> Lo/No Budget Review

Budget: $12,464, Evidence (2012) 78 min - Horror

evidence.jpg


Evidence (2012)
78 min - Horror
Ratings: 4.9/10 from 2,179 users
Budget: $12,464

Storyline
Ryan is making a documentary on his friend, Brett, about camping for the first time. However, once they begin camping, they discover that there is a mysterious figure that is hunting them.​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ9l8pHZOY4

Doggone!
All things considered, this wasn't half-bad considering the budget.
Sure, like everyone else has issue with, for the last half the story pretty much falls apart into some mish-mash stew of intents, but with a little more clarity of vision this coulda been a very good 'Cloverfield'- or 'Chernobyl Diaries'-lite.

Now, I'm not RECOMMENDING this film, I'm just saying that for the budget it ain't terrible.
Yep, plenty of stupid stuff in it.
Yep, some sh!t's just unbelievable.
Yep, it falls apart midway, story-wise.
But the general camera-work is appropriate, the audio is fine, the soundtrack isn't distracting, the effects are not laughable, the acting is fine, the dialog is wobbly at times, the locations are underutilized, SCORE! on the helicopter!
It's a crying shame all those assets were kinda discarded for a botched story, though. Bummer. :(
But I like how the actors just use their real names for the characters. I dunno, I know it's dorky for me to appreciate that, but I do.

Fave YT comment:
"Twenty minutes in so far, and I see three complete pussies who whine like little bitches and one normal person. "Oooo, I'm not in a city, I'm scared. Dirt and bushes scares me. The mean dirt monster is going to eat me. I heard a scary sound, and we're not in a city, so it must be something scary.""​
:lol: LMAO! That's about right.

Oh, and from the 1.4m viewed trailer (impressive, BTW, but could be "bought views"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhC95fR1Yg
"You hit the nail the head there, me and my mate watched it last night. It was fairly good, until it becomes all about the girls running and hiding for ages. Then the girls walk onto some sort of secret 'base' or something and from that point on it's like you've entered an entirely different film. Then zombies become involved and weird shit's happening. And at the end you're left with the 'what the fuck' feeling."​
Yup.

Any wayzzz...

No U.S. distro. Waaaaa... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640218/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co
Got some elsewhere 'round the globe, but that don't mean much we (now) know.

Well, this is an interesting potentially high-value interactive idea: http://www.imdb.com/games/guess/tt1640218
Which leads to: http://www.imdb.com/games/guess/
Didjall know about suchathing @ IMDB?

FB page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Evidence/159221487479387
Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(2012_film)


Huh-huh. Love this:
http://www.melikesart.com/2013/02/movie-review-evidence-2011-found.html?showComment=1359890217116
"Ryan McCoy, who is both the writer and one of the actors of the movie, has this to say: "Every other indie film of this type relies on one or two things to happen, or pop. With Evidence, we throw not just the kitchen sink at you, we throw the whole damn house.""​
Yeah, ain't that the truth.
Kinda futzed it up with that approach too, IMO.

Nice:
LAHFLEAVESwhite-300x216.png


ProdCo: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0135035/?ref_=tt_dt_co
ProdCo troubles with them d@mn pirates: http://www.scribd.com/doc/133726318/RynoRyder-Productions-Inc-v-Does-1-23
Anyone wanna tell us what this means? (It doesn't look "favorable" to the plaintiff.): http://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/6:2013cv00539/111450/
Doggone. There's A LOT of court stuff on a goog search. :(
Dat don't look good.

Hmm... Trying to geehaw this: http://www.evidence-derfilm.de/index.htm
with these: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0176772/?ref_=fn_al_co_1
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0183219/?ref_=fn_al_co_2

Okay, I'm not going to cherry pick these public reviews, they're all pretty consistent with what I've already identified, review-wise: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640218/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Of the pro reviews:
Overly charitable → http://horrorhappyhour.com/?p=16787
About average review → http://www.best-horror-movies.com/review?name=evidence-2012-review
See? lookit this. You're gonna see this kinda remark over and over and over again:
http://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/2143-evidence-dvd-review.html
"None of Evidence is particularly innovative or original, but it does have a breathless energy generally lacking from the subgenre. These days it's refreshing to see a found footage movie that's not ripping off Paranormal Activity – even if it is a [REC] derivative instead. It owes a lot to the latter film without being a complete clone. It's far from perfect but is still a very entertaining ride - occasionally annoying and repetitive, but otherwise a lot of fun. After carefully reviewing the Evidence, I can thoroughly recommend this movie to fans of found footage film."​
About where I stand: http://flickfeast.co.uk/reviews/dvd-reviews/evidence-2011/
"It’s not bad at all. But it’s not great."​

A not-particularly-insightful interview with the writer/lead, Ryan McCoy : http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/tvan...ew-film-writer-ryan-mccoy-talks-evidence.html
And another: http://www.filmoria.co.uk/2012/03/exclusive-interview-with-evidence-star-and-writer-ryan-mccoy/
Looks familiar:
"[Q:] With Evidence finally under your belt what is next in line for you?
[A]:Well, I’m in pre-production for a traditional thriller/horror movie with Howie Askins directing again. And, I have a couple of scripts floating around, trying to find someone to make them. One, is a big-budgeted post-apocalyptic action/horror, and the other is a dirty, dark revenge story that I want to direct. Kind of a passion project. So we’ll see."​
5,274​
 
There's gotta be some more treasures here I can watch. Eventually.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Abehorror/videos?shelf_id=10&sort=dd&view=0
5,757​
 
Leister said:
I watched the first 15 minutes and I don't think it's just a problem of low budget on the technical side.
Some months ago I watched "Following" by Nolan and... It didn't look like a no budget movie. The whole setup of the story is much better and it is INTERESTING. This one here is just... well, we all have seen it one million times before.

Most no budget (or rather "zero" budget) indie films are lacking in story and instead try to copy successful film techniques. Maybe every indie filmer should work on story first to make a better movie.
Click to expand...


Did you notice the Batman sticker on the door?
 
$4,700 - Fundamental (2012) 80 min - Horror | Thriller

Fundamental: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2386229/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Ratings: 4.8/10 from 22 users

Two prodcos, no distro: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2386229/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co
First and only film for both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgagKrY5vE

Published on Jan 28, 2013
221,575 views.
Pretty good!

SYNOPSIS:
A small group of scientists are called in for a weekend of potentially historic research. As night falls, a religious cult descends upon the research facility to destroy the newfound evidence that could disprove their dogma. Things spiral into a nightmare of fanaticism as we witness the lengths to which some people will go to defend their beliefs.

A micro-budget production, it is a demonstration of what this creative and motivated team could achieve with limited time and resources. It was filmed in eight days, with a total budget of US$4,700.​

Webpage for movie: http://www.fundamentalmovie.com/

Production notes: http://www.fundamentalmovie.com/?page_id=8
PRE-PRODUCTION
Once permission to film at their location was confirmed in May of 2011, director/producer Bill Hunt, producer/sound recordist James Dunlop and co-producer/first assistant director Christof Mueller shot extensive scouts throughout the building and began to choreograph many key scenes. Combining that footage with a filmed read-through of an early script, a rough visualization, or animatic, of the entire film was created. This animatic was then shown to the cast and crew, so that when it came time to actually shoot, everyone knew exactly what they were there to capture.
For the crucial “Baptism” scene, the director used action figure toys to create photo-boards of the entire scene, down to every last camera angle.
The cast is made up of largely unknowns. Even with very little time for rehearsal, each actor brought a humanity and realism to their character.

PRODUCTION
The shooting schedule was ambitious, to say the least. Moving at a brisk, but fun pace, the crew of volunteers was the very model of planning, communication and efficiency. The entire film was shot over the weekends of August 20th and 21st, 27th and 28th, then Sunday, September 11th, and one more weekend, October 1st and 2nd. Environmental “B-roll” footage was filmed on October 15th, and then additional dialogue and foley were recorded over a few short sessions from January 22nd to February 21st.

POST-PRODUCTION
By the time production was complete, director/editor Bill Hunt had assembled large sections of the film. From that point on, it was up to Bill and sound designer/composer James Dunlop, to bring the film together. The film was edited in Final Cut Pro and was completed on February 22nd, 2012.​
I'm impressed.
Hope to run a shoot production myself someday in much the same pragmatic "thrifty" manner.

