Films whose low budgets contribute to their greatness.

Tools    





Unforgettable yes, "Great"...not sure, but for low budget junk, made better by the low budget, it's hard to beat early films by John Waters. Pink Flamingos has been mentioned, but Mondo Trasho and Multiple Maniacs were all made with pass-the-hat budgets and local no-name "actors", in years before Waters become more famous, could hire Johnny Depp and had a larger budget. Some of the folks in these movies grew up in my childhood neighborhood in Baltimore, one still lives there. I know someone who subsequently, years later, rented the set (such as it was) of Desperate Living, and lived in the house, which is on a quiet lane in northern Baltimore County. There's no missing the fact that budgets were microscopic, but the notoriety of the movies far exceeded the cash outlay. Waters has become an iconic figure that everybody at least recognizes or likes or disapproves of or something....your eccentric gay grandpa. It helps that he does a great, witty interview, so he's been on TV talk shows many times.




Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I think the only reason people watch El Mariachi or The Blair Witch Project is because they want to be impressed by the low budget. Still good movies, it's the low budget that's the star appeal.



I think the only reason people watch El Mariachi or The Blair Witch Project is because they want to be impressed by the low budget. Still good movies, it's the low budget that's the star appeal.
The Blair Witch Project made quite a sensation out of their tiny budget and the fake PR that claimed some sort of history. For a few days, it had people hitting libraries to find the "historical" basis of the story and scouring the woods for artifacts. The faux documentary aspect of it far outweighed the cinematic value. It's interesting to note that there is no Blair, Maryland, but there is a Burkittsville, near DC, an old town that did have a ghost legend and provided a tiny kernel of a story. Blair is a common local slang mis-pronunciation of a road, Belair Road, that runs through Baltimore.



The Blair Witch Project made quite a sensation out of their tiny budget and the fake PR that claimed some sort of history. For a few days, it had people hitting libraries to find the "historical" basis of the story and scouring the woods for artifacts. The faux documentary aspect of it far outweighed the cinematic value. It's interesting to note that there is no Blair, Maryland, but there is a Burkittsville, near DC, an old town that did have a ghost legend and provided a tiny kernel of a story. Blair is a common local slang mis-pronunciation of a road, Belair Road, that runs through Baltimore.
Not sure if you or anyone else remembers, but in April 1998, the old IFC channel had a show called Split Screen that showed a lot of low budget student films, and they showed what was about a 20 minute cut of Blair Witch (hitting all of the highlights and ending with the snot-shot) along with a brief background that presented the story of these missing students and their discovered footage seriously. That's what really got the ball rolling, and that clip was passed around on VHS like some kind of virus. In these early days of Goog, it wasn't so simple to debunk or confirm the facts. Eventually, I forget exactly where, it got revealed to be a hoax, but it was so impressive, who cares at that point. When it finally opened, I went on opening weekend to a packed house, and pin drops, right? I think it was three days later when the cast finally came out publicly to get people to stop demanding an investigation.


I admire the hell out the film, and I can't entirely separate the 90 minute film from the 15 month build-up, but I still think it's fine. And I knew film school people who were exactly like each of those characters, so for me it wasn't exactly unbelievable.



Gattaca. The lack of budget forces the film to convey scope through things like lighting, and the immensity of the ideas themselves, whereas a less thoughtful and more well-funded film would probably just toss in a cheap CGI-laden cityscape here and there to try to achieve the same, but not as well.



I admire the heck out the people that did that...make a cheap movie, invent a back story, create a cult following and a local myth. Their movie became iconic without a 50 million dollar budget. It did remind me of John Waters, who did something similar with Dreamland Studios. His cast members were outsiders who otherwise would have only been in the movies if they bought a ticket. For both Blair Witch and Waters, people got their moment of fame that would otherwise have never happened.



Not sure if you or anyone else remembers, but in April 1998, the old IFC channel had a show called Split Screen that showed a lot of low budget student films, and they showed what was about a 20 minute cut of Blair Witch (hitting all of the highlights and ending with the snot-shot) along with a brief background that presented the story of these missing students and their discovered footage seriously. That's what really got the ball rolling, and that clip was passed around on VHS like some kind of virus. In these early days of Goog, it wasn't so simple to debunk or confirm the facts. Eventually, I forget exactly where, it got revealed to be a hoax, but it was so impressive, who cares at that point. When it finally opened, I went on opening weekend to a packed house, and pin drops, right? I think it was three days later when the cast finally came out publicly to get people to stop demanding an investigation.


I admire the hell out the film, and I can't entirely separate the 90 minute film from the 15 month build-up, but I still think it's fine. And I knew film school people who were exactly like each of those characters, so for me it wasn't exactly unbelievable.
I saw it years after the fact and still found it quite effective on normal horror movie terms. I also think the Adam Wingard sequel from a few years ago proves how throwing more money at this premise directly makes it worse. More characters, more cameras (including a drone cam), more witch all help dissipate sky sense of atmosphere or tension.



I saw it years after the fact and still found it quite effective on normal horror movie terms. I also think the Adam Wingard sequel from a few years ago proves how throwing more money at this premise directly makes it worse. More characters, more cameras (including a drone cam), more witch all help dissipate sky sense of atmosphere or tension.
The minimalism and 'lack of witch' can also add an extra layer of interpretation, which was popular before the theatrical release with its extended ending (although I suppose one could think it still might apply):


WARNING: spoilers below
That Heather was the witch, and that the infamous snot scene may have been a confession.



Victim of The Night
Gattaca. The lack of budget forces the film to convey scope through things like lighting, and the immensity of the ideas themselves, whereas a less thoughtful and more well-funded film would probably just toss in a cheap CGI-laden cityscape here and there to try to achieve the same, but not as well.
God I hate that. Takes me out of movies so fast.



Registered User
It's a hard question, but Rocky Horror Picture Show? It was so campy that it is... coolish? Throw more money at the project, and it would have made it too slick to become the cult classic that it became.



Registered User
Begotten



This is the second mention of this film this weekend. I'm so happy to see it get attention