I had the chance to watch Richard Poche's "Crimson" a few days ago, which is definitely worth checking out. It's about a group of nursing students that stumble upon a bloodied up girl named Sammi, whom they drag back to their sorority house, only to find that Sammi's on the run from a vampire cult... which they, subsequently, get caught up in. It's a great story, it's really well acted and it's cut together very nicely. I thought it could use some nudity and a bit more over-the-top gore, but... that could just reflect my own personal preferences. In the end, it's a true indie horror and you should check it out. Here's a link to Poche's site where you can buy yourself a copy. Also, there's a 10-minute special feature of outtakes, which you'll get a good laugh at, if you've ever been on the set of a low-budget film.
This does, however, give me an opportunity to bring up something that consistently bugs me. Filmmakers, such as Richard Poche, are out making films like "Crimson" on a shoestring budget, they're marketing it themselves and, in a lot of cases, distributing it themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this is what independent film is about. When I see the news, reviews and reports out of festivals like Sundance, which happens to be going on right now, where they talk about indie-this and indie-that, Paul Giamatti, Sam Rockwell, blah, blah... Are you really talking about independent films? In the actual context of term, sure - you're making a film independently of the studio system, but these "independent films" have big-time funding and most of them have some sort name talent attached. Compared to most indie horror films, these are big-budget movies with serious names behind them.
Anyhow, that's why I love seeing a well made, true indie film like "Crimson" and will always promote films like it. So, support indie film and pick up a copy of "Crimson", once again, here's the link and if you've made an indie film that you need to promote, let me know about it... I'm more than happy to discuss it on the site.