When I first saw From Dusk Till Dawn when it just got released on video, I really had no idea what it was about going in. I really never heard of it, and some friends rented it. Anyway, I loved the entire first half of the movie, but as soon as the vampires came out, I got a “where the fuck did that come from?” impression.
Thank you deliv. that’s how i felt, the end sucked. Anything is better then than lame ass shit. I mean what if instead of Vampires appearing the story happaned as planed. They went to the Bar and the deal went down. What if the deal went sour and the police got involved. And there was some kind of hostage situation. Maybe one of the kids died. Whatever. Anything but vampires
Honestly, I think the whole reason for the Vampires being in the movie is because it was written and meant to ba vampire movie. The first part of the movie was just setup tarantino style, the last part of the movie was what the movie was about. Not about the Gecko’s or the family the take hostage but about vampires. It’s a Vampire movie.
Would FDTD be good as a getaway movie, yes. But QT wasn’t writing a getaway movie, just a vampire movie with getaway elements. With out the vampires the movie probably wouldn’t even be named From Dusk Til Dawn.
You’re right fedis…totally right. I just think that the end result of the movie wasn’t good, but i guess it could have been…maybe…who can tell?
I agree with you guys that if the whole movie would be like part 1 (till the vamps kick in) it would be a good movie, maybe even better…
But the total turn around in the movie is fucking awesome! really love the look on peoples faces (wtf is this? effect) when they see it for the first time…and for this effect: its worth the vamps…besides…part 2 isnt that bad…still cool lines and funny shit…just in another setting!
when part 2 kicks in…its like you re on drugs and in a rollercoaster…you see stuff but you dont really understand anything…thats whats great about FDTD…
also love the “back in nam” speech from the big black guy(frost)…again: wtf is this guy talking about lol ;D…vamps are all over, and he’s bitching about nam…
also funny: the song that plays in the car when richie is waiting for seth to return…
I think this entire topic is so pointless.
From Dusk Till Dawn was NEVER intended to be a gangster-only movie. IT WAS ALWAYS A VAMPIRE/GANGSTER MOVIE. if you don’t like the movie, don’t watch it
I did like it. But then it got bad…I’m just wondering who else thought that. And why tarantino would have anything to do with this movie…but both those questions have been answered. I said what i had to say and i stick by it 100%
I wouldn’t say it went bad, but the cheesy FX couldve been done differently.
I think Starkey you were dissapointed because you were expecting a full-fledged QT movie, and you only got half.
[quote]I wouldn’t say it went bad, but the cheesy FX couldve been done differently.
I think Starkey you were dissapointed because you were expecting a full-fledged QT movie, and you only got half. [/quote]
No, the second half turned into a full blownout shit fesitival.  Even for a horror movie that was really, really bad.  Rodriguez really fucked up on this one, it even got nominated for a couple Razzies.
When i first saw it, the only thing i thought tarantino contributed to it was his acting. I wasn’t expecting anything…that’s why when I saw how fucking good the first 3/4 were i shit my pants when the vampires out.
But i just now understand something…the Vampires defined this movie. Even if it was the worst part, it would not have been nearly as memorable without the vampires. I think that Rodriguez just didn’t do it well, or maybe he did it exactally the way he was supposed to but didn’t know how serious the first part turned out to be. In ether case…this movie could have been a classic.
Apparently, key word “apparantly”, that was the way they meant it to be. Maybe QT and Rodriguez wanted a cheap B-movie feel to it?
yeah thats exactly what it is…
like kill bill is an hommage to old kung fu shit…FDTD is having fun with vampires…
I dont understand the problem…the turnaround is just the coolest shit and totally in the style of QT…the whole movie is just fun and good/funny dialogue…add cool characters, music, camera angles, etc shit fucking cool movie…
just another movie based on the movie world made by the only man that can do this properly;QT!
Once Upon A Time In Mexico was greatm couldja imagine it better with QT directing it?
just kidding niga, but…yes, i do think FDTD would have been a better movie if Tarantino directed the movie.
What would be different if QT directed FDTD?
cuz in my opinion the movie feels like QT all the time, with a good mix of rodriguez blended in…QT’s style is mos def the one that ahs the dominant influance…
Because I hate how Rodriguez directs action. The good guy never gets hurt when he realisticly should have. It looks so stupid.
lot of guys got hurt in FDTD…
and love the over the top shit in desparado…totally fits in the movie world that QT also loves…you cant take it seriuesly indeed, but thats not the point…point is making kick arse movies…and thats what they do…
well its a mather of taste…gotta respect your opinion also…
greets
I’m just talkin’ about how FDTD i’m talking about his other works. What i mean is that people aren’t getting hurt when they’re supposed to. For example, In WINDTALKERS (I know it’s not directed by Rodriguez but this example works) there is a part there the Nick Cage is getting shot at by about 17 of Japs, he puls out his rifle and shoots all of them. Not one of the japs hits him, then magicly when he is aiming at someone else another jap shoots him. This is how i feal about the action in all of Rodriguezes movies.
yeah you re totally right…itys very irritating when a movie is soposed to be a serieus movie, but at the same time fuckers who are supposed to go down (cuz they get shot at like a gazillion times) wont go down…I ussually stop the tape or dvd when this happens to often…
I actually didn’t agree with Starkey on this whole situation until I recently saw the film DEAD OR ALIVE. Now Dead or Alive has a similar formula…ITs total seriousness of a movie, then at the end (Spoiler alertt if you havnt’ seen Dead or Alive) it becomes reidiculously retarded. The last 2 minutes of the film RUINED the whole film. Here’s how it goes, the whole movie is serious, it has great camera work, great acting, good story, great action, its realistic to a degree…then the last 2 minutes a guy pulls a BAZOOKA out of his fucking shirt and another guy RIPS into his chest and pulls out a glwoing orb thing, then Japan explodes.
To me, this was extremely retarded. I was told I need to see the sequel to understand the first part’s ending, but I’m like, "No, cause the first one SUCKS because of that ending."
You can’t have a totally serious movie then JUMP into TOTAL UNREALISTIC SHIT. Thats retarded and RUINS a movie!
That brings me to From Dusk Till Dawn. The begining of the film is serious, its not stupid, its realistic to a degree, and its not too farfetched.
Then all of a sudden as soon as Salma Hayek turns into a Vampire the film goes 180º. What the FUCK did happen?
You can’t have a totally serious film then JUMP into surreal shit like Vampires!
This movie WOULD have worked say the WHOLE movie delt with Vampires. But since half the movie doesn’t, it DOESN’T WORK!
There’s absolutely NO explanation to WHY those fucks are Vampires! They arn’t mentioned for 45 minutes of the film, then BLAM, they are there!
I can’t say they RUINED the film, but they sure as hell made it stupid. Not the cheesey gore, just the presence. The movie starts off as a world WITHOUT Vampires, then…VAMPIRES! FOR NO REASON! WHAT THE FUCK!?
Either have the WHOLE movie deal with Vampires, or NO Vampires at all. You can’t just throw them into the mix half way through for no reason.
Also I thought the film’s weakest directing was in the bar, right when all the bats are outside knocking to come in. The fucking characters all stand around talking. this not onyl didn’t look good on camera, but it was unrealistic. They are gonna stand in a big circle and talk like ninnies? And the camera is one big long shot of them talking? Stupid, TERRIBLE directing. I also found that one guy’s story of Vietnam incredibly stupid. That was definetely Tarantino’s WORST dialogue. The story he was telling was NOT good, it was dumb.