MovieChat Forums > Hardware (1990) Discussion > A low budget is no excuse for a bad film...

A low budget is no excuse for a bad film...

posted 12 years ago by cjbussey81
19 replies | jump to latest

"Hardware" is a truly awful film. The dialogue is crap, most of the acting is ridiculous, the production design is not that great, and above all, the basic premise (and its execution) are terrible. I don't know what kind of movie Richard Stanley thought he was making, but if it was anything like the end result, then he was deluded from the beginning.

This is a low-budget film in every respect, but that still doesn't excuse its poor quality. Look what James Cameron was able to pull off with a similarly small amount of money and time in "The Terminator," for example. It was only the second film he directed (the first one being a Roger Corman crapfest), and he only had about $4 million to make it. Despite the limitations imposed by a small budget, he delivered a vastly superior film. I suspect that, had Stanley been given 5 or even 10 times as much money, he still would have turned in a terrible movie because the ideas simply weren't there.

"You can keep the gum."

[–] SteveH2002 11 years ago

Sadly enough, I agree. Just finished watching it and... meh. Seemed a poor mash-up of Mad Max, Terminator, Alien, and a half-dozen other better built sci-fi classics.

But, what the heck - it's a cult classic and if you happen to love it more power to you. Like killer 'bots as much as the next guy, but this one just didn't do it for me. Was cool seein Lemmy's cameo, tho.

[–] thepotatoHasEyes 9 years ago

have to agree... not that great... I thought the idea was excellent, thats what made me want to see it, but after watching , i thought it could have been better if taken in a bigger direction or something... ya, i just expected more from the premise.
It was just recommended to me again recently and i almost checked it out, then barely remembered watching a crappy movie by that name. I thought it was very "b" movie . not a re watcher for me , but hey , everyone who likes this will probably really love Road Wars.
NOW JUST START THE MOVIE

[–] Unicorn-9 11 years ago

"Look what James Cameron was able to pull off with a similarly small amount of money and time in "The Terminator," for example. It was only the second film he directed (the first one being a Roger Corman crapfest), and he only had about $4 million to make it."

According to IMDB:

Terminator budget: $6,400,000 (1984)
Hardware budget: $1,500,000 (1990)

That's not exactly what I call 'similar' budgets. Assuming those numbers are correct, in real inflation-adjusted terms, Hardware's budget was probably 20% or less of Terminator's.

[–] fgwri 11 years ago

The fans of this movie (who are very few in number) defend it by saying that it did not have a big budget. Well, I agree with the OP, that's nonsense. A good movie will shine, regardless of its budget. Hardware is just a terrible movie, period. Bad acting, long sequences that have no point, a monotonous soundtrack, and it's just not an engaging story. I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone, even die hard sci fi lovers.

[–] Unicorn-9 11 years ago

"Well, I agree with the OP, that's nonsense."

This movie did not have a big budget. As I already demonstrated above. Terminator was a cheap SF movie for its era and had about five times the budget.

"A good movie will shine, regardless of its budget."

So you're saying you could have made a better movie with $10 and a couple of bits of pocket fluff?

[–] fgwri 11 years ago

I'm not saying I could make a movie period, *beep* I am not a filmmaker. I have no intention of being one. That was not my point. The point is, if you make an engaging story that enlightens and inspires people, then it will be a great movie, regardless of how much is spent on it or who stars in it.

[–] info-4857 11 years ago

Movies not the greatest, granted but I wouldn't say the acting was bad, everything that's wrong with the film is down to a poor script but I was shocked to read this was 1.5 mill.
I made a movie for 0.5 mill and hardware still is better, the lighting, set design etc. are remarkable for what little money he had.
Story aside he made a low budget film look way more expensive than it was.

[–] swiftyl 10 years ago

"Story aside"

Story is everything bro. No story no movie.

[–] ethermusic1981 10 years ago

What world do you live in? 'Cause it sure isn't the real one.

[–] moviechatterer (13217) 3 years ago

he speak the truth.

