In a sense, yes, it doesn't have to be that hard. I mean when you really think about it, the ease of making a film is almost entirely dependent upon the story. If its an amazing story, then you can get away with half-decent shots, ok gaffing, and mediocre actors, such as the case with following or clerks. However, most movies don't have amazing stories, which means you almost inevitably have to rely on the use of interesting shots, great actors, and amazing asthetics.
Just look at "There Will Be Blood." That movie was one of my favorites but if some teenager used a shitty camera, bad gaffing, actors, etc to tell the story, then it wouldn't be conveyed properly because with that movie among others, its about the way in which it was conveyed. Paul Thomas Anderson did an amazing job with that film because he inched his audience towards a state of absolute madness and that had to do with the composition, flow, and acting....All of which required a lot of talent and money.
So I guess the process of making a movie doesn't have to have crazy explosions, awesome CGI, or a lot of expensive equipment and actors, but if you're not going to have all of that, then you better make it a kick ass movie....Most people, including myself can't do that so we have to rely on how its conveyed rather than the story, itself.
