Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Sadly Over-hyped

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

If you enjoy spaghetti westerns (but not made in Italy or Spain), you'll enjoy "Dead Again in Tombstone." If you enjoy spaghetti westerns with supernatural overtones you'll enjoy "Dead Again in Tombstone." If you're a Danny Trejo fan you'll REALLY enjoy "Dead Again in Tombstone." Like Italian westerns, the film serves up plenty of action, and there are no heroes. Some reviewers assert that Trejo can't act. They don't realize that Trejo, may he be a good or bad actor, is more than that. He is a force of nature. Every scene he's in, your eyes are on him. Jake Busey as the baddest of the bad guys is excellent as a "Southern Gentleman" and ex-confederate soldier.

The first movie, Dead in Tombstone, was fairly okay. Not great but okay. This movie, the second installment, was a bit of a disappointment though. The general idea is a good one. At least it is one I would generally have liked. However, it is really poorly implemented.Danny is supposed to be the devil's servant imbued with supernatural powers and supposed to kick some serious ass. You know, a bit like Ghost Rider in the old west. Unfortunately he is nothing but. Most of the time he is roaming around sulking and trying to patch things up with his daughter.He is really not showing much in terms of terrifying presence or supernatural powers. Whenever he springs into action he is just blundering in shooting at everything that moves and usually he gets shot up and "dies" in the process. Afterwards he get's revived and the process starts all over again.Towards the end of the movie we finally get some supernatural action but it is really too late to save it and not really that impressive to begin with.On the whole the script is pretty bland and unconvincing. It is more suitable for a TV-show episode than a feature movie.Really a shame. I generally like Danny Trejo when he is playing bad ass.

haven't seen the first movie, just started and watched this one, i liked the story and it contained some beautiful shots, a bit too much frog perspective if you ask me. Also i think the pacing of the edit is way too slow!!! which makes the movie boring to watch...next to that, there was a lot of gunfire and not a lot of evading or hiding, combined with bullet impact shots. (then i mean not just people going down, but bullets hitting the wooden stuff)Costuming looked great, and so were the practical effects! Danny Trejo seemed a bit slow in both movement and acting but that might be the edit (not sure).Therefore i rate this movie a 3/10

I so wanted to like this movie and in some parts it does deliver, there is an excellent stagecoach sequence when the villains are in "hot pursuit". Danny Trego is OK in the lead but I feel he just cannot have enough talent to carry the film through on his own. The plot is discussed elsewhere but the mixture of a western and the supernatural is always interesting and as I said some sequences are rather well done and some of the landscapes are very impressive. The problem is a weak script and the major "downer" for the entire movie is Jake Busey, he may have inherited his father's looks but certainly none of his acting talent. His performance is one of the worst I have ever seen in a movie and has to be seen and heard to believe such bad acting is possible. A shame because the film is a valiant attempt and let down by the second lead.