[–] cyril_grey 9 years ago

What seems to be the issue with the story? I think it's a solid story- a frightening one too, if you take a minute to look around. Aside from that, you have one of the best "what it would be like to die a traumatic, yet altered-state-of-consciousness death" ever filmed, which, by the way, happens to the person we were meant to think was the "hero".

I find when films like this or To Live and Die in LA come along, people are quick to target the story as flawed because you are left with an uncomfortable feeling when the main character dies- but you are supposed to. It pulls the rug out from under you. I think it was Hardware's biggest strength. People who watch lots of films and understand dramatic structure often appreciate when these clever films come along and subvert expectation. I won't deny, the first time watching I was sure Moe would rise up at the end and save the day, but he doesn't. In fact, his death is lonely and pointless. It's kind of the theme of the film, so if I'm left feeling the very emotion the film is trying to depict, I say well done.

[–] cyguration (3834) 3 years ago

I find when films like this or To Live and Die in LA come along, people are quick to target the story as flawed because you are left with an uncomfortable feeling when the main character dies- but you are supposed to. It pulls the rug out from under you.

I don't mind when a film does this but it has to be done in an intelligent way, like in the film 15 Minutes, or The Missing, or The Thin Red Line, or heck even To Live and Die In L.A.

The problem with Hardware is that Moe dies an unremarkable death due to the toxin injection, but Jill doesn't, even though the robot had plenty of times to intoxicate her. It makes quick and violent work of everybody else except for Jill and Shades, which is what makes the movie stupid.

You can't undermine the audience's intelligence like that. To Live and Die In L.A., didn't undermine our intelligence. The firefight resulting in the main character's death was realistic and could have very well happened to his partner. The movie was stark and nihilistic, but at least it wasn't unintelligent in how it handled the character's death.

Can't say the same for Hardware. If the characters had at least died like in Gunhed or the way Tom Skerritt was offed in Alien I could have been understanding, but the inconsistent lethality of the robot and how it targeted its victims was nonsensical.

[–] KrowbOy 9 years ago

The acting ranges from good to o.k. (William Hootkins who played in the similar Death Machine goes from being the nastiest talking pervert to singing a really goofy song...which is the movies lowest point). The movie was very low budget but looks awesome, the production design is very good as are the effects. It looks like Blade Runner or maybe The Crow with a red/orange filter used to film every scene which gives it a gritty, bleak feel. The cyborg effects are pretty good also, it's filmed in a way that is similar to Alien, quick cuts and covered in darkness which can make the effects look better but also make the cyborg more menacing. And if you're looking for gore u found it here.

[–] JudgeJavelin 9 years ago

I've recently seen "The Man from Earth" which is a sci-fi movie that was made for 200k$ and was great.

So no, low-budget is no excuse for poor quality.

As for Hardware, it had a few good ideas and concepts, unfortunately they got mostly drowned in bad execution.

------------------------------
Prepare to be judged....with a FGM-148 Javelin!

[–] Unicorn-9 8 years ago

"I've recently seen "The Man from Earth" which is a sci-fi movie that was made for 200k$ and was great."

Yeah, I loved the killer robot scenes in The Man From Earth.

Oh, hang on, it was a few people talking in a room, with no special effects or futuristic set dressing to pay for. And shot on $10 video tapes with a $2000 camera, not 35mm film.

Good movie, but comparing it to Hardware is just silly.

[–] moviechatterer (13217) 3 years ago

it does illustrate the weighting of story vs fx in what makes a good film.

yes, killer robot films need more fx and hence more money , but they also need a story , other wise a "no fx but great stroy" film like "man from Earth" will come out on top. by a mile.

[–] RomeoKnight 9 years ago

I just watched it and I loved it. Amazing cinematography and direction. Pure old-school dystopia cinema. Surely the low budget hurt the production values a bit but still quite an achievement. This is definitely not a popcorn flick and requires some finesse from the viewer to appreciate it. If you didn't like it then go and watch Transformers sequels.

[–] legnadibrom (5697) 6 years ago

amen

[–] CelebHeights 8 years ago

There were some cool elements to this movie, and the effects I felt were great for the budget and era it was made, but it just seemed to take ages to get anywhere and when it did...nothing of note seemed to happen.