4/5 vampires
  by Duane M. Vickery (USA)
It was a good vampire movie better than 2 I think it told how some of it started

3/5 "What's the matter with this place? Your stupid friend ate my horse. I had to shoot him."
  by cookieman108 (Inside the jar...)
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.

Cookieman108

If 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.


3/5 As he presented a tamp, he just asked the waiter for a cup of hot water!
  by Micheal Hunt (Hellbourne)
FDTD 3 was ok, but doesnt compare the the first one. The second one I thought was OK but it had nothing to do with the first one, where as this 3rd sequel is kind of the same as the 1st one but it is set back in the wild west days.

Again there are a lot of unansrewed questions left remaining, like why the charactors are developed for 3 quarters of the movie then they are just wiped out all of a sudden and things like that.

Overall, it will come down to wether you like an action movie with vampires with a bit of fun and gore in it. Dont expect it to live up to the first one, but if you can manage to get through the slow start of the film and have patience to when it picks up, it's ok for a nights entertainment.

1/5 Um...no...
  by John S. Milas (Illinois)
I like the first film, even though it had it's flaws. I was somewhat bored by the second film, yet it had some moments that were entertaining. This movie seemed to try harder at first than the second film did, but it boils down to a piece of crap that ties onto one little (yet very hot) scene with the first movie. I was appalled that in the ending credits Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Lawrence Bender all get Exec. Producer credits for this film. I can just see all three of them on the set, rolling their eyes. I can't believe how this turned out after the first and second movie. None of the characters are very likeable, Danny Trejo and Orlando Jones (!?) are both in this giving it a little push, but it doesn't last. Don't see this film. If you're interest is strong, I won't stop you, but you are warned.

NOT A KIDS FILM!

2/5 Being hung or re-watching this? Tough decision...
  by IhateMTV (The U.S.)
From the false advertising on the cover to the B-movie acting, I just don't know where to begin with this thing. Or more importantly, maybe I should start off by asking "what isn't wrong with this movie?". First off, the front cover mentions in big, bold letters "From Quentin Tarentino, From Robert Rodriguez". Now, we all know that they wrote and directed the first film, but they had absolutely nothing to do with this one. Putting that on the cover would suggest that they were the ones that made this movie. Anyone that looks up information on this flick would know that they didn't, but the average movie goer doesn't. Also of note is the fact that the REAL director's name isn't listed anywhere on the cover. I know they did this to try and cash in on the name value of Tarentino and Rodriguez, but if I were those two, I'd be embarassed to have my name be associated with something as bad as this.

As if the last terrible straight-to-video B movie sequel of From Dusk Till Dawn wasn't bad enough, we now get a prequel of sorts. The story takes place 100 years ago in Mexico and follows an outlaw named Johnny Madrid, who has just escaped being hung. He kidnaps the hangman's daughter, Esmeralda, rounds up his buddies, and hides away in a bar for the night. But this bar isn't all that it seems, as mayhem suddenly unfolds (when I mention "mayhem", I of course mean the same exact thing that happened in the original happens again here, except with cheaper make-up effects). Luckily, our heroes escape into a pasageway in the basement and wander around for about 15 minutes. Suddenly, they all start fighting and they fall back into the main bar area where all the vampires are (Yes, that's right. They wandered for 15 minutes, only to find that they didn't even go anywhere). The vampires tie them up, and we find out that Esmeralda is really Santanico Pandemonium (the character that Salma Hayek played in the original. Apparently, someone actually thought that character was interesting enough to fill out a whole movie. Sorry guys, but when you don't even have Salma, the plan fails miserably). This movie gets even weirder as Esmeralda bites her father (which turns him into a vampire of course), and then, for reasons that aren't explained, starts making out with him (I'm not talking about her giving him a little peck or anything, as this appears to be full, French kissing action. Maybe the director has some sick fantasy about wanting to see kids making out with their parents, but nobody else cares to see stuff like that). Eventually, Madrid and another character leave. The End.

As you can see, most of the plot is pretty bad. The only thing is, with the right actors, a higher budget, and a director that doesn't have fantasies about incest, this could have actually been good. But in reality, we get scenes that don't make sense and many plot elements that don't go anywhere.

The acting, as you can expect, is usual below average B movie stuff. But one actress in particular (Jordana Spiro) annoyed me to end. This actress looks like a guy (for half of the movie, they only referred to her as "Reece" or "The Kid". I only found out she was a female when they mentioned her first name about half-way through the movie), and she has the most annoying voice I've ever heard. The only saving factors are Danny Trejo (who was also in the first one and the sequel) and Orlando Jordan. Jordan steals the scenes that he's in, as he plays a humorous salesman that would go on and on about the qualities of something as simple as a hair brush. Trejo is a fairly good actor that has a nice physique for his age, so I have to wonder why a guy like him is still appearing in B-movies.

Unless you enjoy senseless gore, I'd advise against seeing this one. And if you do like gore, just see the first one again. I've seen the original 20+ times, and would still rather see it again than watch "The Hangman's Daughter" a second time.