Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Although this could belong in both this forum and the Quentin Tarantino one, i thought i'd place it here and i'm quite surprised it has not received its own thread yet (although it has been mentioned in many others). Although Hollywood has seen a series of modern vampire films this is one of those that stands out as it has so much more to offer, the main characters (i.e. George Clooney's Seth & Quentin Tarintino's Richy well more Seth) are true examples of Hollywood anti-heroes. This is one of those films that pays homage to the old vampire road movies (such as Near Dark ), Harvey Keitel is great as the preacher contemplating his beliefs, the only gripe i really have is that i wish Tom Savini's character could have lasted longer then he did. The opening scene has to be one of the best openings i've seen to a film in recent times. Less said about the sequels the better though.

One of my favorite movies.........great flick. Great acting all around......

The only thing worth mentioning about the sequels is Bruce Campbell in part 2..........other than that, trash.

great film - i like how it goes from crime/road movie to a vampire movie.

I've never seen, I'd like to though

you need to SlipknoT.........I highly recommend. It's got everything you could want in a movie. While having a light hearted plot......it's still extremely entertaining.

Don't waste your $5 renting it. Just put down the $12 and buy it.

And what was really cheeky was his name was 'splattered' all over the front cover and the films promotion, naturally i thought he'd have a fairly big part but he was only in it for a couple of minutes.

yeah.......basically a cameo..............what is truly sad is that him having his "cameo" is the best thing about either sequel.

The first one is total gold, the second is total crap, the third is mediocre, but watchable.

Tarrentino proved that he could make a B movie better than any mainstream hollywood movie with from dusk till dawn, he clenched that with kill bill. Anyway not to stray dusk till dawn will live on through the horror halls even if it has been tarnished by the shit sequals. Tarrentino deffaintly needs to team up with rodriguz again. This is a duo that create nothing but good movies

I've seen the first and second one. haven't seen the third. is it worth it?

spell tarantino right please.
oh and if you watch the dvd with the comentary with rodregues and tarantino on its great, they talk about how they wanted to add something new to the concept of vampires (like their really soft and squishy).
and cheech is in it (if you can find cheaper pussy, F*CK IT!)

Cheech Martin (of Cheech & Chong fame) had three roles in Dusk Till Dawn, his first appearance was as the highway patrol officer who questions the group as to there reasons of going to Mexico, his second role was as the host of the bar and the third was as the gangster boss who Seth & Richie were supposed to meet at the bar.

I've never bothered to watch either of the sequels. Should I rent them one night or would it be a total waste of time?

i remember watching the second one and catching myself fastforwording tho half the movie.

the one thing i thought was pretty cool bout that movie was that the smae special effects crew that did From Dusk Til Dawn did The Evil Dead series. and one of the guys from the effect team was SEX MACHINE..which is a golden character.

the only thing that bothered me bout FDTD was when the band started playing lims... there is a fine line between being stupid funny and cheesy... and that scene went over that line!

true^

Not true............legendary horror effects meister (not to mention actor and director) Tom Savini did play Sex Machine............he however did not provide any of the effects for From Dusk 'till Dawn. All of the effect for From Dusk 'till Dawn was provided by KNB Studios.........who are modern horror effects legends in their own right. Greg Nicotero (I know I spelled that wrong), who is the "N" in KNB does have a cameo in the film.......he is the long brown haired guy sitting with Tom Savini.......He is the guy who pulls out the knife right before Sex Machine shows off his crotch gun. Tom Savini is in the film as an actor only......he had no other role in the production.

I don't believe you can consider From Dusk till Dawn a "B" movie. It was a Hollywood movie made by a Hollywood studio with a multi-million dollar budget.........not to mention the cast was completely made up of "A" List actors.

The film was a nice little throw back to older camp horror films.......Tarantino's salute to the genre. No different from Kill Bill's salute to the kung-fu flick genre. How on earth could you consider it a "B" movie?

- Made by a Hollywood studio
- Had a multi-million dollar budget
- Written by the hottest Hollywood screenwriter of the day
- Cast is made up entirely of "A" list stars.......George Cloony, Harvey Keitel, Julliete Lewis, Quentin Tarantino............

Hell.......the only thing "B" movie about the entire production was Tom Savini's and Fred Williamson's inclusion to the cast.

I saw it on T.V. once, then rented it..began to watch it, then had to turn it off.

I should have known that a great story would be ruined by Quentin's perverted script writting and sight gags. Some things will never change, though.BTW, Miramax isn't a giant movie studio. Don't let me forget to mention that it BOMBED in the theatres.

$19 Million dollar budget, tack on $8 Million to promote it..and it made $25 Million in theatres.

It lost money, until it, like every other Tarrantino movie, became a cult classic.

Ah yes.......Tarantino's movies can never hope to get the type of acclaim Predator received...........it was nominated for Oscars right?

Originality in screen writing isn't a handicap.........it's great to see movies with plots more complex than "alien enters jungle with soldiers.........shit gets blown up for the duration of movie".......

