That one’s alright, though.
I am a big fan of its moody moodiness.
To be clearer, I enjoy lower-budget films that accomplish something they set out to accomplish more than a lot of other movies because, even as I'm watching the film for the film's sake, I am appreciating how they achieve it while so many other people are ****ting the bed with $30M, $50M, $100M.
Take Universal's sad attempt to create a "Dark Universe". They had a budget between $125-$195M for
The Mummy and they couldn't get their heads outta their asses, probably
because there was so much money in it, so
The Invisible Man got scaled down to $7M and they hit it outta the park. On $7M they did everything they tried to do and created one helluva tense thriller and you have to respect that. You just have to. You gotta respect when filmmakers make things happen without the ability to just wave money at it.
Like
The Beastmaster, for example, there's a shot where Coscarelli is tryin to create the sense of a large town/city in the background behind the characters, but they didn't have any money, so they do a forced-persepctive thing and you can totally tell, but instead of feeling like, "Ah, that's fake", I actually felt, "Ah, I respect that". And the movie kinda went up a point for me. In fact, they did so much with no money in that movie, I love it for the fun it is, but I love it more for what they were able to pull off.
That's what low-budget is about to me.
I honestly believe that if studios wanna make better movies... they should spend less money on them.