B-movies you love

There are some true classic B-movies I love, my favorite of all times is perhaps Chris Marker's La Jetèe.

The list is extensive so I'm going to concentrate on "this decade" films and trow some titles that catch my mind for some good reasons. Among they are:

- Before Sunset
- Tape

I assume that films like:

- The Darjeeling Limited
- Zivot je Cudo

can enter this list as well considering their limited budget in comparison to Hollywood A-movies stuff.

There are so many great Documentaries that can enter this list also but I assume that it wasn't your purpose to enroll them in this section. Nonetheless, titles like:

- Santiago (by João Moreira Salles)
- Agrarian Utopia
- In Vanda's Room

can make part of this list.
Anyway, I'm a bit of a B-movies fan so my private list goes on forever...
 
naavt said:
There are some true classic B-movies I love, my favorite of all times is perhaps Chris Marker's La Jetèe.

The list is extensive so I'm going to concentrate on "this decade" films and trow some titles that catch my mind for some good reasons. Among they are:

- Before Sunset
- Tape

I assume that films like:

- The Darjeeling Limited
- Zivot je Cudo

can enter this list as well considering their limited budget in comparison to Hollywood A-movies stuff.

There are so many great Documentaries that can enter this list also but I assume that it wasn't your purpose to enroll them in this section. Nonetheless, titles like:

- Santiago (by João Moreira Salles)
- Agrarian Utopia
- In Vanda's Room

can make part of this list.
Anyway, I'm a bit of a B-movies fan so my private list goes on forever...
Click to expand...

LOL I've never seen any of the movies you mentioned. Have you seen Riki-Oh? Awesome violent martial arts asian film.
 
Londude said:
LOL I've never seen any of the movies you mentioned. Have you seen Riki-Oh? Awesome violent martial arts asian film.
Click to expand...

Yes :) Not my kind of film I'm afraid!

You can either look at B-movies as some minimalistic way to go gore (some sort of film without any artistic ambitions most of the times), or the other way around, where Directors work without the constraints of a major Production company but with obvious limited budget because of that.

My list is in the last category where it seems that all others are on the first.

For what it matters, I'm trowing 2 more titles. These you might have heard or seen:

- First Coen brothers debut project, the amazing "Blood Simple" is one of the greatest B-movies of all time, and the movie that skyrocketed the 2 brothers to Hollywood.

- The also amazing "Electronic Labyrinth THX 1138 4EB" by George Lucas is a great great B-movie and the one to also skyrocket Lucas enrollment on film by F.F. Coppola and his Zoetrope Production company.
It was so great that the remake of THX (now with a bigger budget - but also on a limited basis), was one of the first Zoetrope projects: The known "THX 1138". This last one can also be considered a B-movie, since it was produced with a tiny budget as well.
 
The Darjeeling Limited doesn't really classify as a b-movie. Even the broader definition excludes art-house fare and pornography. B-movies are typically lower budget genre fare.
 
Batutta said:
The Darjeeling Limited doesn't really classify as a b-movie. Even the broader definition excludes art-house fare and pornography. B-movies are typically lower budget genre fare.
Click to expand...

For the sake of a wide broad definition (wiki excluded), B-movies are low budget films, and that's what separate it from A-movies.

If you read the post where I mention the Wes Anderson film, you are going to see that I state: "I assume that films like The Darjeeling Limited can enter this list as well considering their limited budget in comparison to Hollywood A-movies stuff."

I still support this logic, since 17 million for a film on Hollywood land is peanuts as you know. And that was solely my humble opinion on that matter :thumbsup:

Another great example of this logic is Duncan Jones first feature film "Moon", which I assume as a B-movie with it's tiny 5 million budget.
 
Last edited:
naavt said:
For the sake of a wide broad definition (wiki excluded), B-movies are low budget films, and that's what separate it from A-movies.

If you read the post where I mention the Wes Anderson film, you are going to see that I state: "I assume that films like The Darjeeling Limited can enter this list as well considering their limited budget in comparison to Hollywood A-movies stuff."

I still support this logic, since 17 million for a film on Hollywood land is peanuts as you know. And that was solely my humble opinion on that matter :thumbsup:

Another great example of this logic is Duncan Jones first feature film "Moon", which I assume as a B-movie with it's tiny 5 million budget.
Click to expand...

It's not budget alone. I just think it's too high profile, with a-list actors (Adrien Brody and Owen Wilson), and the filmmaker too respected to be considered a B-movie. Any movie that could potentially win an Oscar is immediately disqualified as a B-movie in my opinion. Even in its best possible version with a-list stars, a movie like The Hidden would never win an Oscar.
 
Batutta said:
It's not budget alone. I just think it's too high profile, with a-list actors (Adrien Brody and Owen Wilson), and the filmmaker too respected to be considered a B-movie. Any movie that could potentially win an Oscar is immediately disqualified as a B-movie in my opinion. Even in its best possible version with a-list stars, a movie like The Hidden would never win an Oscar.
Click to expand...

What do you think about Richard J. Johnson's thoughts then? Multiple awarded director John Woo made a film that had a 20 million budget in 1993 (Hard Target), which stared Van Damme. Isn't this a B-movie for you?

And sorry if I disagree with you on this but Hollywood isn't THE benchmark for the whole cinema! On that side of the Atlantic you have film fests there are as important as Hollywood (I agree that not of them are as media frenzy as Hollywood), like Sundance and Toronto.

Here on this side you have Berlin, Venice, Cannes, just to mention some. And you have all the Asian continent to add to this list.

