From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000)

"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.

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.

As he presented a tamp, he just asked the waiter for a cup of hot water!
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.

As he presented a tamp, he just asked the waiter for a cup of hot water!
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.