Interesting director's statement: http://www.fundamentalmovie.com/?page_id=10
Director - Bill Hunt: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402352/?ref_=tt_ov_dr
Lotta makeup SFX.

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fundamental/205265682843453

Only a single (somewhat charitable) review: http://www.mangojacks.com/index.php?resources/fundamental-2012.6/

Camera - Christof Mueller: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5031148/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr14


Okay, enough preliminary homework.
What do I see and hear?

Opening scenes are great - and then everything turns to amateur camerawork.
Got dolly track. Got jib. Slap my forehead - got zoom capabilities on their camera. Ugh! WTH? This isn't the 70's. Quit that!
Dialog's dreck.
Audio's a rookie disaster, especially in the lab sequence.
The handling of the asteroid samples are procedurally horrendous.
Oh... the exposition is killing me.
That was a whole lotta time filler for the testing and security grounds check.
OMG. More heinous exposition.
@ 18:20 "This is big."
No, this is "alien" contamination of the Earth with unknown hazards.
Credibility = Ø
Immersion in story = Ø
Ugh.
And it sounds terrible, too. Er... still, rather.
Score is generically decent to good.

Okay, skipping ahead, skipping ahead, skipping ahead...

More of the same camerawork (that I hope to someday do better than)
More of the same dreadful dialog.

And I'm done.


I think this is the first honest to goodness moment where I find my inner writer questioning if story actually is king.
If the writing was better, good in fact, would the technical execution limitations provided here deter my interest?
I think back to 'Daydreamer' and can affirm that despite low technicals & execution story does indeed remain king.
5,827​
But I do wonder precisely WHY consumer grade video cameras make such a "consumer grade" looking image.
It's not a resolution thing.
Probably not a frame rate or shutter speed thing.
I think it's something different.
I wonder if it's the small sensor which distorts the perspectives, whereas a larger sensor camera has less/different foreground-to-background perspective distortion. :huh:
Dunno.
But I don't like it.
 
Last edited:
$4,000: Five Across the Eyes (2006)

Five Across the Eyes (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0888019/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
95 min - Horror - October 2006 (USA)
(Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know I said i wasn't reviewing anything older than 2008, but @ $4,000 I just couldn't resist.)
5,962​
Ratings: 2.9/10 from 1,249 users
Lousy rating, but a (relatively) lotta people saw it meaning someone did a good job promoting it.

Storyline
The teenagers Isabella, Jamie, Melanie, Caroline and Stephanie are lost in a shortcut they took in their way back home. The inexperienced Bell is driving her mother's van and is worried about the late hour. The quintet decides to stop in an isolated store to ask for directions, and Bell accidentally bumps one headlight of a parked SUV. The girls decide to leave the place and drive in the dark and lonely road trying to reach the main road. They decide to make a u-turn and they are chased by the driver of the SUV along a night of terror.​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDg16kgB7Lo
31,145 views.
Meh... fair.

Prodco's one and only film.
Same for both co-directors, as well as for most of the actors.
Blond riding shotgun seems to be the only one that has gone on to do more projects: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2428788/?ref_=tt_cl_t2
http://www.bloodwidow.com/ goto "Cast & Crew."

Now, this is something I've just started playing with: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0888019/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

20131125FiveAcrosstheEyesIMDBstats_zps82da174d.png


For a cr@p film (more on that later) I'm surprised at the distributors.
Distributors
Accent Film Entertainment (2008) (Australia) (DVD)
Anchor Bay Entertainment (2008) (USA) (DVD)
Argentina Video Home (2008) (Argentina) (DVD)
Ascot Elite Home Entertainment (2008) (Germany) (DVD)
Blue Sky Media (2007) (Czech Republic) (all media)
Emylia (2009) (France) (DVD)
Filmax Home Video (2008) (Spain) (DVD)
Indies Home Entertainment (2008) (Netherlands) (DVD)
Lionsgate Home Entertainment (2008) (UK) (DVD)
Videorama (2008) (Greece) (all media)​
I wanna hear from the genius that sold all those foreign rights, as well. Very impressive.
Anchor Bay put this out on DVD? And Lionsgate, too? For really? Seriously?
God, I feel sorry for anyone that bought this. http://allpi.info/actor-l/danielle-lilley.html
Amazingly Horrible, February 15, 2009 ★☆☆☆☆
I purchased this movie for less than $2 and am still upset about wasting my money. If you have the option of watching this movie or running your fingernails across a chalk board while chewing on aluminum foil...Go find a chalk board; it will at...

The biggest waste of an hour & a half of my life., November 1, 2009 ★☆☆☆☆
I heard good things about this movie on various horror forums so when there was a great deal on the dvd I jumped. As a previous reviewer mentioned, the beginning is unbearable. The lousy acting (if that's what you want to call it) and amateur camera...​
LOL!

Okay. Lettuce see what the assorted blog king film critics have to say...

http://www.digital-retribution.com/reviews/dvd/0899.php
"The first [concern] refers to the fact that the film is played out from within the girls' car. This starts to grate after a short while as you realise that this is all that is on offer... The consequent camerawork becomes increasingly annoying, spinning around the centre of the car in some sort of handheld nightmare... This results in its being a huge distraction from the film, lessening the intended impact of the film makers... (A)

The make-up effects are very low-budget, and for all the promise of violence, the majority of it happens off-screen or just out of shot (B). Another is the girls themselves, none of whom are given any depth beyond the usual stereotypes, so that you feel next to nothing when the attacks come (C). Plus with five young women in jeopardy, you would hope for some skin but there is next to nothing showing on this front either (D)."​
A - Fo sho! Camerawork's a [expletive] nightmare that really does take away from the had-potential story. And the rapid cut editing is just awful.
B - I repeatedly see this complaint about horror films, suggesting that people that want to watch horror films WANT to see every graphic detail despite the grievances of others, presumably non-horror fans.
C - Honestly, I don't really understand why so many viewers want to bond with characters that are supposed to die like cattle at the slaughterhouse. Whatever.
Don't do that, apparently. Pfft.
D - Same here. I see this grievance a lot. I dunno. I kinda thought all that boobs and blood thing died out back in the 80's, but OBVIOUSLY NO! it hasn't.
Got girls in your horror flick? Better cast some willing to flop 'em boobs out or there'll be critical hell to pay.
Whatever.
Now, that said, PLEASE read what the antagonist actress has to say on that exact subject: http://www.eatmybrains.com/showfeature.php?id=80
Interesting PoV.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/five-across-eyes-dvd#axzz2lj8EYLY0
"It’s a hard movie to watch for two reasons; the problem is if you experience one you won’t likely experience the other. You will either have an issue with the violence that goes down, both implied and otherwise (and once it’s up and running, it gets pretty damn vicious) or the simple fact that these five girls are freaking out, yelling, screaming or pleading for their lives for the bulk of the film’s run time."​
Umm... yeah. There's an awful lot of chaotic young girl screaming and freaking out.
They did a very good job of that.
Must've been a key component of their casting selection.

http://www.frightmeter.com/search/label/Five Across The Eyes
Simply put, this is the the lowest of low budget horror films and those who require the films they view to have glossy, polished production values will probably eject this film from their DVD player after the first ten minutes. However, budget should be taken into consideration when critically analyzing a film. A crucial question is how well did the film accomplish its intended purpose within the limitations of its budget? This is where Five Across the Eyes scores points because despite its ultra low budget, the film has some highly effective scenes and the brutality and downright insanity of the female antagonist is chilling... Compared to recent films with literally fifty or a hundred times the budget (the estimated budget for this film is said to be $4000)... this film certainly packs a bigger punch.​
Yes. There are two ways to consider a film.
Consider it in context of it's budget - or - Consider it empirically within the genré, irregardless of budget.
I prefer the former, but can switch hit to the latter.
And all things considered - this story had potential, has interest, but the execution just kills it.

http://usersites.horrorfind.com/home/horror/horrorreview/2008/swfiveacrosstheeyes2008.html
" Striving to capture the kind of intensity levels achieved by LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE in its portrayal of humiliation and brutality, FIVE ACROSS THE EYES appropriates the grainy handheld lo-fi look of 70’s grind house horror and exploitation movies. Bled of color and shot in long, often wobbly or out of focus takes, the movie looks amateurish on purpose. Rather than giving it a raw visual edge, this just means the experience of watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES is akin to viewing your younger brother’s home-made torture porn films.

