> Lo/No Budget Review

[MindStudios]

Hey no problem, and trust me I've got the skin for it. Like I said before, I'm not happy with it at all, so I have my fair share of complaints. I was gonna give you my list of critiques for it to save you time, but I think I'll keep that to myself and see if you come to the same conclusions.
Thanks, though!

Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier, but in terms of acting talent..........the actors are my parents....so no talent there....haha, just to warn you. And my mom's French. But that's another matter.

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

Sorry to hear (read) about your crudedness, rayw. I hope you get well soon.

 

[rayw]

Thank you, Lucky.

 

[rayw]

$40,000 - Bigfoot (2006) : A Troma Distribution Film!

... so you know it's gotta be goooood!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0wbdyGGsIc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0wbdyGGsIc

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0834897/

Caught 2/3 of this on Comcast On Demand last night.
Yeah... it's more of the same classic/cliché no budget filmmaking.

I swear to filmmakers, if you'd just disregard any and all acting qualifications AND JUST FOCUS on capturing decent images + blocking + throw in a little givadam towards capturing GOOD (not just "some") audio that'll take care of 80% of your no budget problems.

IT DOESN'T COST YOU ANY MORE TO TAKE A GOOD IMAGE.
YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE CAMERA.

A bigger budget.
Better cameras.
Better actors.
Better props and costumes.
Better locations.

NONE of this is going to make your DIY no budget film BE a better film if it looks like the browns playing in the pooperbowl.

Better audio MIGHT, probably might, make or ensure your movie isn't a total clusterfilm.

 

[rayw]

Attack of the Killer Backpacks (2012)

http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Killer-Backpacks-Gerrit-Reinecke/dp/B007ZXW3OQ

A darkly humorous, violent parody of 80's Zombie films, Attack of the Killer Backpacks tells the story of a serial killer who preys on young females walking home from school. The police call him the suburban killer, however something more sinister and crazy is going on, as the investigation reveals that the disappearing young women all seem connected by a detail accessory: They were all wearing backpacks at the time of their disappearance. Can anyone stop the Attack of the Killer Backpacks?​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIzwW4bNHE

German w/ American subtitles.
This sux internationally.

All the usual nubie filmmaker problems: Bad images + bad story.
The acting is fair to decent all things considered, an example of where the actors are better than the director.
A lovely example of what I'd be horrified to do to my actors.

More beloved € 10,000 (USD$13,000) Toxic Lullaby director Ralf Kemper's (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2728080/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1) other films have budgets of $80,000 for Posession, a self proclaimed spoof much like this, and €2,000 (USD$2,500) for Die Waldbewohner.

I couldn't write a better review than this: http://horrornews.net/58493/film-review-the-attack-of-the-killer-backpacks-2006/

It's not dark humor.
It's not a spoof.
It's just a lot of wasted time and effort.

Yeah, the director/producer(s) got their film distributed. Great.
However, getting distribution and getting profitable distribution ain't the same thing.

You can spend $X-thousand on production + promotion, but if a last-resort distributor agrees to pay <$X-thousand then you've not broken even.
It had better be art, like Tarsem Singh kinda film art, otherwise you're wasting your time.
And this ain't Tarsem Singh kinda film art, therefor...

Don't be no Uwe Boll junior, okay?

 

[rayw]

Home - A MindStudios Short Film

Okay... four effing weeks later... (I apologize for the delay)

Lettuce TECHNICALLY see what we got here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpYswRGiqZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpYswRGiqZU

After the quick flash stuff, the scene that begins @ 0:13 of the upside down bedroom - the contrast between the bright window + relatively dark room is a nightmare for digital cameras to deal with.
Our eyes are a hundred-fold more better than any camera.
Options include:

• Light the interior to bring it close to the outside brightness
• Block the window w/ drapes or something
• Completely blow out the window by slowing down the shutter speed (don't mess with the ISO) to get the interior (the majority of the scene's importance) well lit
• Wait until it's darker outside
• Recompose the scene.

