Strange Things Happen at Sundown

Low budget, independent horror/comedy following several vampires in 21st Century New York. Bit of a tough one for me to review. On one hand I am tempted to say this is an overlong piece of crap, but on the other hand it certainly has some merits to make it watchable (provided the viewer appreciates low budget flicks). The good - I felt compelled to stick with it as I wanted to know what was going to happen to the various characters, all of whom are vampires, or people attacked by them. Interestingly these vampires can walk around in daylight, the Sun has no fatal effect on them. I liked the soundtrack, a crucial element to any movie. There is a fair amount of bloodshed and violence. Camerawork is pretty good, at times using imaginative angles, and there are some creepy dreamlike, nightmarish sequences. The bad - acting is at times poor, but then this is to be expected with movies of this type of budget. There is a dose of comedy but sadly at times it is just dumb, especially a couple meant to be Vlad the Impaler and Countess Bathory, real historical characters associated with "vampirism. But the worst thing for me was the film's mega running time - my DVD clocked up 140 minutes! Way too long for a film like this, in the unlikely attempt that I should feel the urge to revisit STHAS then I would probably do so in two sittings.

Forgive me all that read this review. It won't be long, I assure you. BRAIN DAMAGE films.what can be said about them. Besides bringing out interesting, possibly trend-setting films, I think that the movie makers really need to invest in some better filming equipment. I knew when I saw the opening shot that it was going to be an uninteresting movie, and I was right. Was there blood in it? Yes. Was there vampires? If you want to call them that. Constant screaming from the victims, the cheesy blood that covered the bodies, frustration over a loss of $3.50 is all I felt. The cover to all of their movies is great, but then again, it's suckers like me that rent it and realize after the movie starts that we've been swindled. Oh, and please don't get me started on these Soprano-like vampires.

I gave this movie a 1 out of 10 rating.

Storyline: Mildly interesting, though predictable and not too original.

Acting: Awful? Horrible? Pathetic? Take your pick.

Cinematography: Decent for a shot-on-video movie, but low quality audio and bad lighting really drag it down.

Special effects are non-existent, but not entirely cheesy due to clever use of camera positioning, etc.

Pacing: It's way too long (135 minutes)

Pros: Good insight into the psyche of someone who is forced to kill in order to survive. Comic relief provided by "The Reaper" who dresses in a Grim Reaper caul, but with psychadelic socks that change every scene.

Cons: Bad acting, poor cinematography.

As movies go, the only people who will find it interesting are the very VERY small group of people who are 1) really into vampires and 2) delve into the psychological aspects of reluctant killing. If this doesn't describe you, stay far far away from this film.

It would be a crime against my conscience not to. It is one of the funniest, goriest, and most unique vampire movies I've seen, and I would gladly place it right next to "Near Dark" as an essential indie horror flick about vampires. Of course, it is a long movie and I admit it does seem to go on forever, but this is actually one of those movies where I was thinking, "It seems to take forever, but if it did go on forever, I could still sit and watch and watch and watch." It really is a movie where you just have to let it run its course as it introduces such a wide range of emotions, characters, and ideas and winds them into a clever and cohesive whole. As much as I loved it, I don't mind how it took it's time doing that; you have to just lose yourself into its weird, little world. All of the characters had a place in this, and most of the actors were just as good as any you're likely to see at a multiplex. Why is it a small handful of less than stellar (yet still cheezily engaging) actors are blamed for a bad movie just because it's shot on video? I would dare to call this a GREAT movie, and for every less-than-convincing actor there are literally several who truly friggin' deliver here! Don't even let the Tarantino comparisons color your idea of what the movie comes off as. I, for one, more than half-expected this to suck, since the only other movie I've yet seen from Brain Damage films that I liked was the admittedly schlocky "Terror Toons", and many others caused me pain to watch them. Just throw out your preconceptions and SEE THIS MOVIE! It is one of the best horror flicks of 2003, hands down!

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, even on fast forward it was boring. Having got that off my chest it is only fair to admit that these guys were ambitious. They had an (not uninteresting) idea about a story of vampires in 'real life' and ran with it. Unfortunately they ran with it far too long and this ends up being a non-stop onslaught of gory kills with lots of accompanying screaming and because this is mixed up with a mafia storyline very dumb and very tedious yelling of the same words all the time in place of dialogue. Also, just a personal thing, but there is no sex at all, just blood and guts and crass posturing from all concerned. Amazingly all this is taken very seriously and we are constantly reminded how difficult it would be to be one of these boring vampires. There are attempts at humour but I have been rude enough so I'll say no more, other than that this would have been better if it were two hours shorter!