Talking of torture, there’s a fashionable, post-SAW emphasis in this movie on suffering and sadism, but the real suffering is felt by the audience who has to spend an hour and a half with what may be the five most irritating female protagonists in a horror movie this decade. Abrasive, constantly screaming or bickering, this shrill, whiney bunch are annoying and unsympathetic from the very start - though they’re admittedly not helped by the dire-logue (“You just don’t do that….you don’t make someone urinate over their clothes!”). Spending the entire movie with them, mostly inside their van, is arguably more of an ordeal than anything they go through."​
Yeah.
The camerawork and story direction do seem like some latent misogynistic communication coming through.
I'm surprised the co-directors found anyone to play these characters. Young and dumb and desperate I guess.
And the constant-ness of their "girl noises" really is wearisome.

http://www.thevideograveyard.com/f/fiveacrosstheeyes.html
"The look of the film could be a point of contention for some viewers. The camera tends to move around a bit wildly at times and it feels like a few different cameras may have been used as the quality goes up and down with no warning. This could have ruined the movie but I barely noticed once I got into it. This is interesting as I usually don't like frenetic camerawork but combined with the rate at which the action onscreen was occurring and the hysterics of the characters, it worked really well. It also helped that the action slowed down a few times giving both the characters and the viewer a chance to recover. I believe that every shot in the movie was taken from inside the girls' van which is a feat unto itself and is a clever way of showing all of the craziness that ensues from a supposedly safe place."​
Across all of the reviews this (and the whiny girl noises) is a very consistent appreciation.
The camera work is horrible - but - it does add to the film's pace.

But what to the people have to say? The rabble? The uninformed enthusiastic paying keyboard commandos?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0888019/board/nest/111994963?ref_=tt_bd_1 :lol:

My 2¢?
Skip the first half hour, watch ten minutes, skip another ten or twenty minutes, watch ten, watch the last fifteen minutes, read the above selected quotes and observations, and apply to your next no-budget film.
And you probably oughtta watch the most remarked upon sequence which begins at the 46min mark but only lasts for a couple minutes.
Interesting reviewer response to that brief sequence.


Director interviews!

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/13313/greg-swinson-and-ryan-thiessen-on-five-across-the-eyes
"DoG: The film has been incredibly well received on the festival circuit, which I'm sure must be a pleasure for you. How are you finding the promotional activity and are you drawing inspiration from the experience?

RT: The fact that it has played in some awesome festivals and is now being released by Lionsgate UK is just unreal for us. Of course, if it wasn't for the incredible efforts of our sales agency, Imagination Worldwide, the film would still be sitting on our editing computer hard drive. At this point, we're just soaking it all in. And yes, it is very inspiring and motivating. If you liked what we did in FATE, then you'll love what we have in store for you next."​

http://deadharvey.blogspot.com/2008/11/interview-with-greg-swinson-and-ryan.html
"What challenges did you face during the making of this film and how did you overcome them?

Greg - Well, I'd say that $4K budget was one of the biggest challenges. We also had to shoot in the film in under 10 days. This made for a super tight schedule. The movie also all takes place in real time and at night. So, that meant that as soon as it was dark, we were out on location, shooting all night long. Then during the day, we pulled the van into a blacked out garage and continued shooting the scenes that didn't require us to see outside the van windows.

How is the distribution going? Any tips you can give to aspiring filmmakers on getting their movies out there?

Ryan - I can't complain at all about distribution. We were very lucky to find a sales agency that really believed in our film (Imagination Worldwide, for anyone wondering). They deserve all the credit on the distribution. Not only did they get it hooked up with Anchor Bay in the US, but they also got it released in several foreign territories worldwide, including Lionsgate in the UK. I guess my only advice to other filmmakers is to try to find a good sales rep that really believes in your film. Unfortunately, I think that has to do with luck more than anything else. We found ours, or actually they found us, through MySpace. I can tell you that the market is oversaturated with the same old stuff we've seen for years. So, as a filmmaker, telling a really good and unique story can really help you when comes time to look for distribution."​

http://www.eatmybrains.com/showfeature.php?id=81
"EMB: How did you go about raising the money to produce the flick?

RT: It was really just as simple as Greg and I going to the bank and withdrawing money from our own savings accounts. For the principle photography, we only spent about $4000.00 USD. None of the actors were paid a salary and the entire crew consisted of 3 people, Greg, a sound/camera guy, and myself. We had some friends help us here and there, but it we pretty much begged, borrowed, and stole everything we needed. It’s not a tactic that I recommend to any filmmaker.

EMB: The movie was shot in nine days and obviously involved a lot of location work at night. With all the screaming were there complaints from residents in the locality or were you really out in the sticks?

GS: Uhh… we were in the sticks.

RT: Actually, one night we filmed for several hours in front of a house that we took to be abandoned. Then, we found out the next night that there was a couple that lived in the house. Apparently, they get pretty drunk every night, so any amount of noise didn’t bother them.

EMB: How were the roles cast? Given your limited budget were the actors friends or were the roles auditioned for?

GS: We did some casting calls online and some local auditions and filled the roles. Then, 24 hours before we were set to shoot, one of the actresses dropped out so we asked a friend of ours, Sandra Paduch, to fill the final role.

RT: Yeah, we actually had a total of 3 actresses drop out of the project after reading the script. So, that was a bit of an issue for us.

EMB: On the DVD extras there is a clip of police turning up as you were filming and asking what was going on. Allegedly the officers pulled their guns on Veronica Garcia as she was covered in blood that they wouldn’t have known at the time was fake. How did that situation resolve itself?

RT: Greg and I were almost arrested, but then we just explained that we were making a movie and they let us go. Apparently, there had been some break-ins in the area and that’s why the police were called in the first place. When they realized that we weren’t stealing things or killing people, they just wanted to hang out and watch us shoot.

GS: Of course, having a van full of charming young ladies certainly helped things out. I’m just glad they didn’t show up during the scene where the villain makes the girls take off their clothes…"​

http://www.terrortube.com/html/Interview-with-directors-of-Five-Across-The-Eyes.html
"TT: What is something one can only learn once actually shooting a movie?

R: “For me, it would be that “film is forever.” When we were shooting FATE, we had a shooting schedule of about 10 days for the principle photography. So, a couple of days into the schedule, we had to start working 16-20 hour days. And sometimes compromises or mistakes were made during the filming that we later had to watch over and over again while finishing and then later showing the film. And although audiences may not know the difference, we know that certain moments could have been so much better had we had the proper time to do them right. So, for all those other first time filmmakers out there, just remember, once you’ve shot it, you’ve got to live with it forever, so make sure it’s as good as it can possibly be.”

TT: Some people bitch about nudity, blood, and gore in horror movies: what are your thoughts on those aspects?

G: “Bitching about too much or too little?”

R: “Well, personally I love nudity, blood, and gore, but only if they serve a great story. I don’t think those elements make a movie good on their own, but is seems to me that a lot of the modern horror directors pretty much rely on just packing in as much nudity, blood, and gore into their films as they can and forget to tell a really scary or interesting story.” "​
 
Last edited:
Very informative rayw.

Thanks for taking the time to write these reviews/analyses. I learnt a lot from reading them.
Click to expand...

Agreed, these reviews are great Ray.
Where do you find all the films may I ask? Is it just a case of knowing what to google or are there specific websites you find them on?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Agreed, these reviews are great Ray.
Where do you find all the films may I ask? Is it just a case of knowing what to google or are there specific websites you find them on?
Click to expand...
Thank you, Reilly.

I find these usually by deliberate google searches for "$1000 indie film movie" or "$2000 indie film movie", etc.
Then I go on a goog search to see if it's available to watch free online.
(I am NOT going to pay money to see what is sure to be a cr@p film. Pfft!)
The alternate search is the reverse of a google video search for "watch free full movie online", then find one that has an IMDB page with (estimated) budget in the >$200,000 neighborhood I'm looking for.

So the criteria are:
  • Online film
  • Free to watch & share
  • Verifiable budget (estimates are fine enough)
Doesn't do much good to find a film to share for free if we can't verify it has a low budget.
And it doesn't do much good to find a verifiable lo/no budget film if we can't all watch it for free.
(Stupid international blocking aside.)

