Budget NOT only $150,000 - more like $700,000 or $800,000. But still...
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where these people got the $150,000 budget number - but it just doesn't fly. The director himself on the Commentary track says that the film was "Under a Million. Well under a million."
I realize that "Under a million" is what low-budget filmmakers are supposed to say - but that's when SELLING their movie. They have no reason to lie after the movie has found distribution and is in release. If it was as low a budget as the people here are saying, the director would not have used that term - he would've been bragging about the $150,000 figure.
"Under a million. Well under a million" to me implies about just what I thought the budget was when watching the film and then the "making of" "video diary" on the disk - somewhere in the $700,000 to $800,000 range.
These people filmed in Los Angeles or around there. I'm not sure if they were union or not, but they had an enormous crew with all the main departments filled. They had production offices, sound stages, and a *beep* of equipment. They had independent contractors building things like the water tank(which later broke), they had insurance, they had permits for filmming(he talks about getting permits on the track), they had a foam company construct the templates for their cave walls, which they then resurfaced and dressed as needed for each scene, they had materials to build all this stuff, the had a most-likely rented HD camera, they had actors to pay, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, the director mentioned that "nobody made any money" on the film, but I seriously doubt that all of those people went completely unpaid for the whole shoot. More likely it was some unpaid people, and others working for a very low amount - maybe even just living expenses, which is a common low-budget arrangement. But still, living expenses for all the folks on their crew would add up. As would the catering for the shoot, as would the equipment rental, etc.
Yes, they may have had some equpment, or gotten some donated, etc. But the numbers for $150,000 simply don't add up. The physical cost of HD tapes, insurance, permits and the various set building contractors that were mentioned, along with living expenses and catering alone would probably put you over that budget already.
The film cost around $700,000 to $800,000, I'd say.
This is still quite an achievement, since they pulled off a nice little film for the money, in my opinion. And anyway, while the budget should be taken into account, especially to be impressed with what they pulled off for the money, ultimately, the film has to stand on its own, regardless of the budget.
And I think it stands on its own pretty well. Sure, there's some story problems, and probably too much shaky cam. But the acting and direction was far, FAR above the normal horror film made at this budget level, the sets were impressive, as was the cinematography(except for the aforementioned excessive shaky cam use), there was some tension, and things flowed very well from scene to scene. It had a pretty professional feel to the whole thing, which isn't normal for your average "Under a million" horror flick.
I'd certainly recommend this film to somebody. Is it as good as The Descent? No, it isn't. But it's pretty damn good, especially for the circumstances under which it was made, and especially since it is the director's first feature film. This guy shows real promise, in my opinion, and I think he's going to have a good future in filmmaking.
And these guys should be proud that they actually went out and DID something, rather than just talk about it - they put in a whole lot of work and came out with something to be proud of on the other side of it all.
If you want to see a really inept cave movie that probably cost about the same or more to make go check out "Caved In" - I think you'll appreciate "The Cavern" a lot more when you stack it up to other films in its budget range and circumstances.
These guys deserve kudos, and I hope they make another movie soon. I'd definitely check it out.