Fredrik Carlsson

(2012-05-02 06:22:32)

Wants more than it delivers

However, what it delivers isn't a little.The prelude, if you will, actually lasts the majority of the movie. Thehorror doesn't start until very late. Until then it's a violent westerntale to be told. And if there was time and money on this project Ithink it could have delivered a whole lot more.Still doesn't measure up to the first movie, but was a whole lot betterthan the second one. Besides, Western/Vampire Horror Movie isn'tsomething you see every day and it earns points just for that.I definitely recommend this movie, it's not about to change your world,but it's different enough to be entertaining and imaginative enough tobe interesting.

Kevin Moffat

(2012-05-01 12:12:03)

Unexpectedly Good

I felt i had to write this comment so that those of you out there who,likeme, watched Dusk Till Dawn 2 & were VERY disappointed, will give this oneago. It is very well made, has lots of lovely gore & girls and, unlikeno.2,has a good script. Trust me, rent this one and you will enjoyyourself...

(2012-04-30 03:04:22)

Watch from dusk till dawn 1 and 2,don't waste your time on 3

I rented this movie when it came available to rent. I was sourly dissapointed,not only was the plot laughable but the coloring of the movie was terrible,i took back the rental to the video store to trade for another copy because i thought it could be the tape,turned out they mass produced a bunch of low quality tapes ,aside from the low quality,the movie was a big zero,if you haven't seen it don't waste your time.

(2012-04-29 19:00:36)

As B Movies Go This A Masterpiece!

Keep in mind this is a direct to video title and the third film in the Dusk Till Dawn trilogy. Now right off the bat that should tell you alot. Now with that said I have to put in a good word for the film because it is thorougly entertaining from beginning to end...A guilty pleasure to be sure. Do not be fooled. This is not high art and not even the best of either Rodriguez or Tarantino's work. But the film does stand on it's own as low budget entertainment ventures go and I highly recommend it. The second is just as good as well. Tons of action and gore. If you like this you should also seek out Legend of Phantom Rider a really oddity to be sure, but also quite surprising and entertaining.

jzappa

(2012-04-29 07:12:05)

Distressing

Yes, From Dusk Till Dawn 3 is distressing. Everything about it ishorrible. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n- g. There's not one saving grace about thismovie. I hate hate hate hate hate it. Sometimes on IMDb, ratings aren'tas high or as low as they should be. I'm panic-stricken that From DuskTill Dawn 2, which, even though it's pretty bad, is still a head andshoulders above this nightmare, gets a 3.5 and this monstrosity gets a4.7!!! Yes, I care that much about that slight difference in alreadypoor ratings.Most of you probably already expect the script to be terrible. Thisscript is extra-terrible. The main reason why is because of howincredibly unlikable Marco Leonardi's character is. No, I am not one tolook down upon movies for moral deprivation of any kind. I love a goodheist movie, con movie, hit man movie, a movie where it turns out thatthe bad guy gets away with everything, etc. Ask anybody who knows me. Iactually find every villain at least twice as interesting as any hero.I love villains. But there's a line, even still, even to someone likeme, who hardly cares. In From Dusk Till Dawn, the Gecko brothers wereno boy scouts, even counting their admirable traits. But see, there'sthe thing. There was the element of charm in these two that made uscare whether Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, and Howard Cho escapedwithout the brothers or the brothers escaped with them. We wanted themto survive. In From Dusk Till Dawn 2, the basic making of adirect-to-video bloody-bank-heist-gone-awry flick makes its charactersout to be dirty, scuzzy outlaws. Fine. They're outlaws. That's nothingto make us specifically want them to be killed by vampires for. MarcoLeonardi is possibly the nastiest main character I've ever seen wherethe audience is supposed to shrug off the incredibly nasty things hedoes. he humiliates a fan of his who wants to join his gang by hangingher, letting everyone laugh at her, and then riding off leaving her fordead. There isn't even a reason for this. This is one of a few things.There's not even a sociable bone is his body. He goes out of his way tobe mean and violent. OK, that's a villain. That's like the bad guy inthe heist movie, which is a movie where everyone is bad anyway and thevillain has to be extra-bad where there's something about them that weparticularly don't like. From Dusk Till Dawn 3 gives us one of thosepeople to care about.In all departments, this movie is agonizing. The characters are socheesy aside from Leonardi's, and it doesn't once try to be anythingmore than a movie at the level of a direct- to-video crapfest. Thesecond From Dusk Till Dawn at least showed us some style despite itsdirect-to-video status.Anyway, I hated it.