Once you find one that has a free view and verifiable lo/no budget you find out who the distributor is.
Odds are, if they are carrying the rights to show one lo/no budget film they're probably game to carry others.
And often these lo/no budget films have several distributors, so you go check to see what else they're carrying, as well.

The same can be done for whatever website that hosts the free online video. If they're hosting one lo/no budget feature, odds are...

And then you can see who the production company is.
Odds are is that they've made more than one film, so you go see who distributed those and blah, blah, blah same process all over again.

And THEN (sigh) I gotta C&P the links to all that junk here and hope the video is still available weeks or months down the road when I have a few hours to watch and research:
  • What, when, how much?
  • Appreciation and by whom?
  • What the IMDB rabble said? (These best represent the empirical pass/fail opinions of Jo Blow viewer, irregardless of ANY context whatsoever.)
  • What the IMDB linked critics said? (These best represent the "informed" opinions of people who SHOULD have SOME context of what they're viewing. Some are overly charitable, some give backhanded compliments, some are ruthless, few are just ugly.)
  • What the director and principals had to say about it in interviews? (I like to better understand the production process and experiences of those who have been there and done that.)

There are no particular websites you can just go and find a cache or hoard of lo/no budget films.
They're all over the place.
Seems no one wants to carry an exclusive diet of cheap cr@p films.


EDIT UPDATE:
P.S. On moral principles alone, and not honestly so much out of respect for my fellow filmmakers past present and future, I refuse to download any torrents of likely stolen movies.
Film pirates are filmmaking equivalent of herpes, syphilis, genital warts, and AIDS all bundled up together.
F#ckin f#ckers.
 
Last edited:
$25,000: Edges of Darkness (2008) Direct-To-Video 87 min - Horror

Edges of Darkness (2008) Video 87 min - Horror

6de10861eeda0deb812d8c26f814feff.jpg
EdgesDarknessBS.jpg


Ratings: 3.0/10 from 462 users

20131210EdgeofDarknessIMDBUserStats_zpse2e36357.png


462 users is consistent with a theatrical showing of about 3 to 5 theaters. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...hyS1pFRHgxMWUtZVlDR1N3eUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0​
Distributor: Anchor Bay Entertainment (2009) (USA) (DVD)
Yeah, they're just hosting this.​

Reviews: 18 user | 34 critic
Release Date: 22 September 2008
Directors: Blaine Cade, J. Horton
Writers: Blaine Cade, J. Horton
Produced by
Robert Bravo ... associate producer
Al Gomez ... co-producer
Stephen Kayo ... producer
Alexis Olsen ... line producer
So, the writer/directors have no skin in the game.
Proof that while you can be writer director you can also find some other individuals to fund your... film (folly.)
Horton & Bravo have gone on to work together as director and producer for several other Zapruter films, as well.​

"The zombie apocalypse has come to Los Angeles, and the streets are infested with flesh-eating horror. In these three tales of human survivors--a computer-obsessed husband, a young couple with a chilling addiction, and an urban warrior hunting the most demonic prey of all--the ultimate carnage is about to begin. The strong will flourish. The weak will be devoured. And in a world gone mad with desperation, reckoning, and rage, some hungers can never be contained. Alonzo Jones, Annemarie Pazmino, Jay Costelo, and Lee Perkins star in this ferocious indie shocker from writers/directors Jason Horton and Blaine Cade that Arrow In The Head calls "a balls-to-the-wall thrill-fest that kicks your ass into its seat!""​

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Edges-of-Darkness/176273975786547
Not very active. :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnD4s6xqHOU

Stats have been disabled for the video, and no view count is available. Waaa...

Prodco: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0151021/?ref_=ttco_co_1
Hitchhiker Massacre (2014)
Eat (2014)
Monsters in the Woods (2012) Budget: $30,000
Trap (2010) Budget: $50,000
Shelter: A Monster Movie (2009) Budget: $500,000​
Seems J. Horton is "da man!" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1862032/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

IMDB User Reviews: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442498/reviews?ref_=tt_urv
"The only thing this movie was missing was a plot. It was as if a bunch of horror movie writers sat around and wrote an terrible movie based off of their ideas."

"During the first five minutes of this movie I thought about turning it off. But at the one hour mark I was dying to find out what the hell was going on. Somehow this terrible movie captivated me right to the very end - at which point non of my questions were answered.
For those who love crappy movies, I highly recommend this one. You will be treated to mind boggling plot twists, enthralling high school-calibre acting, and grade five level dialogue. This movie redeems itself by being amazingly terrible from start to finish."

"This film was just painfully bad. The story doesn't make any sense. You have absolutely no idea who the people are and what they are doing. After a good start with destroyed zombies every where, there is no action at all. And when there's action it happens outside the camera. They're talking, and talking and talking and you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I had the idea that they made a movie and after that they left the movie on the cutting room floor and put all the outtakes together. The movie looks bad, like they made every mistake in film-making on purpose...
The filmmakers took themselves way too serious. Like they really wanted to tell something and give a message to the world. Is there nothing good to tell about this movie? Some of the actors really can act. Especially the older actor. The old zombie and the oldest priest have a voice that is very pleasant to hear. They could use them for voice acting. But it doesn't feel right in this movie. Good acting was way misplaced in a bad movie. I felt sorry for the actors who maybe hoped to show their acting skills in a movie, but ended in one big boring nonsense I hope they had fun making this movie, because if you make a no budget movie, it should be fun to make with no expectations, that it's going to be a good movie."

"The whole movie you just want a zombie to kill all of them. No one dies from a zombie. OK, that's a lie, some random people at the beginning who have no lines do, but that's it. There are no likable characters, mashed up non-sensible plots, boring sets (seriously looked like the whole thing was shot in dorm rooms and show houses. Every room was white and empty except one room that was covered in graffiti), unfocused camera work, and a bad soundtrack."

"It was 87 minutes of incredible lack of direction, no plot and some really weird scripting. If you like movies with no plot and no clear ending, this is a great movie for you. One of the best lines in the movie, "There's m-f arm bones in the front yard!" I gave this one star because the videography/camera angles and video transitions are well done. This is a keeper for my "Crappy Movies" collection."​

Okay, okay, okay. Enough of what the rabble has to say.
Lettuce see what the "informed" critics had to say...
("34 external reviews" - Very good media marketing attempt. Hope they are charitable, but bad reviews are better than no reviews at all!)

http://actionflickchick.com/superaction/mini-review-edges-of-darkness-2009/
"This is your typical B horror movie with mediocre acting and the writing that never seems to fully make sense. A great example of this would be at a critical point in the third story someone asks another person, “What are you?” Again, I made the mistake of thinking I was going to figure out what was going on but the answer was “Does it really matter?” That’s all you get. That entire story was built up around that very mystery, and that’s the explanation we get?!? F*** you, Edges of Darkness!"​
:lol:

http://www.beyond**************/edges-of-darkness-2008-movie-review/
That's actually a pretty fair interview.
(I'd send my first indie film there for a review.)

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/edges-darkness-2008#axzz2n5THl78S
An even more charitable summation review!

http://www.filmarcade.net/2008/12/edges-of-darkness-review-written-by.html
Yet another charitable review that focuses on the concepts and story ideas rather than the execution - for which I'd begrudgingly give some concession to.
"Their story and screenplay was original and energizing. This film is a horror film fan’s dream, as each story represents a different horror subgenre. You have a vampire film, alien monster film, a occult film and a zombie film, all wrapped into one movie. All these types of subgenres work, very well. The reason for this is that all the stories are taking place at the same time. It was going from one story to another. It helps with pace of the film, as the film goes by at a good pace. It makes the characters and the apocalyptic story, interesting and original, as it makes this film better than an anthology film, even though it could have gone that route. By intertwining the stories together, it makes the film, story, and the characters much better. Another thing, I have to mention was the fact that the character development was very good. There were two reasons for this. The first reason was that the characters were developed well, as the directors did a very good job going into the back-stories of each of the characters. It makes the characters interesting and likeable. The other reason was the fact the characters stayed in their separate story. It doesn’t try to be a horror version of “Pulp Fiction”, where all the characters intersect into each of the film’s stories. By having the characters stay in each of their individual story, it makes the makes the action, very entertaining and keeps your interest throughout, instead of coming out of this film and thinking to yourself that this was the horror version of “Pulp Fiction”."​

http://www.gutmunchers.com/EdgesofDarkness.html
"Overall I would say Edges of Darkness is sort of a mediocre independent zombie movie. I give it a lot of credit for being creative, but at the same time I’m sort of bummed that they marginalized the zombies as much as they did. At times the camera work and lighting, while never really bad, does show the lack of budget here."​

Alright, surely by now you get the idea of what you're getting into.
Many people find the zombie-vampire-mutant machine-Antichrist thing too confusing, while others enjoy its scope.
The camerawork and audio are objectively bad, but fair considering the budget "which shows."
Many people dislike the lack of zombie kills (giving or receiving), while others appreciate the characters being developed instead.