That comment is not specific to From Dusk 'till Dawn.........it is directed at your bashing of Tarantino's work in general. If you can do better.....by all means do. I look forward to seeing your name being nominated for Oscars in the future.

Here we go again. The old "Talk shit about Predator because it will hurt his feelings" ploy.

Quentin Tarrentino is unoriginal. He is overrated. He is a hack. His tributes are nothing more than lifts from numerous other movies. His "homages" are nothing original. He is a fanboy living out his home movie dreams.

You cannot deny any of the aforementioned things, because they are all true. The only thing I will credit him with is cleverly packaging the glorification and desensitization of violence and sex.

Anywho, he's had 5 movies total. None of which are original works. He'll suffer a Kevin Smith type fate someday.

Yep, he's a genius. A genius that cashes in, like Kevin Smith, on desensitized little shits who idolize the Columbine Massacres, porn stars, and the mafia.

I'm opinionated, and I am going to speak my mind, man.

BTW, "Academy Awards" don't mean shit to real movie fans. Especially since we're not the ones doing the voting, and it's our vote that counts to the movie makers. Awards are for studios and ass kissing executuves.

Cinemaddiction edited to add this:



Yes it did bomb............it's a genre flick. Most genre flicks don't make $30m at the box office. As much of a horror legend as George Romero is.......his next sequel to his "dead" franchise won't even make $30m at the domestic box office.

and nobody stated that Miramax was a giant studio......nobody is comparing them to Disney or MGM (oh wait.....they are Disney). They are however a good sized hollywood company (Miramax/Dimension) which makes and nationally distributes many films a year. They are by no means an indy company.

For the record.......I believe all of Tarantino's movies (he's only directed 4) have made a profit upon theatrical release. I may be wrong on Jackie Brown, I'll have to check the numbers real quick.....but I know for sure that Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill all made money. Tarantino only wrote the script......he did not direct this film. Robert Rodriguez (Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids films) directed it.

All I want is for someone to agree with me that Quentin Tarrentino is not a very original writer/director.

That's all, because alot of people, no matter how much they love his films, can't get out od denial long enough to admit it.

He just plays off of other peoples films, and overblows what makes this society so ****ed up in the first place, and that makes it hard for me to respect him as a filmmaker".

"Talk shit about Predator because it will hurt his feelings" ploy."

No......it's actually quite funny that you love Predator so much.......even though it's really a silly little sci-fi action movie.......yet bash other movies that have garnered much more success and acclaim. Predator is a good little movie.......taken for what it is. Okay, the dreadlocked alien with the cool laser gun hunts down a group of soldiers in a jungle......and alot of explosions ensue. I can dig that. I own the movie on dvd. There is nothing artistic about that movie that could even classify it as "cinema"........it's a cheap popcorn movie. I find it rather ironic that you can bash other films that have been universally praised, yet get a hard on for that movie.

You're right.......Academy Awards don't mean anything to me..........but they do in the industry. They are about respect. The industry respecting a film maker/film. While this does not make the movie any better..............doesn't it ever make you wonder why so many people (including the Academy) respect some films so much, yet you cannot see why? Perhaps the flaw isn't in the movies......or the millions upon millions of people who show respect for the movie. Perhaps the flaw lies in a smaller percentage of people who quite simply don't like a movie because they're not into the subject or genre and choose to bash it because they personally don't like it.

you could never be a movie critic. You're too much of an egomaniac......if you don't like it, it's a bad movie. It never occurs to you that, "hey.....maybe this movie wasn't made for me...maybe it was made for a whole group of other people"...............

I will liken this subject to country music. I hate country music. I cannot stand it. I realize that country music is not made for me. Is Garth Brooks a good musician/performer? You're god damned right he is. He has millions upon millions of fans. He sells out 50,000 seat arenas. That man is a good musician. Do I like his music? No. Will I ever listen to his music? No. His music isn't made for me. I'm not egotistical enough to think that if I don't particularly like something that it is bad.....I do realize there are 6 billion other people walking this earth that may love and adore it.

Jackie Brown and Kill Bill are both "homages" to film genres.......Tarantino himself says this. He didn't copy any movie particularly............he took what he liked best out of all movies in the genre and put them together into one movie to make the ulimate genre picture.

Now.........which movies did Tarantino "play off" of when he made Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, his first two and most widely acclaimed films. I would really like to know. If they are out there and I've somehow missed them I know that I must have missed something good. Please name those films for me so I can check them out. I can not think of any movie that he "jacked" to create those two films. I can truly say that to the best of my knowledge, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs were made in a style all his own. Please inform me to the contrary so I can educate myself.

You are blowing this "Predator" thing way out of proption.

I've got the sig line, and a matching avatar. I have yet to mention Predator in any other thread, other than the "A vs P" thread. That's it, and that's that. It's a brutally original work though, that will never be duplicated.