steve-545

(2012-04-28 18:13:27)

The sequel may have been lacking, the prequel sure isn't

This followup to FROM DUSK TILL DAWN reestablishes the series as acredibleaction/horror flick amongst the other direct to video bombs on theshelves.Many would agree the first sequel hardly lived up to the production valuesof the first (despite a creative directorial effort by Scott Spiegel). Sowhat do Tarantino/Rodriguez do with their next FDTD? Set it back 100yearsto explore the origin of Satanico Pandemonium (played by Salma Hayek intheoriginal) and the infamous vamp-infested bar.The film begins with a short introduction of novelist and journalistAmbrosePierce mysteriously disappearing and then surviving (God knows how) ashooting squad. He sets his sights on joining a revolutionary's forcessomewhere south of the border. His journey leads to a small town where ayoung outlaw, Johnny Madrid, is sentenced to death by hanging. In aspectacular sequence, Johnny escapes with the help of an unknown aspiringtobe just like him and takes the Hangman's very own daughter (who has a verybad relationship with daddy and has the whip scars to prove it) as awillinghostage.The beginning of the story is very similiar to the original except set inthe wild west with obviously Rodriguez inspired gun battles and characterswho want to rip each others throats out (a la Tarantino). If you thoughtthe uneasy alliance in the first was bad, imagine a group consisting ofJohnny, the Hangman (whose daughter was kidnapped by Johnny), a recentlymarried pseudo religious conman who recently lost his wife to the vamps,oneof the Hangman's cronies who hates the conman, and finally Ambrose Piercewhose despised by just about everyone. Add a bar/inn full of vampireswithall new characteristics and this time good KNB effects (look out for afaceliterally being blown off and spilled intestines) and you've got yourselfanofficial sequel with some flair.Don't expect anything wildly originally that hasn't been covered in thefirst, just a good old fun rehash with some gunslinging characters and awestern backdrop. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3: THE HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER wasdefinitely worthy of a theatrical release but went direct to videoinstead.

lastliberal

(2012-04-28 00:25:59)

You have no idea what you have unleashed.

This film starts off with action reminiscent of Sergio Leone'sspaghetti westerns. It takes place 100 years before From Dusk to Dawn.The battle in the beginning is exciting, but the film soon bogs down totedium until they arrive at their destination - a Catina similar to thefirst film, where they find our old pal Danny Trejo.The bar scene is much better that DTD and the action gets hot and heavyas Esmeralda/Santanico Pandemonium (Ara Celi) comes home.Michael Parks stars as Ambrose Bierce, who was a real writer who reallyjoined Pancho Villa's army and disappeared in Mexico. Maybe he wentback to the Catina and joined the vampires.The film also stars Marco Leonardi and Rebecca Gayheart.Lots of exciting makeup, special effects and gore at the end.