Myself?
Didn't care for it one little bit.
Camerawork looks like sh!t and a better camera and lighting wouldn't have prevented the cr@ppy framing, movement, and zooms.
Audio was about as good as you can expect for the budget.
Acting reflected both the script and the direction - Poor.
I actually do like the genré menagerie and that the stories do not converge. But if they did I'd be fine with that, as well.

I hope to do better with a $12,000 film myself.

Whatever.

What can we find for writer/director interviews... ?

http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2007/06/16/Edges-of-Darkness-Interview-with-Director-Jason-Horton
"Q:You said that since your last film, you've done alot of work as a pa, grip, camera, and later as an editor/dp, what kind of stuff were you working on?
I went to school in New Orleans. After graduating I pa'd on a few big features there.
A:My first gig in la was working as a behind the scenes videographer on a low budget horror flick called Butcher House. I met Tom Devlin (fx artist) on that set. I went on to Dp and do a rough edit for his feature, Legend of the Sandsquatch.

Right after that I did quite a few Black Christian Movies for Nu-Lite Entertainment. I Dp'd two, edited five, did some 2nd unit directing and assistant edited/color corrected a few others. I also shot and edited interview and promo type stuff for Hip Hop Harry, a show on discovery kids.

This last year, gave me experience with all kinds of genres, horror, kids, drama, comedy. I grew a lot as an artist."​
Holee sh!t!
All that experience and this movie still looks like sh!t.
Goodness gracious.

http://www.zomboscloset.com/zombos_closet_of_horror_b/2007/05/edges_of_darkne.html?no_prefetch=1
"Q:What challenges did you face making Edges of Darkness and how did you meet them?
A:I suppose money is the cliché answer, but it’s so true. When you’re doing something for little money, no one gets paid what they’re worth. And even though most of the people who worked on it are friends, it’s still a pretty big favor to ask someone to invest so much
time into something that may only compensate them months or years later. I overcame that with preparation.

Being prepared keeps things moving, that way no one thinks I’m just wasting their time figuring out what I want

Q: Did you have to compromise between your role as co-writer and co-director on Edges of Darkness?
A: Not really. The only compromises that were made were due to time or physical limitations of the sets and locations.

Q: Can you share with us any funny or interesting stories regarding the filming of Edges of Darkness?
A: Don’t work with animals. There was originally a dog in Blaine’s story. He brought the dog to the set. It was a huge, horse of a thing. It sh*t all over the warehouse and wouldn’t do anything we needed it to do.

The cast and crew were complaining so Blaine decided to axe the dog. He replaced it with a rat. It works better than it sounds.

Q: How did Edges of Darkness come about?
A: I was working in LA. Shooting and cutting ultra low budget features for several different companies and getting pretty burned out. I was watching these cats turn out pretty shoddy work for next to nothing, turning it over and making quite a bit. It was disheartening. I was tired of working for people who were really only in it to make a buck.

I met Stephen Kayo while camera oping on a project of his. Convinced him that quality work could be done for little money, and started work on Edges.

Q: What advice can you give to independent directors just starting out?
A: First, watch more movies. You can never see enough. Love movies. If you don’t love movies, don’t direct. Go work at a bank. I’m sick and tired of running into directors and producers in Hollywood that don’t even like movies. They don’t watch them. WTF?

Second. Make movies. Work on someone else’s. I went to film school. I wouldn’t give that time back for anything. But my real education happened on sets. I did Rise of the Undead right after film school. I did Edges after working a few years on sets and in post production.
You only have to glance at the trailers to see the difference.

Q: Can you give us a "day in the life of an independent horror director?" What's it really like?
A: Get up. Work on something else. Making your own flicks doesn’t always pay the bills. Then put every other waking minute into finishing your current project or prepping the next or watching a movie."​

http://deadharvey.blogspot.com/2009/04/interview-with-jason-horton-co-writerco.html
"Q: Film School: Yes or No?
A: I did go to film school and consider it valuable. But I learned way more actually working on and watching movies. Rise of the Undead was shot right after I came out of film school. Then, I worked a few years as an Editor and Dp on several features, then did Edges of Darkness. I think the difference shows.

Q: What was the approx budget and how did you secure financing?
A: This was obviously a microbudget production. We spent right around 10k on production. Then a bit more in post.

I was working as a camera op on a comedy documentary and met Stephen Kayo. He was producing that. We got to talking and he was interested in production another one of my scripts. It was larger budget and we felt we need an intermediate move. So I conceived Edges and he put the funds together.

Q: What did you shoot on and how long was the shoot?
A: We shot on the Sony Z1U. While I'm happy with the end product, i wouldn't recommend the HDV FORMAT for feature work, especially with HD camera rentals as low as they are now. We had several delivery problems.

The shoot was 8 days of principle. Then we did 2 or three re shoot days a few months later.

Q: The film was almost like a really well done “Tales From The Crypt”, it blended three stories over the common theme of a zombie outbreak. Talk about the screenwriting process and pre-production. How did you prepare to tackle a shoot like this?
A: My screenwriting process is fairly straight forward. I work out the story in outline form and do quite a bit of character research (creating back stories, ect..) Then I dive in. Edges was written fairly fast. I had a producer interested in the concept and I wanted to finish quickly before he lost interest (as often happens in the Indie world)

Q: The whole film took place, essentially, in one apartment building. First off, was that on purpose? As in, did you purposefully write the script, knowing that you were going to film it all there? Talk about the issues of filming in one location…
A: That was totally 100% planned from the get. Before I even broke the character or story elements I knew I was going to write something in a single apartment complex. The main issue was sound. We scouted the warehouse where we built our apartment set during the week. And it was dead quiet. We got out there on the weekend to shoot and it was chaos. There was a car wash next door with a constant compressor and shooting water. Sometimes music.

Other than that, I have no complaints. Shooting all in one place frees you up to work more on the performances and camera. We able to move pretty seamlessly through set ups.

Q: Tell us about some of the hurdles you overcame to get the film done. What advice can you pass on to other indie filmmakers who are just setting out to make a film?
A: If you want to make your own movies, start working on other people's money. Do whatever you can do. Be personable and nice to everyone you meet. You never know who's going to help you in future. We're all in it together. It's not a competition.

When you're doing a real independent the only real hurdle is money. But that can be overcome with a little thought and preparation. My advice is to write around what you have. I had a friend with access to a warehouse that we could use for a set. He was also a amateur carpenter, so I knew I could build minor sets. I had an fx artist that owed me a big favor, so I knew I could write some fairly complex make up stuff. But if I didn't have that, I would have tackled the script differently.

Do as many favors for other movie makers as you can. I worked for two years in LA on other people's stuff for little or no money. And I was able to call in those favors on Edges.

Q: Did you enter “Edges of Darkness” into any festivals? If so, how did it do and is the festival circuit something that every indie horror filmmaker should consider doing?
A: I didn't. I had started doing press on Edges before it even wrapped. I sent preview clips and an early trailer to every horror site I could find. A few distributors stumbled upon this press and where asking me about the movie before it was even finished.

Q: Talk about the process of finding distribution, what would you tell filmmakers who’ve recently finished a film and are looking for distribution?
A: 1st and foremost you have to have something sellable. I'd like to just hide behind artistic integrity. But if you're film isn't sellable, no body's going to buy it. I won't mince words, I feel my 1st movie was pretty bad, but it was a sellable concept.

Also, from the beginning you need to think about how your going to sell your movie. What's the trailer? What's the one sheet going to look like? Are these things that make people want to see your movie?

I've been extremely lucky. With my 1st movie I just sent screener to a dozen or so distributors and got 3 offers. On Edges it was even easier."​
6,257​
Gotta love those last few answers!
 
Last edited:
rayw said:
Sometimes I just like to wander about a few free internet movie sites and see what sorta-recent low/no budget feature films look like; something with a budget around what can be pulled together through crowdfunding.

