lfpiii 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.

mark hunter 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

talibonjohn 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!!

Lwood Bluz 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.