After Sundown (2006)

Too much of everything

the audience applauded

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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.

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!"

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.