Here's a 2008 C$20,000 90min feature: Hunting Grounds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_7bKJnf-xU

Shot with a Sony HVR-Z1U.
sony_chazzside.jpg

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/sony-hvr-z1u/4540-6500_7-31427941-4.html

Seems this was the writer/director's first and only feature after his first and only short: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082637/#Director


Directed by
Eric Bilodeau

Writing credits (first of two)
Eric Bilodeau

Produced by (along with seven co-producers)
Eric Bilodeau

Cinematography by
Eric Bilodeau

Film Editing by
Eric Bilodeau

Casting by
Eric Bilodeau

Production Design by
Eric Bilodeau

Art Direction by
Eric Bilodeau

Special Effects by
Eric Bilodeau​

Be careful about stretching yourself too thin on projects. :cool:

The youtube comments are quite uncharitable: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=x_7bKJnf-xU

The critic reviews honestly have a good charitable dose of praise, understanding, and context of the film's budget.

It almost always seems like the trade off of a lo/no budget film is between ambitious cr@p or just cr@p.

Is it that difficult to get an hour and a half of good looking + good sounding + good acting + good story?
It would appear so.
This filmmaking thing might not be so easy after all.



The music level during the first voice over is obnoxiously obstructive.

Gotta keep audio collection echo in small spaces WELL UNDER CONTROL.

Interesting difference in camera work from the experimental base to the bar. The former looks like handheld cr@p, the latter uses some nice slides and angles.

Dialog audio vs. score audio needs MUCH GREATER weighting to the dialog.

Gotta be mindful of those all white backgrounds blowing out around darker foreground subjects.

The CGI floating screen effects are done well.

In the day-for-night adjusted shots the contrast is just obliterated. That's something to tinker around with a practice a good bit rather than just writing off crushing the blacks.

I'm not the best guy for critiquing drama, but some of these shots just seemed more like "fat" editing rather than dramatic delay or drawing out the tension.

OMG. @ 22:00 That background... WTH izzat? Traffic noise? that pervasive traffic noise AND BIRD CHIRPING are effing horrible!

Contrast levels in the car are awful. Same for in the shop @ 26. And KEEP THE D@MN CAMERA LEVEL! Sheesh!

Story's pretty juvenile and retarded.

Nice track work @ 28.

Not only is the dialog terrible, but the delivery blows, too.

Nice zooms. Did zooms look bad back in the 70's as they do now? Is it a cultural thing or not, it sux no matter what decade you're in?

Dialog audio is a disaster @ 32.

Skipping ahead 20mins...

Some nice jib work. Then comes some handheld that rotate-rocks up and down - looks like sh!t.
And the dialog/audio mix is JACKED!

Zombie actors and costumes + makeup look like cr@p.

@ 1:01:32 "What the f#ck was she standing there doing nothing for?!" I can't decide if that was the best or the worst line in the film. :lol:

How many shots does splinter eye have in that pistol of hers?

Skipping ahead to the last 10mins...

Alright, that blue screen sh!t @ 1:19:00 looks like... sh!t. Are they back in the game again? Going back a few minutes...

Nice practical effect forehead bleed @ 1:09:12.

@ 1:13:00 that CGI aircraft looks nice far away, like cr@p up close, and like cr@p when it lands. The greenscreen guys coming out look almost right.

Nope. Caught up with the last forward jump. It's supposed to be "real". I guess this was a digitally recreated scene to salvage something. Interesting. Looks like sh!t, though.

For God's sake QUIT ZOOMING IN AND OUT!

Need ND filters to accommodate lighting so that shutter speeds can be kept somewhere near consistent.

Some consistent white balancing would also be nice.



Okay. Well... That was educational.


Anyone else have some semi-current lo/no budget films you'd like to share?
Click to expand...

was crowdfunding made to make films possible or help people who have worked to make something possible?

I heard you should have what you need to make a film before making it or asking for things.
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
1:30 mark! We have poorly graded still shots, exposition through dialogue, and "look, I have a jib!" shot.
Click to expand...
Was 1:30 the number of minutes you got into 'Edges of Darkness'? :lol:

I made it to about the 26min mark before I had seen more than enough. :)



aarondavid10 said:
was crowdfunding made to make films possible or help people who have worked to make something possible?

I heard you should have what you need to make a film before making it or asking for things.
Click to expand...
That question really belongs over at another thread: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=39742



However,...

Crowdfunding was made to generate revenue for it's owners/developers/managers by providing a centralized promotion for funding venue to filmmakers, as well as other artists, designers, and inventors.

Whether crowdfunding "make films possible or help people who have worked to make something possible" can be assessed via consideration that anytime some innovative approach simplifies a process naturally there will be increased exploitation, thus benefit, of that environment than was previously available.
Both. And more.

And "yes", you should have some of the things you need to "make a film", but obviously if you had everything there'd be little point in asking for additional funding for things you already have.
But then again, maybe a crowdfunding campaign was always intended just to recompensate the filmmakers for expenses already incurred.

Honestly, who knows WTH/WTF goes on in the heads of some people.
Too many are just nucking futz. I just give up trying to figure them out.
Too many permutations of AFU in the brain.
I got better things to do than to figure them out. :lol:
 
Last edited:
$25,000: Breathing Room (2008) 89 min - Horror | Mystery | Thriller

BreathingRoom.jpg

6,395​
Breathing Room (2008)
Storyline
Thrown naked into a desolate room with thirteen strangers, Tonya discovers that she is the final contestant in a deadly game. Restrained by lethal electronic collars, the players must utilize hints and tools from a box marked "pieces" to find both an exit and the reason for their abduction. One by one the players are eliminated as their "curfew" begins and the lights go out. With each dead body comes another clue, which they use to discover that one of them is the killer. The question is ... which one?​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5PrTGM9f4s

89 min - Horror | Mystery | Thriller
Budget: $25,000 (estimated)
Ratings: 4.3/10 from 2,174 users This number of users is consistent with a theatrical viewing of between 4 and 10 theaters
Reviews: 32 user | 17 critic Compare this with the previously reviewed film 'Edges of Darkness' with "Reviews: 18 user | 34 critic", with "Ratings: 3.0/10 from 462 users ", both films with the same budget and released in the same year.
Twice the user reviews reflects the greater number of those that cared to vote for it, if even only slightly more favorably, 4.3 to 3.0.
However, note that 'Breathing Room' has only 17 critic links to 'Edges'' 34.
Anchor Bay Entertainment is the distro for both, indicating that its entirely up to the prodco to market and promote their own film (Anchor Bay is just hosting it essentially), and furthermore, effective M&P is possible at this level.
'Breathing Room's prodco clearly has done a better job of M&P than 'Edges'' has of only a marginally better film of the same budget and year of release (they've both had five years!)

20131210BreathingRoomIMDBUserStats_zps08ade0ce.png


Directed by
John Suits
Gabriel Cowan ... (co-director)
Writing Credits
John Suits ... (written by) and
Gabriel Cowan ... (written by)
Produced by
Kerry Johnson Bailey ... associate producer (as Kerry Johnson) / co-executive producer (as Kerry Johnson)
Gabriel Cowan ... executive producer / producer
Bryce Gerlach ... co-executive producer / producer
Mark McKeown ... associate producer
Morgan Riehl ... associate producer / co-executive producer / line producer
Co-writer/directors, with one being a producer.

Code: 
Production Companies
	New Artists Alliance
	Big Pictures (I)
	Imagination Worldwide (presents)
This was the one and only Big Pictures production, whereas NAA and IW appear to have their fingers in a bunch of pies, indicating Big Pictures the primary prodco and was likely able to secure some funding or promotional assistance from NAA and IW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_Room
Breathing Room was shot... with two DVX100 cameras.
The film was written by John Suits and Gabriel Cowan, two MFA film directing students at CalArts. During their first year in school, they shot and edited a half hour short film in a single weekend. They decided it was so fun and easy, that they should make a feature film. They quickly raised the funds from friends Kerry Johnson, Morgan Riehl, and Bryce Gerlach, and six weeks later, they wrapped production on Breathing Room. Since then, they have made two other feature films, and have several more in the works.​
Impressive.