Benjamin Gauss

(2012-04-27 05:29:59)

Better Than "Texas Blood Money"

A prequel to Robert Rodriguez' great "From Dusk Till Dawn" of 1996,P.J. Pesce's "From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter" of 2000 isan enttertaining, but pretty silly flick and nothing near the original,but a lot better than the earlier sequel "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: TexasBlood Money".The story takes place in Mexico of the early 20th century (I guessaround 1913), where the American writer and civil war veteran AmbroseBierce (Michael Parks) has come to join Pancho Villa's revolutionarytroops. While waiting for a stagecoach in a small Mexican town, Biercewitnesses bandit leader Johnny Madrid's escape from the gallows. WhenMadrid (Marco Leonardi) flees to the desert, he takes the hangman'sbeautiful daughter Esmeralda (Ara Celi) along with him. The infuriatedhangman (Tamuera Morrison), of course, doesn't hesitate to track hisarch enemy and his daughter, who wants to get away from her strictfather and his severe methods. Bierce, Madrid and the hangman who isafter him are all going into the same direction. What they don't knowis that the bar/whorehouse, where they are about to take a rest in themiddle of the desert is run by folks of the rather bloodthirsty kind."The Hangman's Daughter" resembles the original a lot more than thefirst sequel "Texas Blood Money", which had little to do with theRodriguez/Tarantino film. Although it does in no way share the qualityof "From Dusk Till Dawn", this movie is actually an acceptable prequelto he original. It is obvious that the whorehouse in the desert is thefuture 'Titty Twister', only almost a century earlier. The acting isnowhere near the original either, but again, the movie performances area lot better than those in "Texas Blood Money". Michael Parks plays thelead very good, Marco Leonardi and Tamuera Morrison are believableenough in their roles and Rebecca Gayheart and Ara Celi are eye candy.The cast furthermore contains Danny Trejo, who was in "From Dusk TillDawn" as well as in "Texas Blood Money". The amount of violence andgore is once again pretty high, and keeps the viewer entertained.All things considered, "The Hangman's Daughter" is certainly not aworhy sequel to "From Dusk Till Dawn", but certainly a lot better than"Texas Blood Money" and and overall entertaining, if you keep yourexpectations low.

Grant Cantrill

(2012-04-26 19:11:18)

A worthy successor to the original.

This movie is a thoroughly enjoyable sequel (or more accurately, prequel)tothe original. If "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money" hasn't turnedyou off of the series then check this movie out! It's full of the sameover-the-top violence and gore that made the original so enjoyable. The'knife' scene is definitely a moment to behold in this film. If you wereatall entertained by the original, then this is a must see!

bthomas-4

(2012-04-26 15:23:15)

More staking in the Titty Twister.

I know a lot of people were disappointed with the first FROM DUSK TILLDAWNsequel TEXAS BLOOD MONEY but i think most fans will be surprised by thisone.Whereas the first film was part gangster movie and part horror film thisonestarts out as a western then goes into a horror film.My favorite film of all time is the original FROM DUSK TILL DAWN and ithinkthis one is a worthy sequel or prequel in this case. I especially likedtheperformances by Michael Parks as Ambrose Bierce and Marco Leonardi. Theonlyproblem with the film (same as with TEXAS BLOOD MONEY) is that i would'veliked to see more staking the vamps action. HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER only hadtwomeltdowns.Over all fans of the original film should enjoy this movie. I suredid.

(2012-04-26 15:00:52)

A worthy sequel.