"Morning, Honey" audio is horrible. In camera mic?
@ 1:10 that contrast is killing the shot, again. DON'T DO THAT! Gotta plan ahead better.
Also, are you using any sort of shoulder harness or rig to stabilize the hand-held camera work?
The L/R corner rocking like a steering wheel, minimal as it is, and especially on the swings from left to right, is not good.
@1:16 plan ahead for the lighting differences between the blue-ish natural daylight coming through the background window and the yellow-ish tungsten lighting in the kitchen.
Don't rely 100% on AWB (automatic white balance). You know there's going to be a difference. In the subsequent shot the AWB does a fine job dealing JUST WITH the tungsten light. So, in the previous shot you should set the camera's white balance to "tungsten" then just shot the scene with the natural light however it turned out - or planned the shot better without the lighting mix.
The images from the outside jogging scenes are great. THAT'S about as much lighting as your camera requires. When the sequence cuts back and forth between outside and inside the inside shots look terrible.
@ 2:36 if your editing program allows it, you should consider making the dark colors more black.
The musical audio is a few decibels too loud over the scene audio, which is fairly bleh in quality.
@3:16 again, the rocking camera (L/R corners like a steering wheel) looks horrible, and I know this is really technically tough to overcome, especially hand held, with or without some shoulder rig. I'd say it's impossible, actually. Consider trying to find a location where something like this could be shot from a car window while the subject jogs/moves. Also, the background/foreground contrast is f#cking up the whole shot.
@4:17- 4:26 watch the camera try to balance the lighting by beginning with increased gain at the beginning, @ 4:23 dropping the gain, @ 4:24 it goes dark then recovers. You gotta lock something down through these lighting changes. Shutter speed, ISO, or something. IDK what your camera is changing.
The hand held L/R rocking KILLLLLLLZ the next few shots.
6:36 Contrast. White balance.
FWIW, the film's a quarter into the story and isn't very interesting to me.
6:48 Audio is horrible. How are you collecting that?
Alright, something ain't right "at home." What? Is Mom a mannequin and Dad's nuttin' out?
7:14 Nice skewed shot, coupled with the opening shot it alludes more to the something's not right "at home."
8:11 Contrast.
8:22 Audio sux.
8:33 Okay, Mom's a vegetable. Maybe. Are those insect noises part of the live dialog recording or did you lay that in a skosh loud on a separate audio track? I suspect the former. If so, (and I also think you're using the in camera mic, maybe even with an external add-on mic like a Rode VideoMic) you gotta get that mic off the [expletive] camera. At a minimum consider something like: http://digital-voice-recorder-review.toptenreviews.com/sony-icd-px312-review.html
9:03 - 9:12 Ho-lee sh!t that increasing shoe crunching on crush&run is horrible! Natural or laid in audio track?
9:21 Cute. Predictable, but well done.
10:31 - 10:37 Gotta watch those contrast changes from the beginning to end of the shot. Either change the whole plan or lock that ISO.
10:49 - 10:50 The sprinkling of fall leaves was a bit over the top.
11:39 - 11:43 That shot was just horrid.

Alright, I'm halfway through the show and am punching out here.
I don't care how the story ends. Nothing personal. Not my cup of tea.
I think I've pointed out enough production technical items to overcome on further projects.

Hope this helps.

 

[bluechip.]

Spend more time on scripts and try to master them because there are lots and lots of people with good technical knowledge who can help or guide or even work. And and don't cast your friends! Remember what Sidney Lumet once said, "There are no small decisions in filmmaking."

 

[MindStudios]

Alright, I'm halfway through the show and am punching out here.

Haha, yeah you aren't missing much. The whole story probably should have been only 4 minutes, it's very repetitive....

I was thinking about responding to each of your critiques, but I'm too lazy, haha.
But you are basically spot-on.

My main problem is that I'm trying to move too fast... I mean, compared to some of the filmmakers on here, I got my first video camera in April of 2011 and my first video that had any planning whatsoever was a Bullying PSA for school in March of 2012....and there I was trying to do a 20 minute short film, with no other equipment besides a tiny camcorder.....So yeah, a lot of technical flaws. Like many of the veterans on this site tell all the newbies, first go out and make at LEAST five short films just a couple minutes long, before tackling anything bigger.

But yeah...Anyway, thanks Ray! I'm currently editing another short film which will be about 15 minutes long, with more content than 'Home'. But I'm definitely going to take my time on this. I tend to rush a lot of my projects at the end, because I get tired and annoyed of them so quickly. But this baby isn't going to be done for at least a month, probably longer.