IMG_1722%20(WinCE).JPG
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HVX200/

User reviews: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220706/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

"Usually I don't mind remakes or even plagirism (when it comes to movie ideas)but I do mind very poor scripts, bad audio and talentless actors. As others have noticed that the makers of this movie were trying to copy SAW 1 and failed miserably, they failed to deliver the intensity of SAW, the convincing performance of the actors and above all failed to deliver the coherent story line of SAW. I lost real interest in this movie from the first scene where every one of the (victims) were in some place and all of them don't look agitiated by the fact they don't know how they end up there, The audio was awful, the actors failed to deliver acceptable performance. To sum it all, this movie was a waste of time."

"so basically what the hell is the message of the film? is it some kind of sociological experiment? did anyone realize the game is rigged/fixed from the very beginning? Honestly I think the writers lost steam and didn't know a proper way to finish or were hoping with the ambiguous end that they could squeeze out a sequel, or perhaps they just thought they were actually being intellectual. if you want a goofy flick with no payoff and to feel cheated by the end watch this. if you want something that's kinda clever, watch the first Saw or first Cube movies."

"Simply. . . it's a pathetically blatant ripoff of Saw and Battle Royale. It looks (and sounds) extremely cheap. There's nothing new, original, or interesting about the story. The violence and gore are sparse, and there's no nudity or sex to distract us. It's slow to the point of boredom, with the same things happening over and over again. It's as predictable as the result of a Harlem Globetrotters game. There is very little terror at all, or anything to keep a horror fan happy. In short, there's nothing in this film that can't be seen in five other, better films. So I would suggest seeing those instead. I will give one compliment the acting wasn't too bad and there are a few that actually seem to have a chance at a future. . . as long as they stop doing films like this."​
All grievances are pretty much the same as this.

Okay, onto the "informed" opinions of critics: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220706/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/breathingroom.php
"If you like these kinds of horror mystery game movies, I think you'll find something of value in Breathing Room. It's a taut, well-made whodunit, featuring some strong performances and a twisty-turny, serpentine plot that culminates in a frustratingly opaque finale, but will likely be weird enough to repel resentment.

This is a decidedly low-budget production. I'd say 98% of the film takes place in the abandoned warehouse space where our characters are forced to play the game. And the gore effects are more after-the-fact set-ups than actual killing gags that would no doubt sap even more financial resources from the filmmakers. Despite that, Breathing Room comes across as having a top-shelf pedigree, which is a compliment that can pretty much be laid completely at the feet of the actors.

Which brings me to the ending. You know, I couldn't spoil it even if I wanted to. I hate to be That Guy, the one who never gets the big twists, but I've been just striking out trying to deduce what the @#$% happened at the end. It's frustrating and, frankly, hurts the bottom line of the film."​
Yep. The ending's pretty lame.

http://www.hometheaterinfo.com/breathing_room_(2008).htm
"As new directors Cowan and Suits do a remarkable job. By the nature of the film they are working with a minimalist set and only a handful of props. Visually this movie is intriguing. The contestants are assigned numbers and prison style jumps suits in either orange or blue. Your mind immediately tries to group the people using those visual clues wondering if there is a difference between odd and even numbers or the colors they wear. Our initial reaction is to make groupings out of the seemingly random group of strangers. Some of the negative comments that I have seen pertaining to this flick come from the audience wanting to make sense out of everything shown. They need for the film to tell it all by the closing credits and for every item shown to add to that conclusion. A lot of times in life things don’t add up. A clue might be integral to the mystery or just a red herring. The conclusion here is perfect if you only open your mind up to these facts. The style is the typical jumpy camera work but in this case it does work. It is not so over used as to give the audience a headache but it keeps the mood of the film unsettled and on edge. The lighting is overly harsh keeping with the stark reality that the people in the room are facing. One thing, the clues are all true but usually not in the scene that you initial believe."​
A nice optimistic view of the film.

http://www.filmcriticsunited.com/breathingroom.html
"So what we did get as far as a conclusion was simply a ‘what… huh… I don’t get it…’ moment. Since ‘Breathing Room’ didn’t have that solid, rock ‘em Sock ‘em conclusion you’re left with the movie itself which was fairly mediocre. The story is rehash of other movies you’ve seen previously and this one does very little to elevate it from that pile, the acting isn’t all that bad considering the single location and the actors do a decent job of playing off each other but its not good enough to raise the overall mediocrity of the whole production. The atmosphere wasn’t half bad, the pacing wasn’t too bad either, again considering the location restrictions and there were a couple of cool surprising elements that popped up here and there, but I did wonder where our killer was hiding those night vision glasses that allowed this person to kill once the lights went out, and why didn’t they just all hold hands in a circle when the lights went out?

‘Breathing Room’ isn’t a terrible movie and the effort is admirable considering the obvious meager budget but certainly one of writers could’ve come up with a more satisfying conclusion to this thing. Those are just some extra words on paper and that doesn’t cost much at all."​
Yep.
That's about a perfect description of the solution to this film's problem as I could think of.
Premise was familiar but good, acting fair, it just needed a really monster better ending than what it provided.

The problem with most films isn't technical or budget related.
The problem with most films is somewhere between FADE IN: and FADE OUT:

Whatever.
Onto the interviews...

Hmm... not much for 'Breathing Room'.
Here's one from the co-writer/director/producer's subsequent film interview.
http://brandonsites.blogspot.com/2010/09/interview-with-director-gabriel-cowan.html
"Q: What piece of advice would you offer for other indie horror directors just getting started out?
A: It's about making mistakes and failing, and learning from your mistakes and making new ones. Don't take things personally --- remember that you want your audience to respond - so if it's not working, don't tell people who are giving you notes why it is working (which happens so often) - just say what it is you're trying to do and ask if they have a suggestion about how to make that function more clearly. More than anything, just go make movies. We made Breathing Room in 8 days for under $20,000 ... is it Citizen Kane, no ... but it's done and you can touch it and buy it (or illegally download it) and we learned more from that experience than any other. Getting these things done is the key.

We write a quick outline and then write 10 pages a day for 10 days (day 10 is a clean up day) then we have a reading with 10-20 actors and get notes - we go through a few rounds of rewrites as we're casting and location scouting and pretty soon we have a film shot.

Is this the way to do every movie? No. We do have a few films we've been working on for years - but deadlines - unmovable deadlines are the key to getting these little films made and shown to the world."​

Hmm... disappointed there weren't more interviews.
Bummer.


Anyways...
For the money, this starts out as a fairly good premise and film.
Certainly is the way to go with a no-budget film, if you can call $25k (a decent car) "no" budget.
One to watch and learn from how to not f**k up a decent premise with a jerk off ending. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed this thread. It's really interesting to read some low budget "don'ts."

I didn't watch the movie, but from the trailer I'm pretty impressed with a couple scenes from Hunting Grounds. The CGI looks decent to me. I can see how people could say it looks bad compared to a big budget movie but I think it would take some doing to get things to look that good.

Things I'm picking up (that I will try to do) from reading through this thread is to have well lit scenes, keep the camera in a stable and logical place, keep consistency from one scene to the next, keep the pace going and the dialog interesting; in a lot of these the dialog is either dull or explosive, don't rely on things that have worked for other movies (such as a plot), as nice as the footage is, no five minute intros (bigfoot(skip to 1:18:16->1:18:30 for best part of the movie)), keep a sense of humor, record your own sounds, and don't skimp on the death scenes in a horror film. This thread has been great for things to think about.

Christmas Tree's Revenge was pretty good.

Only The Young Die Good looks great. I want to see it because of the lighting and camera work. The acting looks decent too.

I'm pretty impressed by the look of the turkey from ThanksKilling from the trailer.
 
Last edited:
Year's End: What Did I learn?

This thread's been running for over a year, so before I move onto some more productions I just wanted to review what I've learned so far.

C$20,000 2008 - Hunting Grounds
Become technically proficient with my equipment, story must be sensible

$ 6,000 2011 - Bad Is Bad
Pay attention to foreground/background lighting contrast, pay attention to framing

$ 4,000 2008 - OC Babes and the Slasher of Zombietown
Handheld shaky cam is terrible, control contrast; The director's filmography is mostly a cr@pfest, but it's gettin' done and because of it's sheer volume will have an anthology life longer than all of the pie-in-the-sky shit most of the rest of us will NEVER get done and out there.
HOWEVER... On the other hand I find the same guy's absolute disrespect for the craft difficult to overlook.

