MovieChat Forums > From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) Discussion > Why is this considered to be a great mov...

Why is this considered to be a great movie?

posted 9 years ago by uyenfacebook
20 replies | jump to latest

OK, I want to start by saying that, this is a genuine question that I hope to get an answer for to understand more about cinema history in general, not some kind of smart-ass bashing you usually see on these forums. Here is what I have to say:

I've finally get around to seeing this film on Netflix, seeing how it got a cult following I have some good expectation. Being a film lover, I love all kinds of movies, from budget to blockbuster.

This one starts off really strongly. It feels really interesting. Great characters, great set up, the opening scene at the liquor store couldn't be any more captivating. I couldn't wait to find out whats gonna happen next to these 2 criminal characters and after that the family of the pastor.

But then it kinda went downhill at their arrival at the bar. I had no prior knowledge that this is a vampire movie and it is interesting at first and quite shocking as well. But after that it was just a blood fest with no story just an endless action sequel which really bored me and made me skip ahead multiple times. Now I understand that some movies don't hold their value well compare to today's standard. Like Alien. I watched it again recently and it was not as scary and memorable of a movie as I remembered but I totally understand and can appreciate its value as one of the most unique and influential movies of that genre back then.

But prior to 1996 of From Dusk Till Dawn, hadn't there been any movies similar to this? Was this one that revolutionary and influential in its time?

[–] laz_84-325-879071 9 years ago

Basically Tarantino directed the movie up until the Salma Hayek scene and then Rodriquez took over.

That should answer your question

[–] taran-rod 9 years ago

"Basically Tarantino directed the movie up until the Salma Hayek scene and then Rodriquez took over."

Wow, way to spread unfounded lies my friend...

[–] TheSonomaDude_Returns 9 years ago

I've actually heard that this is partially true. I know for a fact QT directed the scene where the brothers talk in their car (right after the intro), as well as the scene where the brothers interrogate Jacob and his family. I've also heard Robert Kurtzman directed a scene in the movie, but I'm not sure which one.

[–] Dwright1212 9 years ago

QT never directed any of this, and all of Kurtzman's direction were deleted from the final cut.

La religion est fausse, mais vous êtes réel. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpq26sPbC_4

[–] lexipink6 9 years ago

I agree, I thought the movie was perfect until the vampires showed up. I think they could've handle this better by not throwing the big part of the movie into the last 30 minutes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

[–] chas437 9 years ago

You ask a good question. I've never considered this a great or even good film. Its a chore to watch all the way to the end.

[–] taran-rod 9 years ago

What's wrong with the second part? Yes, it's a blood fest, but it was exactly what it was meant to be. What did you want? That they take a family trip together?

[–] imnotjohncandy 9 years ago

It doesn't need a story but if it helps, the third movie From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter explains the history of the bar and gives a little insight into the backstory of Salma Hayek's character.

[–] BrickNash 9 years ago

I always saw the film as a kind of crossover with the first half being the more intelligent build up then it turns into a tribute for the cheesy schlock films that Tarantino and Rodriguez were fans of.

It's all good fun and I enjoy the juxtaposition and just crazy melding of genres plus it has the added benefit of some great dialogue. I do agree the first half is better but I also don't mind turning my brain off and indulging in some gory nonsense either so it's all a big winner for me!

[–] laurich 9 years ago

Agree with you except for the fact that the beginning was even remotely interesting. This is a bad movie from beginning to end. I saw bits and pieces of it before and finally (attempted) to watch the whole thing. Further convinced me that Tarantino is highly overrated as a director and especially as an actor. The other actors should be ashamed to have this on their resume. This one is right up there with Sharknado.

[–] xfastfurious15 9 years ago

Tarantino didn't direct this. It was Robert rodriguez.

I bet you're wondering what a place like this is doing in a girl like me-The Mummy

[–] metalfreak19 8 years ago

You are either a cluesless 15 year old or you have a giant stick shoved up your ass.

First off, Robert Rodriguez directed this flick. Secondly, Tarantino is certainly not "overrated as an actor", cause everybody thinks he sucked in this one. He even got a Razzie.

And last but not least, Tarantino is NOT overrated as a director. You seem to dislike his style, but that doesn't make his movies any worse. Your argument is completely invalid. And I'm not even a fanboy, just sick of stupid people like you who talk *beep* and know nothing about the subject.

[–] The_Celluloid_Sage 8 years ago

When Tarantino actually has an original idea in his over-inflated egotistical head, then we shall talk metalfreak.

Do I like his style? Yes, but he has only made a few films worth watching, and even less worth watching repeatedly. He is vastly overrated by the modern younger generation who think he is cool, hip, revolutionary and invented all sorts of things...

When in reality, 95% of his work he has ripped off stuff from films this 'younger generation' have never even heard of.

[–] wwiisgttom 8 years ago

I like him exactly because he isn't original. He is self indulging in that he constantly takes from films that he himself loves. Its fun and his dialogue is a lot of fun too.

Hows the pie?

Sooo good.

[–] metalfreak19 8 years ago

I don't even disagree. Tarantino "steals" constantly. But you should keep in mind that he made it very clear more then once, that he is a film FAN and his films are more like a hommage to older films and directors. He doesn't even deny that. So, if I watch his films in that context, I can definitely enjoy them (especially everything from Reservoir Dogs to Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Hateful 8).

He is certainly overrated by the younger generation, but I'd still have the younger generation watch Tarantino films and MAYBE get into older stuff that way, then having them watch completely shallow, cookie-cutter films. Tarantino's work at least is different to most films released these days (by Hollywood), and thus challenge people a bit (not like 2001: A Space Odyssey would, but I guess you get what I mean).

Imho, there isn't as much to Tarantino films as some people think there is, but his films have great dialogue, (mostly) great actors and great screenplays. And if people like this kind of stuff, they may get interested in the art of filmmaking a bit more :)

[–] snoho 8 years ago

The vampire half did feel a bit ridiculous but it was entertaining regardless.