Thanks again! Now I'm off to browse the forums again to soak in some more knowledge

 

[rayw]

$200: Yeti: A Love Story (Video 2006)

Yeti: A Love Story (Video 2006)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AHLjjZbIKw

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765488/

First, and foremost: Um... The story is just pure cr@pola.

IDK WTH the writer/directors of this were thinking, but I gotta respect the budget, assuming that it's remotely correct.

My first question has gotta be "WTH did they spend the $200 on?"

There's a undefined "minimum" direct cost any feature length film is sure to generate, and it's gotta be north of the reported $200 budget here.

From a pure financial perspective, even if this was made for a couple of Benjis out of pocket - and - Kaufman Co (TROMA) agreed to write them a distro check for ten Benjis, that's a straight eight profit.
Technically a four-fold gain.
However... seriously, this ISN'T art or fan fic or even something fun to do for a few weeks.
This took a lotta people a lotta time and more than a fair bit of effort to coordinate, shoot, and edit even if it was all donated "buddy-time".
I just don't know WTH the point and purpose is of making something so sh!tty.
Just to say you did or you were involved, I guess? Beats the sh!t outta me.

The image compositions are sometimes fair, often poor, and the movement almost always terrible.
I'd like to know what camera they used.
Even more so, I'd like to know what audio equipment they used.
The acting is par for friends willing to act foolish on film just to be on screen.
IDK WTH to make of the nudity. It's so pointless I wanna yell out to the TV screen "You know... I can see you, folks. What the h3ll are you thinking?"

1,371​

Another fine example of "Dude with camera getting cr@p films in the can and distributed."



Update Edit...
Troma Films @ YT: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UU4O0LNYmaOczcSMHA_FE1Mw
A brave soul's two tier rating of some of them: http://thelastexit.net/cinema/troma.html
(I shudder at the thought of those that didn't even make it to the list.

)

 

[rayw]

RUBEN'S PLACE: Budget: $10,000, 71 min, 2012

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2609706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

"A slice of life story about a young man named Ruben, who returns home to take care of his ailing father. He reconnects with his boyhood friend Jimmy after starting a job with his Uncle."​

http://vimeo.com/44810536

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkWk-8mpndg

"I filmed the entire project on my Canon 7D camera over the course of two months. I also used two lenses, the Canon 50 mm lens and the Nikon 50 mm lens. Most of all shots where done with the 50 mm Nikon lens with an adapter for the Canon 7D.
I edited the film using Final Cut Pro (software). Its been a long 10 months of editing, and glad that part of it is over, though it was well spent. Very happy with the outcome, and I really had no budget for this movie, except for my very limited resources. I thought it turned out well over all, base on my shoe string budget. It's the little film that could."​

The camera makes nice images.
Images are aften bleh. Would benefit some color correcting or contrast change or something short of technicolor wonder, I know.
Audio is a wreck in the first few scenes.
"Father" provides stage acting, which, IMHO, isn't good for film.
10mins in and it's pretty boring.
12mins in and the cliché self-naveling is becoming a bit much for my short-@ss-attention span, AKA classic independent film material.

Punching out @ 20 minutes due to boredom, before any LGBT action began.
Probably woulda helped if it came earlier.

Honestly, it was nice seeing a film that wasn't cr@p scifi or faux horror.
For real.

Don't know what the $10k was spent on. Looks like a lotta commonly available free locations, costumes, props, little to no additional lighting.
Maybe it was craft services, permits, and festival entry fees. Pretty sure it wasn't for a knowledgeable audio/boom operator.

A goog search of the title review turned up little more than "GAY MOVIE", not in a derogatory sense but more of a "All this film has to offer is that it's about being gay, thus - a GAY MOVIE." sigh...

I dunno.

If I made a horror or sci-fi movie would I be so perplexed by this moniker? Probably not.
It just seems weird to me.
I guess I just don't think of STRAIGHT as a genré or BLACK or WHITE or DISABLED or BLONDE or FRECKLED or whatever as a genré.
Whatever.

I guess GAY is a genré and not just an aspect of life.
Whatever.

