent original From Dusk Til Dawn) is well written and well directed. Great production values, very interesting characters, decent plot, ASTONISHING action sequences.And WHAT A CAST! Michael Parks is amazing as Ambrose Bierce, Temura Morrison is terrifying as the Hangman--and then you've got Marco Leonardi, Sonya Braga, Rebecca Gayheart, and Orlando Jones! All in all, quite an impressive piece of work.