My hopes were a little down with the production of From Dusk Til Dawn 2 because of its lack of material. When I finally saw this one, I was very surprised. It was the best western horror film I ever saw. It also had an interesting plot. The story takes place one hundred years ago, which was the time when the infamous bar started. It begins with a young man who is sentenced to die. The hangman is interrupted from his work by his daughter, so he also has her to die. Fortunately, they escape on a high octane bloody chase of cat and mouse. They meet strange people on the way, and they join them to reach their destination. Meanwhile, two yuppies are headig out somewhere until they are interrupted by a man who is after the two who were sentenced to die. The two lose their ride and are forced to walk to the nearest place. The days go by and it gets hotter and hotter. They finally reach a bar that also rents out rooms. They decide to sleep there overnight. The husband wonders off and finds private rooms full of beautiful women. He is eventually pulled into their spell of lust, adultery, and vampirism. His wife begins to worry, and she wonders off herself. When she does find him, she is shocked at what she sees. The two on the run also find their way to the bar. As the man is having a drink, he is looks around to see a fist fight. The fight turns brutal, and it ends in a death. The vampires smell the blood, and they begin to act fast. What happens next is the routine gratuitous violence and gore. The two sides meet, and they have to work together before they are the next ones to be vampires. With the help the hangman, the yuppies, and others, they fight for their lives that seem to be in danger. Although it may seem like the normal vampire movies that have come out, it isn't. The movie is not all about vampires. It is actually about how the whole thing began. Half of the movie is about a normal western town in which two criminals are on the run, which may turn some away from it. The other half is action packed and has explicit vampire violence and gore. This movie may have a lot of violence, but is also has some scenes of sexuality. As the first, the movie conatined the traditional extensive nudity and sexuality. However, this movie contained some scenes which people may call offensive and crude. The cast was very well done. They combined some of the best actors and actresses for one movie. They read their parts very well. They had emotion in them and they were read loud and clear. There was no sign of dullness in it. The settings and special effects were incredible also. The makers of this film had to do a lot of work to make the oustanding background and excellent special effects. The makeup and vampires were done very well. They look very scary and has hardly been done by anyone. The movie may not have contained any humor like some of the others had, but it was still entertaining. The other were sort of tongue in cheek, so you could expect the natural dark humor and violence mixed together. This movie was not tongue in cheek at all. It contained serious roles and a serious script. I would also recommend the original From Dusk til Dawn. It was also entertaining. Ii did not have the best background, but it was funnier, gorier, and more action packed. I would recommend this to anyone who would like to see a worthy sequel to the 1996 hit.

WorknMan-2

(2012-04-26 08:58:10)

Better than #2, but is that really saying much?

Saying that this movie was better than FDTD2 may be giving it too muchcredit. Since it is generally agreed (by those of us who are sane) that #2pretty much sucked, it really doesn't say much for this third entry of theseries.I'm not saying it's a bad movie. It doesn't come close to the originalthough and I would say it was just 'ok'.The main problem here is that we've seen it all before. You take a group ofpeople who meet by circumstance, stick them in a senario full of vampiresabout halfway through the movie, witness the blood and carnage that takesplace, and then see who comes out alive ... blah blah .. same oldstory.In the original, I was drawn into the movie and the characters and wasinterested to see who survived. That didn't happen with FDTD3. Thecharacters this time around just weren't that involving. Although I likedthe sequences with Madrid, I got bored when the story would switch to Bierceand the married couple. The characters this time around also were not verylikeable at all .. almost all of them were bad guys and the ones thatweren't (with the possible exception of the hangman's daughter) were prettyannoying anyway. And where the characters in the first movie put aside theirdifferences to fight the vampires, the characters in this one fought witheach other til the very end.Since this third installment doesn't really introduce anything new to thestory, I can't understand why it exists. While it's true that you get to seewhat the Titty Twister looked like about 100 years ago and you get to findout the origin of Santanico Pandemonium, it still doesn't justify this oneeven being made.I'd say if you've seen the first two (or even the first one for thatmatter), this one is definitely passable unless you're a hardcore fan of theseries, in which case you've probably already seen this movieanyway.

(2012-04-17 17:16:15)

An action packed begining !

Virtually as soon as the film begins, so does the action. The movie starts with an outlaw who at the begining is about to be hanged by the "hangman", but the outlaw escapes with the hangmans daughter and throughout the movie the hangman pursues the outlaw. The main story however is the origin of Princess "Pandomonium"(salma hayek's part in "dusk till dawn") and where all the vampires came from. Overall an action packed vampire film with a great story line that clears a lot up that dusk till dawn 2 did not only being surpased by "dusk till dawn". The DVD has only a deleted scene, but the picture and dolby 5.1 sound is superb!

(2012-04-17 06:55:24)

"What's the matter with this place? Your stupid friend ate my horse. I had to shoot him."

