Low Budget, B movie, C movie Vs HIGH BUDGET films

Patryk_Rebisz said:
El Mariach's story is run-of-the-mill, the acting is atrocious and the film - besides the fact of how does no-budget film looks like curiosity - is NOT watchable. Again, maybe your standards are different then mine. Traditional dime-a-dozen stories of king pins, drug lords, shootouts, hero with machine guns don't interest me. .
Click to expand...

oh well, if you didn't like the movie AT ALL then that's a whole 'nother story; I can't really argue against that.

Anyone whose interested in action exploitation (RR's genre) I say pay attention to it, 'cause theres a lots of technique going on that escapes the average low-budget movie. He's a master of montage/constructive editing/building up a movie from shots/pre-editing/basic filmmaking/whatever you wanna call it. I mean the guns didnt work right so he "built" automatic weapon fire in editing! He's not even my favorite filmmaker (far from it- I actually think he's a mediocre filmmaker on the whole), but for learning the approach pudovkin calls "constructive editing" Ive studied his movies shot by shot and learned alot about how to build a sequence.
 
nowadays they give away details about amount of $ spent for production of the film , this never occured before i guess terminator 2, this is the main reason why people go out to see blockbusters, they want to see what hollywood did for that 100 millions again,"i have to see that most expensive film".
In ALL cases budget is a lie and they say its 100 if its not even 50.
 
I don't think that El Mariachi (made with $7000) is good example. El Mariachi is one time wonder. You don't have five hundreds "el mariachi's" and you can't that there is many successful examples of this kind. There was another award winning film made with $7000 "Primer" (2004) by Shane Carruth. Second full feature filme by Carruth came after nine years, "Upstream Color" (2013). No info about budget, but still looks and feels like B movie.

Why you put big budget spectacle vs. low budget ideas? Where do you see GREAT (better than in big league) ideas in B films or indie? Even if smaller films have good ideas, IMHO, idea + bad execution = bad result. You know, low budget means poor locations, bad no-name actors, not so beautiful cinematography. Europe cinema is full of boring films (made by professionals with budgets 1 - 10 millions euros) which no one wants too see.

Bedhead is entertaining, but it is not a full feature. In our country we had a big festival for 10 minutes long films, many profesionals from commercials and music videos made many great short films. Next year the limit was up to 20 minutes and many failed. Next year only two films was made up 30 minutes. So, nice short film shows that director can make nice short film and the ability to make a nice feature film is in question.
 
ZetKey said:
Why you put big budget spectacle vs. low budget ideas? Where do you see GREAT (better than in big league) ideas in B films or indie? Even if smaller films have good ideas, IMHO, idea + bad execution = bad result. You know, low budget means poor locations, bad no-name actors, not so beautiful cinematography. Europe cinema is full of boring films (made by professionals with budgets 1 - 10 millions euros) which no one wants too see.
Click to expand...

GREAT ideas films:
This (film not the trailer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xhnSp5Gdw

ALL of Godard including his recent film (filled with ideas even though borderline unwatchable):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLuWoz9OpqU

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkN_xCXozw

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J--TDEHizVA

The reason why Europe is filled with boring unwatchable films is because the educated public of Europe is not engaged anymore. The intelectual filmakers have lost the touch with what is intelectual AND watchable. In the process they corrupted their "language." They choose easy to digest metaphors rather than actually sophisticated ideas - so in turn their films became as banal as what the Hollywood is churning out (sans the spectacle).
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
GREAT ideas films:
This (film not the trailer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xhnSp5Gdw

ALL of Godard including his recent film (filled with ideas even though borderline unwatchable):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLuWoz9OpqU

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkN_xCXozw

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J--TDEHizVA
Click to expand...

well, those all look pretty darn good. Except the Godard one, Godard lost his mind a long time ago. I did enjoy Weekend, tho, recently.

Just for the record though, its very easy to imagine that these sorts of films are completely limitless in their ideas and execution, but art cinema does have its own conventions, "standards", (and cliches); and any type of film can be done well or poorly.

Check Out:

David Bordwell's "Art Cinema As Mode Of Film Practice" which explains the conventions; what these films have in common.

and

Kracauer's "Theory Of Film" which lays down principles of cinematic realism (episodic structure, open-endings, use of deep space, etc)

and of course,

Bazin's "What Is Cinema", the "french movie" manual. ;)

there IS a "common style" at play here.