I bet if this was just a boring @ss STRAIGHT MOVIE then it would have an even smaller audience.

 

[rayw]

$3,500: Nightmare Alley (2010) 88 min - Horror

http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/nightmare-alley

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1620557/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

OMGwhattacr@pfest.

The lame-O logo was the best part of the film!

Open with a stupid reverse-zoom, 4:3 aspect ratio mind you (for a 2010 film, ahem.)
Music's pretty good, though!
And honestly the audio is surprisingly better than the quality of the second shot. Unusual for a film of this production standard.
And it's hard to berate the "friends as actors" when the script dialog is so p!ss poor. The screenplay is not "bad @ss"

Indigent man shuffles up to two losers.

		INDIGENT
	You guys got a smoke?

He looks into his pocket and pulls out a...

		INDIGENT
	I'll give you this comic book.

Screenplay gold-like excrement. It might be the sunlight glinting off yellow poop corn.
Shot compositions look like sh!t.
Stab a guy then throw the bloody knife on the ground. Brilliant.
Followed by a long, reverse zooming shot of the second guy running away who stops in the alley a mere hundred yards away to read the comic book.
Roll credits...
Faux traveling freak show host with added grindhouse-esque scratches, coloring, and audio. Sigh...
In a strange cosmic cowinkydink, today I happen to have run across Funny Or Die's "Between Two Ferns" bits. http://www.funnyordie.com/between_two_ferns
Although I don't care for this retarded awkward humor shtick YouTube views indicate that it's quite popular.
Similarly, although I don't care for this retarded awkward grindhouse shtick it's relatively recent resurgence indicates that it's also quite popular.
Whatevs, man.
Then begins the first of seven stupid stories shot in three Arizona locations.

A Fistful of Innards:
Well... WTH was the sign for at the beginning? Efff meeee...
Oh, goody. Some random "film scratches."
I'm still almost impressed with the audio collection quality relative to the film quality.
Space debris that causes near instant stomach upset - not bad. This story has potential.
Oh, and now we see some faux old film blemishes added. Niiiiice.
Impact crater looks absolutely retarded.
You know in Men In Black II when they have Peter Graves hosting the cr@ppy re-creation of the Zarthan Queen Laurana arriving on Earth to hide the Light of Zartha? Yeah. This doesn't look like that much schlock fun.
It's almost trying to be decent. However, this segment is better than the opening piece. I'm guessing there were different directors for each.
Alright, zombies go straight to "get 'im." No protracted fight scene or nothing.
LOL! The hand bite @ 10:06 is actually pretty funny and not that half bad, prop-wise.
WTF did they use for brains? Yick. Pretty good.
Oh! NOW we get to see the sign.
Good, God! Get a decent pan head. Cr@p that's bad.
Wait! Wait! Wait! THAT'S it?! THAT'S the extent of the story? 6 minutes? Pffuck meee. Retarded.

Great. It's the stupid freak show guy again.
Rebellion:
More cr@ppy zooming with intent.
Genré closeups of gross eating.
Now we have film speckles and light scratches added in post.
Okay, this is boring.


I'm punching out at the 15 minute mark.
I don't wanna see the rest.

1,568​

Here are some more uncharitable reviews:
http://anythinghorror.com/2010/10/10/indie-horror-review-nightmare-alley-2010/
http://www.bargainbinreview.com/r_NightmareAlley.html
http://liberaldead.com/blog/nightmare-alley-2010-review-by-ted-ritualistic-brown/
http://www.planetofterror.com/2010/06/nightmare-alley-2010.html
http://www.brutalashell.com/2010/08...ley-indie-horror-anthology-from-brain-damage/

Would someone please make a grindhouse that's fun?


Also, FWIW, at that website I looked at the recent free Action/Adventure films and couldn't confirm any of their budgets through IMDB, nor any of the SciFi's, and "Nightmare Alley" was top of the horror list by date and I could confirm it's estimated budget.
Sorry.
I will go through the other free movies, eventually.

 

[rayw]

$25,000: Run! Bitch Run! (2009) 90 min - Horror | Thriller

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136684/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Yay.
Another grindhouse. Sigh...

D@mnation. How many cover art posters does a film need?