Even though the names Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, the pair behind the original film released in 1996 (Tarantino wrote the screenplay, while Rodriguez directed), are prominently displayed on the cover for the film From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000), I didn't get a real sense the two had much to do with the actual film, other than taking executive producing credits. Rodriguez is listed as a co-writer, and I'd say a smidgen of his flair is present, but only enough to make me think he probably contributed a few ideas and eventually gave the finished script a once over. Directed by P.J. Pesce (Sniper 3), the film features Michael Parks (The Return of Josey Wales), Marco Leonardi (Once Upon a Time in Mexico), Temuera `Jango Fett' Morrison (Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones), and Ara Celi (Looking for Lola). Also appearing is Rebecca Gayheart (Urban Legend), Lennie Loftin (Daredevil), Sonia Braga (Moon Over Parador), Orlando Jones (Evolution), Danny Trejo (Con Air), the only performer to appear in all three From Dusk Till Dawn features.Set around the time just after the American Civil War, the story begins by introducing us to a few gringos traveling down old Mexico way, including Ambrose Pierce (Parks), a writer who has come to throw in with Pancho Villa and his revolutionaries, along with John and Mary Newlie (Loftin and Gayheart), a pair of uptight, preachy newlyweds who intend of setting up a bible school for underprivileged children. While waiting for their stagecoach to leave, we see an outlaw character named Johnny Madrid (Leonardi) about to be hanged, along with the arrival of The Hangman (Morrison), with The Hangman's daughter Esmeralda (Celi), hiding among the onlookers. Madrid escapes with a little help, kidnaps Esmeralda, hooks up with his old gang, and sets out to rob the stagecoach carrying Pierce and the Newlies. By various twists of fate, all eventually end up at a sort of inn in the middle of the desert, and if you've seen the previous films, then you'll know this desert oasis is actually an evil place (the seedy bar featured in the first film), populated by no-goodnik vampire types who lure unsuspecting travelers with the intent on feeding on them. Things get a bit hairy once The Hangman, whose real name is Mauricio, makes the scene (he and his posse have been chasing after Madrid), and the vampires eventually reveal themselves. Turns out Mauricio and the head vampire (played by Sonia Braga) have some sort of history, one that involves Esmeralda, who is the key to some sort of ritual, so it is written, so it is told...after the initial bloody carnage following the revelation of the vampires, those who are left, including Pierce, Madrid, Mauricio, and a few others, band together in an uneasy alliance if only to survive, wandering the bowels of the inn/bar, in an effort to escape.This film did seem to make an attempt to connect to the first film (the second film was really a sequel in name only), basically rehashing the plot in that of a group of unlikely misfits banding together for the sole purpose of surviving the vampire onslaught. The main problem is, when comparing the two films, none of the characters here had any real substantial essence. Five minutes after the movie is over, you'll begin to forget them. What you probably won't forget is the excessive amount of disgusting scenes, some involving the various vampires slurping blood off the floors in an exaggerated fashion. There's one particularly lovely sequence when Braga's character actually regurgitates blood from one of the victims for another vampire to taste. I generally don't mind the gory stuff, but this just seemed, pardon the pun, particularly tasteless and unnecessary. It was almost like the filmmakers knew they couldn't match various aspects from the first film (solid character development, interesting and viable storyline, etc.), so they decided to make their film memorable by grossing everyone out. As I said the story does somewhat resemble the first film, but what's really missing is any real interest in the characters only because we never really get to know any of them. There didn't really seem to be any true lead characters as the story often traded off focus from one to another. As far as this being a prequel, there wasn't much to that...I was hoping for a bit more background to the story, how the vampires came to be, and how they settled where they did, etc., but none of that is offered up. Santanico Pandemonium (played by Salma Hayek in the first movie) is brought up, but only in the sense of how she came to reside at the inn/bar, and not much else. As far as the acting goes, it was mainly so-so, but only because no one really had a chance to perform much given the script. The one character I didn't care at all was that played by Orlando Jones as a wayward brush salesman who later becomes a vampire, and an annoying one at that. One thing that always puzzled me with regards to the inn/bar...how does such an establishment continue to thrive given the fact those who run it are always eating its patrons? It would seem to me after awhile word would get out, and customer traffic would drop off...oh well. One thing I did learn from this film is that vampires whores in the period just after the American Civil War sported G-strings, an undergarment I would have attributed more to modern times. While there may not be much of an actual story here, director Pesce does keep things moving along, the wheels greased by copious amounts of blood. The special effects, particularly those involving the vampires, aren't up to par of the first film, but a good deal better than those featured in the second movie. All in all this wasn't a terrible film, but it could have been a lot better had they trimmed a number of characters and focused more tightly on those who remained (as it is there's about four different plot lines floating around, none of them ever really amounting to much). There is a decent amount of nekkidness in the film (none featuring the main actresses), along with a few really disgusting, often blood-soaked sequences (one involving the removal of a vampire's gonasticles, which wasn't so much bloody but fairly disgusting), so viewers with tender sensibilities should stay away.The film, presented in widescreen (1.85:1) format, enhanced for 16X9 TVs, looks clean, and the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround audio comes through well. The only extras included on the DVD are a deleted scene, along with recommendations for other Dimension DVD releases.Cookieman108If you're ever down old Mexico way and you stop off at a place called La Tetilla del Diablo, avoid leaving your horses with the grubby stable boy named Nano, as he seems to have a nasty habit of eating them.

