50 Greatest Independent Films

Just so I'm clear...
The Passion of the Christ makes $611,899,420 on a $30 mil (non-financed) budget...yet ends up damn near the bottom of this so-called "list".

Oh yeah. it's reeeeeeally accurate.


Edit:
...And, as not to be a hypocrite, The Blair Witch Project should be much, much higher as well.
$248,639,099 worldwide on a $35K budget!
 
Last edited:
i haven't seen these:

blood feast
shadows
shallow grave
two lane blacktop
pink flamingos
sweet sweetback's baad assss...
dark star
nosferatu
slacker

any gems i missed ?
 
Lot's of good films there.

"Slacker" is a must see. It was Richard Linklater's first and went on to inspire a bunch of independent filmmakers (Kevin Smith in particular).

Chris
 
Check out Shallow Grave. It's a very solid flick.

Where was Halloween on that list? Why is Donnie Darko on the list (and at #2 for some reason). That movie sucked.

Evil Dead should've been higher.
 
Where are the DVXUser.com members zombie films?

These lists are BS. I don't know what their criteria is for defining an indie film (maybe making a film prior to having a studio assigned), but this is BS and it pisses me off.

My personal criteria for an indie film is:
1. A film where the director sets up his own financing
2. A total budget under $1,000,000 if shot on film
3. A total budget under $250,000 if shot on video
4. SAG actors working for scale or indie scale
5. Use of nonSAG actors
6. Use of non union members for crew
7. At least 2 minutes of nudity, or really good nudity if it is under 2 minutes
-Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
Where are the DVXUser.com members zombie films?

These lists are BS. I don't know what their criteria is for defining an indie film (maybe making a film prior to having a studio assigned), but this is BS and it pisses me off.

My personal criteria for an indie film is:
1. A film where the director sets up his own financing
2. A total budget under $1,000,000 if shot on film
3. A total budget under $250,000 if shot on video
4. SAG actors working for scale or indie scale
5. Use of nonSAG actors
6. Use of non union members for crew
7. At least 2 minutes of nudity, or really good nudity if it is under 2 minutes
-Jeremy
Click to expand...
Yank,
Gotta disagree with yuz on this one, my friend.

I read it as much more literal a meaning, it is just what it says IMO...
For me independent refers to a film made independently of Hollywood, which translates to independently of Studio Backing. It is made with either one's own, one's private backers/investors or one's Great Aunt Tilly's funding.

Actual cost be damned.

Regardless of if everyone likes the film itself or not; Mel Gibson took all the risks on himself by using 100% of his own cash for The Passion (come on...that's pure balls-to-the-wall independent filmmaking.)

Of course, I think he made a film that looked and had the production value of 3 - 4 times the $30 mil he spent...but that is a separate discussion all together.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Just so I'm clear...
The Passion of the Christ makes $611,899,420 on a $30 mil (non-financed) budget...yet ends up damn near the bottom of this so-called "list".

Oh yeah. it's reeeeeeally accurate.


Edit:
...And, as not to be a hypocrite, The Blair Witch Project should be much, much higher as well.
$248,639,099 worldwide on a $35K budget!
Click to expand...
Just so you're clear -- you seem to be equating a film's "independence" with the ratio of how much money it makes versus how much money it costs to produce.

Whatever happened to artistic merit? Independent, radical vision? Transcending entrenched production norms?

Personally I find a list like this uninteresting because it rarely takes any of these things into account. While a small budget can have a corrollary to creative ways of doing things, it's not necessary or even a historically consistent way of evaluating a film's "independence" (IMO).

A film like Kubrick's The Shining for example, is not only a more compelling watch than just about every movie on that list, but it was also made with a tiny crew and a director not afraid to rewrite a lot of production rules along the way.
 
Last edited:
bklyndv said:
Just so you're clear -- you seem to be equating a film's "independence" with the ratio of how much money it makes versus how much money it costs to produce.

Whatever happened to artistic merit? Independent, radical vision? Transcending entrenched production norms?
Click to expand...
If that's the case, why specify "independent" (which has everything to do with financing means)? Couldn't you just say X film was better than Y film? Why would it matter whose dime it was on (the studio's or a private backer's)?
 
I agree Callaghan... its not about it being indie or not... its the compelling film... it shouldn't matter how much money was spent or how big the crew was, if its good, its good.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Also...
neither low-budget nor earned creative control mean the same thing as independent.
Click to expand...

Well, you use the word as you like, and for my purposes independent means not only the creative freedom to make choices independent of outside interests, but also closely tied to this, evidence of actually putting those choices to unique use.
 
Callaghan brings up a good point:

Fox Serachlight and Focus Features are another two that spring to my mind.

Alot of people i know think an "independent" film is the kinda movie you can only see at certain theaters. Also any foreign film is automatically tossed under this umbrella too.

And that's not something I agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top