Oh... wait... Before I start, justferschitzengiggles, lettuce watch the restricted trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezYgTfRBWyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezYgTfRBWyA

D@mn.
This might actually be entertaining!

Now, on widashow... http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/run-bitch-run

D@mn.
I'm actually impressed! Honestly!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nudity. Whatever. Nah, the director Guzman actually's doing a pretty good job of capturing the grindhouse vibe - and I don't even like the genré, but can at least appreciate it when it's done remotely well. Nice.
Music's b!tchin', too!

Okay, after the first five minutes it's starting to get a liiiiitle draggy. The genré's inherent stupidity can only be milked so far before I start nodding off.

I'll pick this back up tomorrow at the 15' mark. I wasn't expecting it to actually be watchable past here.
Ciao!


Later...

Alright, started it up again and punched out for good at the 51min mark.

Um... this is the fear I'd have in making my first feature.

• There's decent enough camera work.
• Audio is decent enough to fine.
• Actors are great. The casting for Run! Bitch Run! is wonderful. I couldn't ask for more as a first time filmmaker.
• The music is great. I really liked it.
• The director stuck to the genré's parameters pretty well.
• The locations chosen are good.
• I respect how much the director/producer achieved with their budget.
• The story is... meh. Fair.

And still, the whole film is lacking. It's lacking that magic sauce. That special something.

Maybe it's because the story got TOO serious and wasn't entertainingly hokey enough.
Maybe I want my grind house to be a little MORE over the top ridiculous, to the point of being funny on purpose.
I think that if this were shown back in the '70s that this actually would have been pretty good.
Today, however, it's just... dorky without mirth.

What's worse is that the director's follow-up film Nude Nuns with Big Guns looks to have even better visuals but equally counter-productive "too serious for what should be fun" approach/production.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352388/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubtt1RDk_M0

 

[rayw]

$50,000: Destined to Be Ingested (200 70 min - Horror

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098337/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhKo0fW37s

Nice location (British Virgin Islands)
Some par acting.
Terrible camera blocking. I've decided that often I really dislike "subject perpendicular to camera" shots, like @ 3:23, 3:30. Maybe it just looks terrible in close spaces. I dunno.
@ 3:59 hand grabbing phone looks terrible. I wish I understood the math into what makes these shots look so bad.
Day for night looks terrible.
Was almost all of this ADR-ed?
Camera images look great outside. I wonder what this was shot with. If CMOS based camera, they really do like a whole lotta light on their sensors, don't they? Not unless a completely different camera was used from the interior shots.
@ 8:15 lovely "shark's teeth" cut to next scene! LMAO!
How does anyone get lost in this day and age? F#cker doesn't even have a map. Right. Pfft.
Story continues to be completely effing retarded.
@11:35 LEARN. TO. PAY. ATTENTION. TO. THE. CAMERA. BEING. LEVEL.
@12:26 I know not every actress has to be a size 2 or less. But there are a few sorta things a director should NOT do, like compose a shot showing off NORMAL less-than-flattering realities of life, like skin and fat folds or a woman's less-than-perfect @ss aimed at the camera. Just... don't do it.
They're lost on some unknown island and they're just gonna putz around indefinitely? Yeah. Sure. Effing idiot writer & director.
@ 17:14 nice black & white segment.

Punching out @ 20mins.

Alright, just like in the real world, if you're ugly you'd better be funny.
I'm about sick and tired of watching cr@ppy looking (and sounding) films that try to be too d@mn serious.

"I have twenty/thirty/fifty thousand dollars! I'm going to shoot like Stanley Kubrick and make a SEEEEERIOUS film - with a little bit of (cliché) humor just to wink at the audience that I know I'm not Kubrick!"​

Muthrf#cker. We KNOWWWWW you're not Stanley-effing-Kubrick.
Just effing quit trying, okay?


Other reviews:

http://terrortitans.blogspot.com/2010/08/destined-to-make-you-look-at-clock.html

"Destined to make you look at the clock"​

LMAO!