$ 50,000 2005 - The Wickeds
Highlights are all blown out. Blacks are all crushed. There are almost zero midtones. Audio is spotty to poor.

$ 40,000 2006 - Bigfoot
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.

$ 200 2006 - Yeti: A Love Story
Another fine example of "Dude with camera getting cr@p films in the can and distributed."

$ 10,000 2012 - Ruben's Place
Images are aften bleh. Would benefit some color correcting or contrast change or something short of technicolor wonder. Audio is a wreck in the first few scenes. Punching out @ 20 minutes due to boredom, before any LGBT action began. Probably woulda helped if it came earlier.

$ 3,500 2010 - Nightmare Alley
Would someone please make a grindhouse that's fun?

$ 25,000 2009 - Run! Bitch Run!
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.

$ 50,000 2008 - Destined to Be Ingested
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?

$ 96,000 2007 - Daydreamer
FINALLY! A decent enough film.
See, this is why you can't judge a film by it's budget or make a sensible guess at its budget by how it looks.
It LOOOOKS like what a $5k-$15k feature film should look like.
The film's audio sounds nice/good enough. About d@mn time someone got some good audio.
However, despite using a rather nice Arriflex it looks like sh!t. Cr@ppy composition. Crappy movement. Crappy lighting in too many shots.
Spielberg's camera.. It ain't gonna help you.

$ 50,000 2006 - Millennium Apocalypse
I'm officially restricting these reviews from here out to lo/no budget films released no earlier than 2008, maybe 2009. The technology has just changed too much since then.

$ 12,000 2008 - Sabbath
I promise promise promise that festival screeners DO. NOT. WATCH. entire film submissions!
If the first ten minutes suck the next ten minutes are likely to suck.
And if the first quarter or fifth of a film sucks it's pretty safe to say the whole thing's gonna suck.

Audio is patchy good to poor.
Soundtrack is laid in waaaaay too loud and frequently inappropriate.
Coloring & lighting are decent enough.
Framing is lousy. Pretty consistently.
The actors are... poorly directed and shot. I honestly can see how they could actually be "good" if shot in the right way.
The story is absolute horse sh!t.

$ 2,000 2010 - New Low
Well... If you're going to spend only $2k on a film THIS is how you do it. Would like to see more $2k films swinging for first base rather than the parking lot.

$ 3,500 2007 - ThanksKilling
Yeah. It's cr@p. But at least it looks like $3,500 cr@p. Somehow, despite being stupid as h3ll, the sequel 'ThanksKilling 3' has managed a large enough appreciation base to raise over $112k on KS.

$ 7,000 2008 - Johnny Sunshine Maximum Violence
However, for basic skills the graphics in the opening credits are fairly interesting in execution and design.
However, as soon as the filmmaker actually gets into actual filming (and not graphics) the images instantly look like amateur rubbish. I mean the camera work is just turnip truck worthy.
But there's been a lot of effort put into planning these scenes - but they just look like cr@p. But at least I can respect that they don't appear to be expensive cr@p.

Ray's Filmmaking Corollary #1: Increased Budget does not equal Increased Value, ↑ $ ≠ ↑ V
Ray's Filmmaking Corollary #2: Increased Effort does not equal Increased Value, ↑ E ≠ ↑ V

Sometimes it does, but most often not. Not from the evidence I've seen.

The inconsistent use of quasi-classical grindhouse effects is problematic.
A: you gotta know what you're doing - and the director only kinda does here.
B: you gotta be consistent with it - and the director really isn't at all here.

$ 20,000 2009 - Platoon of the Dead
Why can't people at least shoot good shots with their expensive @ss cameras.
I'm bewildered. I think the writer/director/producer/editor was actually trying to be funny bad, but he just completely failed at producing a 'Thankskilling'-esque "so bad it's good" type film. (Which, BTW, I didn't find all that good despite being certifiably bad. Just... over my head <wryly>, I guess.)

$150,000 2006 - Storm of the Dead
A) there's obviously a huge difference between amateur and professional camera work and audio collection - and it's always surprising/disturbing that multi-feature directors still make sh!t-looking films,
B) story seems to stymie just waaaaaaay too many writer/director/producer/editors,
C) you gotta make your kills on screen,
D) tits are... the tits! I'm a big fan of 'em, but while I don't think tits can save a lo/no budget film, the overwhelming majority of reviewers seem to believe that tits are the saving grace of them.

$ 10,000 2012 - An American Ghost Story / Revenant
Now, I'll be the first to admit that with a 2012 budget of $10k that I've seen a lot worse - A LOT WORSE.
In fact, I wish more circa $10k films looked this good, and this is about where I expect a $10k film to be at.
Make movies you like, and make 'em to please as many people as possible.

$ 12,464 2012 - Evidence
All things considered, this wasn't half-bad considering the budget.
Sure, like everyone else has issue with, for the last half the story pretty much falls apart into some mish-mash stew of intents, but with a little more clarity of vision this coulda been a very good 'Cloverfield'- or 'Chernobyl Diaries'-lite.

Now, I'm not RECOMMENDING this film, I'm just saying that for the budget it ain't terrible.
Yep, plenty of stupid stuff in it.
Yep, some sh!t's just unbelievable.
Yep, it falls apart midway, story-wise.
But the general camera-work is appropriate, the audio is fine, the soundtrack isn't distracting, the effects are not laughable, the acting is fine, the dialog is wobbly at times, the locations are underutilized, SCORE! on the helicopter!
It's a crying shame all those assets were kinda discarded for a botched story, though. Bummer.

$ 4,700 2012 - Fundamental
I think this is the first honest to goodness moment where I find my inner writer questioning if story actually is king.
If the writing was better, good in fact, would the technical execution limitations provided here deter my interest?
I think back to 'Daydreamer' and can affirm that despite low technicals & execution story does indeed remain king.
But I do wonder precisely WHY consumer grade video cameras make such a "consumer grade" looking image.
It's not a resolution thing.
Probably not a frame rate or shutter speed thing.
I think it's something different.
I wonder if it's the small sensor which distorts the perspectives, whereas a larger sensor camera has less/different foreground-to-background perspective distortion.
Dunno.
But I don't like it.

$ 4,000 2006 - Five Across the Eyes
A - Camerawork's a [expletive] nightmare that really does take away from the had-potential story. And the rapid cut editing is just awful.
B - I repeatedly see complaints about off-screen violence or kills in horror films, suggesting that people that want to watch horror films WANT to see every graphic detail despite the grievances of others, presumably non-horror fans.
C - Honestly, I don't really understand why so many viewers want to bond with characters that are supposed to die like cattle at the slaughterhouse. Whatever. Don't do that, apparently. Pfft.
D - A horror movie with young women without some nudity is a grievance I see a lot of. I dunno. I kinda thought all that boobs and blood thing died out back in the 80's, but OBVIOUSLY NO! it hasn't.
Got girls in your horror flick? Better cast some willing to flop 'em boobs out or there'll be critical hell to pay.

$ 25,000 2008 - Edges of Darkness
The writer/directors have no skin in the game.
Proof that while you can be writer director you can also find some other individuals to fund your... film (folly.)
Camerawork looks like sh!t and a better camera and lighting wouldn't have prevented the cr@ppy framing, movement, and zooms.
Audio was about as good as you can expect for the budget.
Acting reflected both the script and the direction - Poor.

$ 25,000 2008 - Breathing Room
Premise was familiar but good, acting fair, it just needed a really monster better ending than what it provided.
The problem with most films isn't technical or budget related.
The problem with most films is somewhere between FADE IN: and FADE OUT:
For the money, this starts out as a fairly good premise and film.
Certainly is the way to go with a no-budget film, if you can call $25k (a decent car) "no" budget.
One to watch and learn from how to not f**k up a decent premise with a jerk off ending.

6,933​

Anyone else wanna throw in their 2¢ about what they've learned so far about making a lo/no budget film reading this thread?
 
rayw said:
Anyone else wanna throw in their 2¢ about what they've learned so far about making a lo/no budget film reading this thread?
Click to expand...

I'd say your last post alone is worth one whole year of film school ($15,000). Unfortunately, the people that NEED to read this will never click on this tread.

-----

Off topic, you ought to make a doc based your last post. Show a short clip from the films you listed followed by a head shot of you making the exact comments you wrote here (the film clips would be allowable under "fair use").

If you don't do this, I might steal my own idea, seriously!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top