For a low budget drug film...
It really wasn't that bad, compared to other low budget flicks that I've seen.
shareI remember when I watched this thinking it was the worst movie I'd ever seen. Haven't seen it for a while, so maybe that's overly harsh, but I was not buying Guiseppe's performance at all.
shareI felt the same way when I first watched it. Don't get me wrong...the movie isn't perfect. But after watching so many badly made and terribly written low budget films; in comparison, I think Tweek City is actually watchable and somewhat interesting.
shareIt's interesting for sure. Giuseppe Andrews has gone on to direct a whole bunch of low/no budget movies and is known in some circles as something of a "trailer park auteur." I sort of interpreted this whole progression as him actually being a methhead, and life has imitated art ever since Tweek City. Spun is a great movie about methheads, definitely a bit higher budget, but not much. It has an excellent cast and great music by Billy Corgan. Any time I've ever had the slightest notion to watch Tweek City, I always end up watching spun instead.
shareWell, Spun is a classic druggie-film. If I had to compare Tweek City to Spun...than without a doubt, Spun is the best. Obviously, Spun does have a higher budget, and overall a much better cast. I wouldn't even put Spun and Tweek City in the same league.
shareI was curious after our chat, I did some digging for the budgets of these films and Tweek City's budget was about $200,000 compared with Spun's $4.5 mil. That is a significant difference, but if you look at another low budget indie from the same time period "Mean Creek" from 2004 was made for about $250,000 and it's worlds better in terms of production value, acting caliber, everything. Also, Primer and El Mariachi were made for less than 10 grand (allegedly) and are classics already. One thing I am probably picking up on is the cheap look of Tweek City. Of all the ones I mentioned, only Tweek City was shot on digital. Now in 2018, you can make a digital movie look every bit as good as film, though I am sure some would disagree, but you definitely couldn't in 2005. Digital filmmaking was so new and the cameras, lenses, codecs, were not as sophisticated as they are now. I'm gonna watch it again because it's been a while.
shareFilmmakers nowadays have so much at their disposal. I agree with you on digital filmmaking. It was so new at the time. And Tweek City definitely has a cheap look...which is what I kinda like about it. It's really fitting for the story. But it definitely has that low budget 2005 look. If Tweek City would've been filmed today, it probably would've been shot in HD with much better editing techniques.
share[deleted]