After Sundown

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.

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.

OK. I was like this part sucks and this part doesn't match. What's the deal with the sound?? Then I took it upon myself to contact After Sundown film partners.

When I was told that this picture was done on a 20,ooo dollar budget (when the actors get paid) and no FX, Just photo shop and some blue gels over a 1k light filmed on a obsolete Xl-2 digital camera. I was very impressed. Being in Hollywood "the land of remakes" for 15 years and seeing many of my Co-hearts in crime trying time after time to get a scene play done in H-TOWN. This truly rocked. Yeah, Yeah some people could have done a better Job behind their e-mail. Blah, blah. These cats did it. Looking farther into this, the writer of the "Fangley's" (which is far worst that After Sundown) who also wrote this movie. I would say that it is an improvement...Call it lessons learned. He said the "Fangley's" was done for under 13,ooo bucks and has sold over 23,000 units nation wide at approx 7-10 bucks a pop. I would call that a success!

One way or the other they have distribution from Lions Gate (which carries a whole bunch of B movies and a big NAME). Well, this one fit. If they had more time and money they could do better. They seem to have found something and it worked. Hopefully the next Movie will improve also. Just remember it's about credibility in this business (what have you done?) although the continuity lacked. That's what you get when you run out of time and money. Just finish it and get it out!!

Keep up the fight in Texas. Stay Independent!!

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.

A campy horror flick made to be gory fun on a very low budget as a master vampire and his wife turn some people into the undead and others into flesh eating zombies.

Through flashbacks, you discover that a 19th century preacher's daughter turned vampire bears a demon child as her vampire husband comes to take her and the baby away. The townspeople subdue and stake the husband, wife/daughter, and baby after a fierce, but one sided, gun battle with the husband, and a tortured child birthing scene.

Present day - A group relocating an existing cemetery for developers uncover a buried non-decomposed woman and her baby (in 19th century dress) with wooden stakes in their hearts. Awe struck, the group takes their bodies to the morgue for examination. They pull the stakes out, and leave the bodies unattended. Well, you can guess what happens next at the morgue. In the mean time, workers pull a silver cross from the chest of another body at the cemetery - guess who.

Flash backs to the 19th century fill in some of the blanks as the master vampire husband searches for his wife and child wreaking havoc along the way.

The twist is that the vampires control the mindless zombies.

If you're looking for attention keeping entertainment, skip it. If you're looking for some low budget gore and a combination of zombies and vampires, then this is for you.