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.
10 Reviews
Dusk till dawn meets Dawn of the dead
wrlang15 July 2006
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.
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.
Perhaps the worst vampire cowboy movie ever made
MBunge30 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
After Sundown is one of those movies made by people with very little money and even less talent where you are not surprised to see the same names listed over and over in the credits, but you are shocked it took so many to produce something so pitiful. On the one hand, you have to respect these folks for setting out to make a film and accomplishing that goal. On the other hand, everyone would have been better off taking up knitting instead.
Out of respect for the effort that was made, I'm going to give this thing an actual review even though all that's really needed is to note that the writing sucks, the acting sucks, the direction sucks, the production values suck, there's no nudity, nothing deliberately funny, virtually nothing unintentionally funny and the violence and gore in After Sundown is tamer than what you'll see in an average episode of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.
The plot concerns an wild west vampire and his bride who are revived in the modern world and start turning people into zombies. Yes, these vampires turn people into zombies and not other vampires. No, it doesn't make any sense but that's the least questionable thing about this script. Our cast of characters basically wander around the extremely limited number of locations these filmmakers could afford to shoot at, trying to avoid being eaten, going long stretches without saying anything and going longer stretches where they can barely be seen because this film has worse lighting than an abandoned mine shaft.
I don't have much criticism for the actors of After Sundown. They don't give very good performances but with the abysmal dialog and frequently nonsensical story they had to work with in addition to the miserable direction they no doubt received, they deserve some credit for not completely embarrassing themselves.
Both writer/co-director Christopher Abram and co-director Michael W. Brown do warrant a heaping dose of humiliation for their weak and excessively extended labors. If you've ever been to a film festival and seen a 20 minute short that was so terrible you couldn't understand why anyone bothered to make it, add another 68 minutes of equally awful stuff and you have good idea of what After Sundown is like. From having a dream sequence in the middle of a flashback to pulling a conclusion completely out of their asses and then literally forgetting about it, Abram and Brown demonstrate the storytelling aptitude of sea slugs that have smoked too much marijuana. I mean, they couldn't even show this movie to their own mothers and not get "two thumbs down".
After Sundown is another drop in the ocean of utterly worthless films that have been vomited up onto DVD in a desperate and deceitful effort to scam the movie-loving public. It isn't worth renting. It isn't worth watching for free on TV. They should have to pay people to watch this thing and then let the viewers kick Abram and Brown square in the nuts when it's over.
Out of respect for the effort that was made, I'm going to give this thing an actual review even though all that's really needed is to note that the writing sucks, the acting sucks, the direction sucks, the production values suck, there's no nudity, nothing deliberately funny, virtually nothing unintentionally funny and the violence and gore in After Sundown is tamer than what you'll see in an average episode of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.
The plot concerns an wild west vampire and his bride who are revived in the modern world and start turning people into zombies. Yes, these vampires turn people into zombies and not other vampires. No, it doesn't make any sense but that's the least questionable thing about this script. Our cast of characters basically wander around the extremely limited number of locations these filmmakers could afford to shoot at, trying to avoid being eaten, going long stretches without saying anything and going longer stretches where they can barely be seen because this film has worse lighting than an abandoned mine shaft.
I don't have much criticism for the actors of After Sundown. They don't give very good performances but with the abysmal dialog and frequently nonsensical story they had to work with in addition to the miserable direction they no doubt received, they deserve some credit for not completely embarrassing themselves.
Both writer/co-director Christopher Abram and co-director Michael W. Brown do warrant a heaping dose of humiliation for their weak and excessively extended labors. If you've ever been to a film festival and seen a 20 minute short that was so terrible you couldn't understand why anyone bothered to make it, add another 68 minutes of equally awful stuff and you have good idea of what After Sundown is like. From having a dream sequence in the middle of a flashback to pulling a conclusion completely out of their asses and then literally forgetting about it, Abram and Brown demonstrate the storytelling aptitude of sea slugs that have smoked too much marijuana. I mean, they couldn't even show this movie to their own mothers and not get "two thumbs down".
After Sundown is another drop in the ocean of utterly worthless films that have been vomited up onto DVD in a desperate and deceitful effort to scam the movie-loving public. It isn't worth renting. It isn't worth watching for free on TV. They should have to pay people to watch this thing and then let the viewers kick Abram and Brown square in the nuts when it's over.
Facts not Fiction
thefanglys10 April 2007
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!"
Give them more money...
purban15 July 2006
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.
Garbage
lfpiii5 November 2006
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 was a great movie
pathlesspagan21 July 2006
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
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
Misses the Mark
charlesbailey4919 July 2006
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.
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.
After Sundown is not bad for the money
talibonjohn19 July 2006
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!!
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!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
