Do you take budget into consideration on how you'd rate a movie?
Do you hold low-budget movies in different standard to big blockbuster releases?
Or do you disregard budgetary constraints and simply rate a movie as it's presented?
Sometimes. For example I rated Cloverfield (2008) and Chronicle (2012) higher than I normally would because I was surprised by how they cost only $30 million and $12 million respectively. Conversely there's a couple of movies that cost $150 million and nothing on the screen justifies such a huge a budget so I rated them lower.
shareThat's what I do too. However, rating a good low-budget movie is relatively easy. Because they are "good despite."
It's like saying a child-prodigy piano player that can play like a 40 years old maestro on a grand piano. It's great, no problem.
But how'd you rate a low-budget movie that's flawed because of... well, lack of budget?
Maybe the CGI is terrible because good CGI is expensive af. Or maybe the acting are sub-par because they couldn't hire the best actors available.
Basically like saying, "Ok, Timmy... you played well and all, but your piano sounds like shit. Ask your mom to buy a more expensive one next time. D-"
On the other hand, saying, "Ok, it's good. I'll give you an A+... for a 10-year olds on a beat-up piano!" is like giving a "discounted" praise.
In that case if I know the budget is low BUT the script is fantastic it gets extra points because I know that given enough money and the right actors the movie would be improved. The two things that are inexcusable regardless of how big the budget is are poor script and poor direction. Direction and script writing are the two things that reflect raw talent and they are the true measure of whether a movie is good or not.
A nice example of raw directing talent is James Cameron's 1978 student film "Xenogenesis": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KpZRJ4HE4Q. Watching it you'd never guess he filmed most of it in the living room of his home. A good director can work around having a limited budget. If Xenogenesis had been made by a professional filmmaker working for an established studio I would rate it maybe 3/10; but because I know it was made by a student in his living room on a shoestring budget it gets a 7 or 8 out of 10.
Makes sense. However, a movie is ultimately the final product. Low-budget movies usually are ridden with lower quality picture because good cameras and lenses are super expensive, especially in darker / low-light situations. Sometimes I groan when the picture quality suffer so much you can barely dicern whatever on screen. It's very hard to not nip a score from the movie because of some technical limitations, eventhough I'm fully aware that it's all the filmmakers could do with their budget.
Working around the limited budget means limited scope and situations. One could say, if you can't afford better cameras then simply shoot all your scenes in daylight. But sometimes you need to have dark scenes to evoke the intended look for the story you want to tell. Sometimes pushing the boundaries of what you can is what constitute as art. Isn't that what true artists do? Sometimes one pushes a little too hard and everything breaks apart.
Like I said, good low-budget movies are easier to rate as they are punching above their weight. They are great. What I want to know is how would you rate flawed low-budget movies.
Example of a flawed low-budget movie is maybe Zeros and Ones with Ethan Hawke. The movie is super experimental. It's full of dark scenes that's probably shot with potato cameras judging from the extremely high noise. Very distracting and I rate it low because of that. While one can't dismiss entirely the pain and effort the filmmakers tried to do with it, the end product is still an almost unwatchable mess. It's a dilemma.
I haven't seen Zeroes and Ones but from your description it sounds like it was made by bad film-makers and I'd likely rate it low, even after taking the low budget into consideration. Good film-makers always find a way to work around they're budget limitations - by adjusting the script or by adjusting their film-making methods. Too much echo on set? Find a different shooting location then. Too little light? Then film at dusk or dawn instead of midnight. A scene requires expensive effects and you don't have the money for it? Change the script a little so that the action is implied instead of making do with mediocre or laughable effects.
When Steven Spielberg was a kid he made a film called Fighter Squad (1961). Instead of sitting in cheap cardboard boxes dressed up to look like planes, the way you and I likely would have at that age, he filmed it using old WWII planes that were just parked on a nearby airfield (probably after asking very nicely for permission). He simply used a low angle which only had the plane and sky in frame and an unsteady camera to give the illusion of flight. And for the combat scenes he would film his friends pressing the firing button on the plane's joystick and splice in 8mm footage of real ships exploding and planes being shot down from real WWII battles.
Where you and I would have filmed this using boxes in our backyards with the noise of barking dogs and our kitchens in the background, Spielberg had the passion and ingenuity to find actual WWII planes and use creative techniques to increase the production value of his little kiddies film without putting a dent in his pocket. This is what I mean by finding ways around having a low budget.
A more recent example of what I think is an excellently made film using a shoestring budget is the Blair Witch Project. Most of horror is implied and it works way better than it would have had the film-maker been unimaginative and insisted on having a woman wearing cheap makeup pretending to be a witch.
Maybe I didn't make it super clear but rating a good low-budget movie is not what I wonder about.
Now, from your example, the Spielberg unused WWII plane movie... Was it better than Top Gun which used real flying planes? I haven't watched the Spielberg's one, but just from my imagination Top Gun should look better, right? At least in one particular area.
So, would you knock Spielberg's movie "unconvincing" plane scene down? I get the effort and creativity, but yeah not as good as real flying planes.
Or would you say it's surprisingly good... for an unused stationary plane shot only from the underside? Hey, it's better than cardboards!
Or you'd outright say it's objectively, totally better than shooting real planes because Spielberg was THAT good?
That's what I wonder about. Should budget be taken into consideration or simply rate a movie as is no matter how expensive or how cheap it was to make?
Okay, I think I get what you're asking now. Given its budget you should expect a movie like Top Gun to at the very least be good. By good I mean at least 6/10. A rating less than that means it's a failure. Watching Spielberg's film and knowing nothing about it, it's a bad film. In some shots you can clearly see anachronistic modern cars (by contemporary standards) in the background and it looks pretty cheap. But knowing that it was made by a kid with no budget instantly elevates it by several points. Knowing this turns a bad film into a good film.
So yeah, I feel that you should take the budget into consideration when judging a film. I don't expect this from casual moviegoers, but we are film fans to the extent that we have taken the time to register and participate on film forums such as Movie Chat, and as such we should at least know basic information about the films we watch, including the budget, and include that in our opinion of the end product. The same way that it's not fair to judge the performance of a disabled Paralympic sprinter against the performance of someone like Usain Bolt purely based on the end result.
but we are film fans to the extent that we have taken the time to register and participate on film forums such as Movie Chat
Wait a minute! I thought we register here for the colorful political commentaries and all the woderful misogyny? I was wrong all this time! share