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/review?name=destined-to-be-ingested-2008-review

"It is amazing that a film with so much going on can move so slowly. "​

Yup.
The bane of most lo/no budget indies. (This bane, not this one:

)


http://www.horror-unrated.com/reviews/d/DESTINED TO BE INGESTED.htm

" the script by the film’s lead actress Amanda Cole and director Sofian Khan is an incredible lazy affair completely devoid of basic narrative or three act structure, events seems to play out for no other reason then to ensure that the viewer doesn’t fully give in to the ever impending comatose state that’s threatening to consume him five minutes into this films already meager run time of 75 minutes and are either poorly explained or not explained at all."​

Yup.

" The quality of the image is unfortunately hampered by the style of cinematography employed by the director, which consist of far too many medium and ultra close-ups that must have been a bitch to work with in the editing room and ironically lends a strange felling of claustrophobia to a film that takes place exclusively in wide ranging natural environments."​

Yup, again, and fairly insightful.
Lo/no budget filmmakers take note: I've seen this exact same grievance mentioned fairly regularly by reviewers.​

(FYI - I can about d@mn guarantee you film festival screeners DO NOT watch to see if the last hour-and-ten-minutes looks any better than the first twenty minutes.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that if the first ten minutes are boring and sh!tty looking that probably the next ten minutes aren't going to be magically any better.
Guess what the remaining hour-and-ten minutes looks like?
The browns playing in the pooperbowl, that's what.)

 

[rayw]

Next batch of films coming up:

Budget: $96,000: Daydreamer (2007) 90 min - Drama | Mystery | Thriller
http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/Daydreamer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765439/?ref_=sr_1

Budget: £200,000 (US$300k): Ana Begins (2009) 80 min - Drama
http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/ana-begins
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1410005/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Budget: $200,000: The Insurgents (2006) 82 min - Drama | Thriller
http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/the-insurgents
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758757/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Budget: $50,000: Millennium Apocalypse (Video 2006) 92 min - Crime | Drama | Mystery
http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/millennium-apocalypse
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0951332/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1



Also, FWIW, I'm kinda sick of lo/no budget horrors, but they seem to be suspiciously abundant.
There are several genrés that supposedly sell well overseas: Adventure, action, sci-fi and the dirty step-child - horror.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=37825

Anyone who's done any amount of thinking or producing films knows adventure and action tend to be cost prohibitive.
Sci fi often looks like sh!t when done on the cheap.
This leaves horror (boobs and blood) as the one semi-marketable genré that's somewhat popular + relatively inexpensive.
Drama is overly plentiful but there's no paying market for it, so what's the point?
Comedy is d@mn difficult to effectively execute, so good luck with that!
(Note the number of movies in each genré and its average gross: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Genres/)

What I need to find are cheap dramas that look good to see what techniques can be pulled over to the more marketable horror & sci fi genrés, and maybe consider the realm of action or possibly adventure which would take a crazy amount of imagination.

 

[CraigL]

Dude... where do you find these? I'm looking at all the avenues I have, and they're just not available. I'd love to follow on with you, but...

CraigL

 

[Zensteve]

D@mnation. How many cover art posters does a film need?

Heh. Awesome film with Ivet Corvea. I've worked on several projects with her. Very cool chick.

Run! Bitch Run! is a great flick.

Nude Nuns with Big Guns looks to have even better visuals but equally counter-productive "too serious for what should be fun" approach/production.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352388/

Heh, I like this one too.

That reminds me of the Scorpio Releasing crowd, who put out Nun Of That, which often gets compared to Nude Nuns... but as they frequently remind people, it came out first. You might want to check out other Scorpio flicks - The Disco Exorcist and Exhumed being two of the more recent. I still need to get a copy of Atomic Brain Invasion.

Dude... where do you find these? I'm looking at all the avenues I have, and they're just not available.

A lot of indie films get sold through Amazon via Createspace, or directly through their own websites. Many lo-end distributors have deals with the online presence of stores that won't physically have discs in their stores.

The thing is, you'll never know to get a vast majority of these unless you're pretty much looking for them, or spending a lot of time reading up on these. There are dozens of podcasts to subscribe to, which cover indie films. Obviously facebook pages, etc. Once you start looking for them, you'll soon discover there's plenty of ways to buy them. Heck, some of them just rent on Netflix! Going to a local horror convention, or day I mention it - a film festival - will expose you to more non-Hollywood films than you can shake a stick at.