(2012-04-08 22:06:16)

Dusk Til Dawn 3

This movie is a "Prequel" it is a good movie to see. If you like blood and gore w/ humor this would be the movie to see.

Johnny-113

(2012-04-08 13:35:03)

Very exciting film...

The first twenty minutes of this film are amazing. The characters areinteresting and fun. It's too bad that vampires had to be introducedbecause it just makes the film ridiculous. The lead character is fantasticbecause he's complex. We hate him and really want to like him.

(2012-04-02 17:27:03)

dusk till dawn 3

this movie is a pretty good prequel to the original if you liked the 1st one get this its not to gory and has somewhat of a plot i found it very enjoyable

mario_c

(2012-04-02 13:35:35)

Nice chapter, a lot better than the second one!

Not being as good as the original, this third chapter of From Dusk TillDawn is a lot better than the second! Because of two main reasons: 1)It has a much better cinematography, as it's not a cheap B-series movielike the other one; 2) It follows an important premise of the originalmovie (which the second movie didn't do): a great part of the action ispassed inside the vampires' bar. So, in spite of having the plot set ona different age (the XIX century) I think this film is a lot closer tothe original than the second one. On the other hand it can beconsidered a prequel to the original film, especially to the bar and toSANTANICO PANDEMONIUM character.I enjoyed the plot, the characters, the soundtrack (excellent andpowerful sounds during the fighting scenes inside the bar!!) and theacting. Nice film!

John Taylor

(2012-03-17 11:26:36)

A 100 times better than the previous movie.

You know, this film aint too bad at all! this is an entertaining horrorflick that returns to the quality of the first film and away from the puredrivel of the second movie.this is set in the past and we see the Vampire club as it was in the past.Like the first movie in this we see no monster action for the first half andpure blood sucking gore for the entire second half of the film. This not tosay the first half is poor because it isn't. Again like the first movie the first half is different yet very watchable.The acting is very good and the special affect are ok if not spectacular.Thestory is hardly ground breaking but at times this is very funny and in themoments when it was supposed to be, not like in the second movie when it wasfunny when they were trying to be serious!An above average horror that is hard not to like.7 out of 10.

(2012-03-16 20:47:37)

From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter

"There just wasn't enough vampire action, but the ending was satisfying since it gave a shout-out to the original and featured some of the same actors."