These movies look pretty breathtaking though, so thanks a million (I had no clue these were out there or even how to find them). I'll be watching them all, then I'm going to see IROONNN MAN THREEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOHOOOOOO
 
Last edited:
nycineaste, the fact that art films have their own canon is a given. Those film's do not get free pass because they are art films, if anything they are being judged more scrupulously because people interested in those films PAY ATTENTION. So Mallick's recent "To the Wonder" is ridden with cliches of ideas that he himself gave birth to. How many more spinning girls do we need? How much more touching of grass, how many more lens flares through the trees? Isn't he bored himself with those obvious devices? Godard on the other hand never stops amusing himself (and through that his audience) - that's why i pay respect to that guy. As i mentioned in my previous post his most recent film "Socialisme" is borderline un-watchable but he still manages to invent - i'm giving him props not for this film but for that relentless desire to innovate.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
GREAT ideas films:
This (film not the trailer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6xhnSp5Gdw

ALL of Godard including his recent film (filled with ideas even though borderline unwatchable):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLuWoz9OpqU

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkN_xCXozw

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J--TDEHizVA

The reason why Europe is filled with boring unwatchable films is because the educated public of Europe is not engaged anymore. The intelectual filmakers have lost the touch with what is intelectual AND watchable. In the process they corrupted their "language." They choose easy to digest metaphors rather than actually sophisticated ideas - so in turn their films became as banal as what the Hollywood is churning out (sans the spectacle).
Click to expand...
It seems I don't know what are low-budget and B, C movies are :) You know.... Asylum production, Steven Seagal and Dolph Lungren straight to DVD movies and those "Zombie stripers", "Zobie nazzi", TV novels - that what I call low-budget and B movies! How can great ideas come from here? They are replicating what big-budget has.

Turin Horse is difficult to watch. Hollywood is lacking ideas, that's why some good European films are remaked in Hollywood. I don't see any chanches for Turin Horse to be remaked with big budget. Godard is a big boy, one of the greatest directors. I don't believe, that Godard belongs to be in line with other B movies directors. Russian Ark is a technical experiment to make one-shot feature, nothing more. No one cares about storytelling, acting or cinematography in Russian Ark.

Some freshness and ideas had first "The Evil Dead" movies (they belong to the B category, right?) and... then the creator of Evil Dead made The Spider Man trilogy :)
 
ZetKey said:
It seems I don't know what are low-budget and B, C movies are :) You know.... Asylum production, Steven Seagal and Dolph Lungren straight to DVD movies and those "Zombie stripers", "Zobie nazzi", TV novels - that what I call low-budget and B movies! How can great ideas come from here? They are replicating what big-budget has.

Turin Horse is difficult to watch. Hollywood is lacking ideas, that's why some good European films are remaked in Hollywood. I don't see any chanches for Turin Horse to be remaked with big budget. Godard is a big boy, one of the greatest directors. I don't believe, that Godard belongs to be in line with other B movies directors. Russian Ark is a technical experiment to make one-shot feature, nothing more. No one cares about storytelling, acting or cinematography in Russian Ark.

Some freshness and ideas had first "The Evil Dead" movies (they belong to the B category, right?) and... then the creator of Evil Dead made The Spider Man trilogy :)
Click to expand...

My argument is not about what defines B and C level films but rather reality check of difference between low and high budget films and what each has going for itself. "Russian Ark" is NOT just a technical experiment - an experiment is when you put some a piece of glass in front of the lens and get cool flares or is you shot whole scene showing only actor's back or... When you gather thousands of people in one spot, dress them in period costumes, light a whole museum and then shoot it all in one take is much, much more then an experiment - it's a statement.
 
As you've read the multitude of opinions you realize that no one has a definite answer. There is no right answer. I know nothing and will give you my two cents worth. You need a great script. Great not good. Very few people can write a great script. You can have $200 million, great actors, great crew, but if you have a good script you cannot get a great film out of that. It might take you 10 years to write a great script. You don't need much money! You can find or borrow equipment. You don't need a big crew. You can find great actors if you look long enough. Many great actors will never be heard from. Everything is out there to make a great film...but you first must write or find a great script. But does anyone recognize a great script when they read it? Maybe!

William Goldman said it best about the film business, "No one Knows anything!"
 
"Russian Ark" tells quite the story. If movement is what keeps our attention ("in the Blink of an eye") then "Russian Ark" keep most of us rivited.

Did the birth of the B movie come out of the need to fill theater screens in the 50S when Hollywood was not cranking them out fast enough to keep up . Most theaters showed a cartoon, then B movie then the Feature?

Now "we" have turned many of the B movies into Cult Classics. Times and tastes change.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkN_xCXozw
Click to expand...

Wow, that has to be the most boring movie ever, judging by the trailer (2:30 long, with just four shots, and nothing happens in any of them).


If you ask me, the example to follow is The Secret In Their Eyes: $2M budget, great story, great actors, great image (shot on RED, top notch CGI), grossed $34M and won an Oscar.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=secretintheireyes.htm
You don't need to take my word for it:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/05/13/run-dont-walk-to-see-this-film/

Of course, most people around here can only DREAM of a $2M budget...
 
Last edited:
There is actually LESS happening in "Secret in Their Eyes" trailer then the one for "Turin Horse." Some murder, some writer trying to write something, some cookie-cutter "mystery." Yawn. Didn't even finish watching the trailer. It's not the amount of shots that make "something happening."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top