Once more, sorry if I don't agree with you. But catching my last post reference movie (Duncan Jones's Moon staring San Rockell and Kevin Spacey), are you saying that this 5 million film is not a B-movie just because it's shows up with 2 multiple awarded actors?

Coen brothers Fargo won 2 Oscars!!! Are you saying that this 7 million dollars film is not a B-movie just because it won 2 academy Oscars?

I think that what really separates B from A movies is the money spent with them. Not the lack of brain of some called directors which - in the sake of not having money - make garbage like films and call them B-movies stating for that reason that they have an excuse to make such garbage because they don't have 150 million dollars and good actors.

Pedro Costa's "In Vanda's Room" was one of the most astonishing movies of the decade. It continues to win multiple prizes around the globe. It was nominated for the Golden Palm in Cannes. Is this a A-movie just because of that? Being nominated for the grand prize award of the European Hollywood equivalent?

Pedro Costa's film was made with 100 thousand Euro!!! Yes, Thousand, Not millions. This is certainly a B-movie no matter how many prizes you trow at it!

But this of course it's only my opinion.
 
Knight Riders by George Romero.

It's about honor and courage and love and friendship and a man fighting to live by his code in an indifferent and hostile world.

It's also about low-displacement motorcycle jousting, hippie mumbo-jumbo and seriously awful Stephen King performances.

Whaddyagonnado.
 
naavt said:
What do you think about Richard J. Johnson's thoughts then? Multiple awarded director John Woo made a film that had a 20 million budget in 1993 (Hard Target), which stared Van Damme. Isn't this a B-movie for you?

And sorry if I disagree with you on this but Hollywood isn't THE benchmark for the whole cinema! On that side of the Atlantic you have film fests there are as important as Hollywood (I agree that not of them are as media frenzy as Hollywood), like Sundance and Toronto.

Here on this side you have Berlin, Venice, Cannes, just to mention some. And you have all the Asian continent to add to this list.

Once more, sorry if I don't agree with you. But catching my last post reference movie (Duncan Jones's Moon staring San Rockell and Kevin Spacey), are you saying that this 5 million film is not a B-movie just because it's shows up with 2 multiple awarded actors?

Coen brothers Fargo won 2 Oscars!!! Are you saying that this 7 million dollars film is not a B-movie just because it won 2 academy Oscars?

I think that what really separates B from A movies is the money spent with them. Not the lack of brain of some called directors which - in the sake of not having money - make garbage like films and call them B-movies stating for that reason that they have an excuse to make such garbage because they don't have 150 million dollars and good actors.

Pedro Costa's "In Vanda's Room" was one of the most astonishing movies of the decade. It continues to win multiple prizes around the globe. It was nominated for the Golden Palm in Cannes. Is this a A-movie just because of that? Being nominated for the grand prize award of the European Hollywood equivalent?

Pedro Costa's film was made with 100 thousand Euro!!! Yes, Thousand, Not millions. This is certainly a B-movie no matter how many prizes you trow at it!

But this of course it's only my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're saying any movie with a low budget is a b-movie and that's just wrong. The real definition of a b-movie is "a movie intended to be the 2nd film on a theater bill". It was typically a lower budget film with no stars. The practice of doing double bills faded out in the 50's-60's. Now it's generally used for lower budgeted genre fare. If you're going to make up your own definition than I can't argue with you.
 
Batutta said:
You're saying any movie with a low budget is a b-movie and that's just wrong. The real definition of a b-movie is "a movie intended to be the 2nd film on a theater bill". It was typically a lower budget film with no stars. The practice of doing double bills faded out in the 50's-60's. Now it's generally used for lower budgeted genre fare. If you're going to make up your own definition than I can't argue with you.
Click to expand...

But I agree with you on that! I can even say that in my country B-movies were increased in the 60's due to our Fascist regime that was only over by mid 70's, but it was a practice that faded in most countries in the 60's as you said.

Nonetheless, even your answer implies that behind a B-movie definition exists a direct correlation between movies (whatever they are), and the money spent to do them. For many reasons, which accounted Production factors of many sorts, the big studios invested in cheaper films that could easily sustain them between the larger productions.

Unfortunately, B-movies appeared in the era of sound (some say the the term was already used in the late 20's), and we know that the 30's were a deceptive decade for cinema, mainly because of sound with storytellers dictating their stories instead of showing them.

Fewer dollars then wouldn't pay for Lillian Gish or others stars already established in cinema star system as you know. But now things are different. Many major actors are willing to enroll in films for no money at all if the part is really good. Major contemporary examples are first Tarantino's film with well known actors like Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen, and Cronenberg's Spider with Ralph Fiennes. All those actors participated without payment. The first film was made with a 1 million dollar budget.

The things changed as you've mentioned, but if the roots of B-movies were cheaper with a goal, I find that budget dictates a big part of what a B-movie is all about, hence my POV. But in the end, and if we go literally on this subject - and picking up your thoughts about it - we are discussing about a genre which faded some 40 or 50 years ago as you stated. If we want to keep it alive we have to do some sort of adjusting in the term and the means of it. That's where we can all diverge a bit.

And I don't find this arguing :) I find this debating, and in that resides the richness of this forum where I certainly appreciate your comments. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Look, B-movies are like pornography. I know it when I see it. The Darjeeling Limited is not a b-movie. My own personal view is that a b-movie is a film that doesn't aspire to great quality. It never aspires to be anything more than entertaining, but low quality junk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top