I'm rambling. heh

 

[mad_hatter]

Heh, I like this one too.

That reminds me of the Scorpio Releasing crowd, who put out Nun Of That, which often gets compared to Nude Nuns... but as they frequently remind people, it came out first. You might want to check out other Scorpio flicks - The Disco Exorcist and Exhumed being two of the more recent. I still need to get a copy of Atomic Brain Invasion.

I agree, "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" is great fun! Ray, you should definitely check it out!

I really want to see "Disco Exorcist", I remember when Michael was here promoting it when when it was first relesed. Unfortunately, there still seems to be no avenue to purchase it here in the UK. Shame...

 

[rayw]

Dude... where do you find these? I'm looking at all the avenues I have, and they're just not available. I'd love to follow on with you, but...

I just start google searches for videos of "independent film", "low budget film", or "$10,000 film", narrow the search for videos 20+minutes, find something then cross reference imdb.com or wikipedia.org for budgets... until I find something usable.

There are plenty of lo/no budget indie films available to watch online for free.
However, for the purpose of this thread I'm only interested in those I can verify the claimed/estimated production budget.
It's about impossible to eyeball what someone has done and make a sensible guess on their budget.
$2,000 films look like $10,000 films.
Films that could have had a $30,000 budget might look like a $8,000 budget, or $12,000 budget.
The monetary difference between $30,000 and $50,000 is significant at this film fund raising and production level but how does that translate to what's on-screen?
"Does a $XX-thousand difference even translate to an on-screen difference?" is a key research goal of this thread.

Please, by all means, if you find something with a verifiable (claimed or estimated) budget SHARE IT!
And give us your observations!

That reminds me of the Scorpio Releasing crowd, who put out Nun Of That, which often gets compared to Nude Nuns... but as they frequently remind people, it came out first. You might want to check out other Scorpio flicks - The Disco Exorcist and Exhumed being two of the more recent. I still need to get a copy of Atomic Brain Invasion.

The thing is, you'll never know to get a vast majority of these unless you're pretty much looking for them, or spending a lot of time reading up on these.

Hey, Thanks! I've seen that Nun Of That short but couldn't think of the title!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cdoEqsOWc

Coincidentally, someone related to Nun of That short just had a fairly successful crowdsourcing campaign recently: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=45865
(I can't quite figure out the Ken Willinger - Richard Griffin connection, but whatever.)

Yeah, you definitely gotta go looking for this stuff, and then once you kinda learn how to search for a few of them you get better at hunting for more.


Also, FWIW, I'm acutely aware of the likelihood that many of the recent "good" indie films are probably not available for free on the internet, meaning any search is most likely to provide a whole lotta cr@p films no one thought was very good.

1,749​

I agree, "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" is great fun! Ray, you should definitely check it out!

I really want to see "Disco Exorcist", I remember when Michael was here promoting it when when it was first relesed. Unfortunately, there still seems to be no avenue to purchase it here in the UK. Shame...

I'll be on the lookout for both!


P.S. just last night/this morning I finished...

Hobo With A Shotgun - 6/10
If you like the grindhouse genré then this is fine, if you don't (and I don't) then this thankfully has just enough absurdity in it to mildly amusing. Very mildly.

If you're going to make one of these then you'd better be amusing.
QUIT TAKING YOURSELVES SO D@MN SERIOUSLY!​

 

[mad_hatter]

Hobo With A Shotgun - 6/10
If you like the grindhouse genré then this is fine, if you don't (and I don't) then this thankfully has just enough absurdity in it to mildly amusing. Very mildly

Ah, well given your love of researching your films, I'm sure you're aware that "Hobo..." started life as the fake trailer that won the competition to be featured in the actual Tarantino/Rodriguez "GRINDHOUSE".

Anyhow, I agree, it's a slightly amusing bit of fun, nothing more, nohing less.

 

[harmonica44]

Maybe most of us just don't have the right ideas or don't know the right people. I just can't explain why such a steaming pile of shit like "Paranormal Activity" made so much money and spawned a whole franchise of this dreck.

Paranormal Activity is not the best movie every made but I did consider it to be a real fine thriller, and it held my attention much better than about 20 movies at a film festival I went to last year. There was only one movie there that I would say is better than PA perhaps.