After Sundown

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.

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!"

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.

For a low-budget horror film, it lives up to the slockiness of most. Many of the scenes are quite predictable and have been done to "DEATH"!!! Do we always have to see a town full of SLOW ZOMBIES chase after the last group of people in the town...and wind up catching members...if not all...of the party???

The one thing that makes this film worthy enough to watch, in my opinion, are the scenes that deal with the diary and the background information that it gives to the happenings that plague the town. It would have been a much better film if they focused purely on the Western village in the past. Maybe if they would make a prequel, a much larger audience would enjoy that film.