As for Acadamy Awards. All those do is translate into studios getting more money for awards based on the opinions of a select few that probably saw the movie for free anyway. They represent approx 2% of the movie going public, not even the percentage who actually pay to go see these movies.

Movies are meant to be critiqued. Some more than others, and Quentin's work for sure. I don't appreciate filmmakers who dodn't do their own work, and just do homages, and tributes. That's not making a film, thats glueing films together the way you want to present them, and pass them off as your own.



Elitist? Yes. Picky? Yes. Critical? Yes. Particular? Yes. A fan or originality? Certainly. Egomaniac? No.

You're (sadly) basing your opinion of me on two different bodies of work. Labeling me a Predator freak, and a Quentin hater.

I like Predator because it's intriguing and original. I don't like Tarrantino's works because they are filthy. Full of senseless violence, derogatory, sexist humor, and a high schoolers dialogue! That's all!
Can I not be "non-fan" of someone?

Hell, I don't like a shitload of ovies, but none of them anger me enough to critique them to a T like his do, though.

Besides, I'd never want to be a movie critic. They are worthless people wh think their opnion matters. They serve well for small minded people, who can't make up their own minds, or take risks. They never have peoples interests in mind, because it's impossible, and they are never indifferent.

sorry about the presumptions made based on your sig/avatar...........most people take the time to make a sig banner/avatar and place them in their sig to let everybody know that, that is their favorite movie. If that presumption is wrong.......don't place all the blame on me. If I see a guy walking around the street with a sandwhich board that reads "I love Predator" on both sides.......I naturally think, "man....this guy really must love that movie. It must be his favorite of all time as he chooses to display it over any other film ever made"........

As for not liking Tarantino films............nothing wrong with that. I don't like alot of movies. I just don't go around bashing movies that I don't like.........but millions upon millions of people do. I simply realize that I am in the minority.....which means the movie clearly wasn't made for me.

I must say.......your reasons for not liking his movies " Full of senseless violence, derogatory, sexist humor, and a high schoolers dialogue" is the very reason that so many do.......the very reason they get such acclaim. Jackie Brown and Kill Bill aside (which are both genre pictures)........all of those things are part of everyday life in the real world. At any given time on any given day in any given city Reservoir Dogs could be happening.....Pulp Fiction could be happening. For him to capture some of the worst aspects of every day real life and do it in an off beat, entertaining way is what makes him different.

Seriously though..........please tell me what he copied for Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I really want to know. I honestly can not think of any movies like them......ever made. I really want the names so I can watch them. I love Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.......if there are other movies out there that are just like them, it's a good bet I'll love them too.

agreed...........I hate movie critics. Most movies are made for a particular audience. If you don't like action movies, you have no right reviewing an action movie. If you don't like horror movies, you have no right reviewing horror movies.

Being a big Tarrantino fan, you should know this.

"Reservoir Dogs" is basically a lift of an older Japanese movie called "City on Fire

Synopsis from IMDB for "City on Fire":



Synopsis for "Reservoir Dogs:



Well, well. Sound familiar?

Pulp Fiction? Thats's not a lift from a movie, but basically, once again, a bloodied up, curse word laden twist on "pulp" crime drama magazines and shows of the 40's -50's.




Different, and still unoriginal? He's the only one that does shit like that because everyone else is smart enough to know it wouldn't seem genuine, or original. With him, it is "life imitating art", or can he even distinguish the two?

For me to cite the origins of his ripoffs, only for you to say you'd enjoy them, and NOT BLAST HIM FOR BEING A HACK makes what I did pointless.

I've actually seen City on Fire, I used to have it on VHS...........other than the Mr. White/Mr. Orange friendship in Reservoir Dogs...........they are nothing alike. The plots are completely different. Yes, City of Fire was Tarantino's inspiration..........it is the movie that made him want to make Reservoir Dogs. That is pretty much where the similarities end. They are shot completely different with completely different characters. Reservoir Dogs focuses on a group of 4 guys who came to be in a situation together and how they deal with that situation. This is a far cry from City on Fire.

and for the record........I didn't like City on Fire. It was horrible. It wasn't shot very well..........the production value was crap, the characters were not fleshed out at all........the only reason I had the tape is because my friend made me a copy because I loved Reservoir Dogs and had never seen City on Fire.

If you watched those two movies and could draw a comparison......you have a much better eye than me. The idea was his inspiration......and that is all.

Still doesn't change the fact that 1/2, the 1/2 that actually matters being the plot, of "Reservoir Dogs" is not his work, and Pulp Fiction is his adaptation of, one again, someone elses doing.

Case closed. I can't do anything else to prove my point.

i'm sorry, but calling Tarantinos script "and a high schoolers dialogue" is so completely incorrect. he makes the characters talk about real shit, he makes the characters interact and makes them beleivable.
and i'm also sorry but i'm yet to see a movie that has a crime in it you dont actually see, yet you know everything that happens?