_Sundown_ definitely gets points for being one of the most original vampire movies I have ever seen: vampire western comedy.
The movie is good, but I didn't particularly like it. What that means is all the elements are there, however there is a balancing act that is failing to find a proper footing. Does the movie want to be goofy or serious? Does it want to be a western, a comedy, horror, both, none?
I really get the feeling that the writer wanted to make a vampire western, but didn't know how to make the synthetic-blood story work in the old west, so he didn't. With the movie being set during the time it was made, only in a small, desert town, it feels like a period piece, with a few anachronisms here and there. Ultimately, I think a lane needed to be picked. Either set this in the mid nineteenth century or present day, then lose the cowboy parts.
What might be the best example of the push-pull issue here is Carradine versus Campbell. Carradine is playing this straight; he is dead serious, and the movie is better for it. Campbell is being is usual cartoon-character self; while he does a great job, he just feels so out of place - mostly because his character feels jammed in at the last minute, but also because he's way over the top.
I really like the idea of warring vampire clans set in the old west. I'd love to see a serious version of that. Probably exists.
Anyway. This has to be a cult classic. Too weird to not be someone's favorite movie, just not mine.