After Sundown

I see many independent and low-budget films, and those involved with this film on all levels clearly have talent. The problem with low-budget horror films in particular is that horror is a genre that relies a great deal upon mood. Without a lot of money to put into good film stock, these films often appear digitized and lack the ability to give the same degree of color richness, depth and texture necessary to set an appropriate mood. Lighting is also far less forgiving, which influences not only mood but also the special effects and gore. So, while it is clear those involved in this film have talent, the low-budget nature is often distracting, and left me wondering what could have been. The story has an interesting twist on typical vampire lore with the addition of zombies (and I love a good zombie flick). Throw some more money at these guys, and lets see what they can do next.

I have seen more than my fair share of low budget movies, but nothing as bad as this movie. Poor direction, lighting and acting. You could tell that the director did not have real control over the film, even thought the idea was interesting he just shoot from the hip. The overall lighting gave you the feeling that someone was just walking around with a light bulb. Lighting should have been used to enhance the movie instead of helping kill it. The acting was so poor that even your low budget porn films have better actors than this main stream film. I cannot believe that the casting director chose these actors. Go to any street corner in California and you should be able to find better actors. No I am not talking about the zombies. They should all find new jobs far far away from the film industry.

This is a great movie for the extremely small budget they had. There were a couple of plot holes but I find plot hole in almost every movie I watch, even the big budget ones. Other than the few holes the plot was great. And vampires making zombies was VERY original thinking. And it is hard to be original with something that has been around as long as vampires and zombies The acting is great, except for Mike Brown (Benjamin) He was just not believable in his role. To many pauses when he talked. tone of voice did not really match the expressions on his face. The zombie make up was very good. When the vampire was shooting people They should have bleed. But maybe they could not fit that into the budget.

With a bigger budget this would have been a major block buster film.

And all the complaints I see others making could be fixed with a bigger budget. At least the real complaints and not the BS ones

When I read posts saying they thought this film wasn't very good but then they found out how low the budget was and now have new respect for the film...I cringe. (I also cringe when I see 10 stars for this movie as they are obviously affiliated in some way) A film is either good or bad no matter how big or small the budget. Can you tell a good story? Can you keep the pace of the film moving? With all the limitations there is on a low budget film can you make it entertaining? As far as After Sundown goes, the Original Edit didn't take itself so seriously, had better music, lighting, sound, smoother edits and above all else humor. I know all this because I directed the film and with the help of our talented D.P. put together the Original Edit that premiered in front of 400 or so at Billy Bob's in Fort Worth, Texas. The version available in stores was altered by the Executive Producers in a failed attempt at making this a serious horror film. With all that being said, it was still a great learning experience and having Lion's Gate on the resume can't be all bad.

As Executive Producer/Writer/Director and Editor of After Sundown I can respond best to the many useful comments. First, this is the better version of After Sundown and actually no other version should legally exist. What does exist is an unauthorized illegal version of the movie that the co-director put together with the the D.P. without my knowledge and began to distribute. The co-director did not follow the directions given to him and he was trying to create his own version of the movie and wouldn't listen to the person who invited him in on this project. Thus having a huge conflict in pacing, acting and all around plot. The co-directors version was the one sent to distributors and was promptly turned down due to lack of horror elements, bad music and a convoluted ending. Second, the original script covered many but not all of the holes in the plot but because of issues on set (i.e. actors moving, locations being lost and budget restraints and a co-director not listening) many, many scenes had to be cut. I know the movie isn't great but we all have to start somewhere and my version did at least get distribution. As far as fake blood, make-up and zombies... that's up to the viewer to decide. At least it was real and not CGI effects. And lastly, budget does mean everything - if you've ever made a movie then you know that and compromises have to be made in any business and this is a business. If you don't think it is then try to rent a movie or go to the theater without paying. I do appreciate all the comments... it does help... especially since I'm currently working on my third movie... and if you are wondering, yes I made The Fanglys..."they just keep getting better!"