Wow, that is a lot less than I would expect for a feature that claims to be shot on 35mm and the picture looks like it was. Narrow depth of field and all. I think the cinematography alone and the stunts are worth the watch, especially since the story is good too. Fire burns, night exterior blood and gore and fight scenes, how did they make this for so little money, and shot on location in AL?
Where have you heard that the budget was listed at 190$
Please forgive my spelling mistakes I usually speak French
Looks like he was part of camera crew...probably knows.
share[deleted]
But it's very low for a budget. Think of the cost of cameras, actors, crew, director, etc. Anything under one million dollars is pretty low budget. Relatively speaking, 190K is a very low budget.
shareIt is a very low budget and it's pretty obvious once you've seen the movie...
shareIt sure is obvious, this may be one of THE worst HORRROR films I have seen, I mean you have directors out there like Jim Van Bebber who would have made a much better film for 190K. How can the guy that made this even some close to thinking that it has any entertaining values to it. The southern accents are the worst I have ever heard. I've seen some people, (the same 2 or 3 EVERYTIME) posting here about how wonderful the film is, and posting links to so called positive reviews, etc, oh and the "Cookie cutter" comment like 3 times, and it's sad that you can't admit that you are obviously involved in the film. I am 37 years old and have been a horror fan ever since my dad took me to see the Exorcist at the drive in, and to me this pisses all over the true and original horror films of our times, please judge for yourself, at least it's good for a laugh.
shareI agree this was just BAD. And why in the hell would they use "Billy-Bob" as the name of a hick inbreeder? That's too common of a name stereotypically anyway for a hick inbreeder.... Well I guess if the shirt fits.
I'm 29 and a horror/cult fan too but wouldn't give this waste of film a second glance.
---
You can't guarantee my sanity.
I can't guarantee your safety.
IMDB lists 70 people connected to the movie. Take $190K divide that by the 70 people and you get an average cost per person. Now divide that by however many days you think it took to shoot the movie. Now factor in overhead costs like insurance, legal, transportation, office, etc., and it becomes pretty clear that whomever came up with the $190K figure graduated from the ENRON school of accounting.
shareIt wasnt Enron school of accounting. Its more like calling in every favor, shooting in AL where permits are not required and SAG ultra low budget rates. Believe it or not the it was shot with $190k and in 18 days.
shareMy late father was a SAG member and so your comment prompted me to check-out the current SAG rates. It was interesting, and sad, to see how low SAG's minimums can go; particularly for a theatrical release. But even with every actor getting the SAG weekly minimum, round-trip coach airfare, "lodged" in the local Motel-6 or equivalent, and mandatory pension and FICA contributions; it is still a bit of a trick for the listed budget to cover just the actors, extras and stuntmen. But no matter, it was a horrible movie and not in a good way. Also, did you check out their web-page? They are having a script "contest" wherein one can enter by sending them a script *and* writing them a $40 cheque. How sad.
shareTHAT is VERY sad, they take advantage of people like that! What's the 40 bucks for??? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the so called actors in the film PAID a certain amount to be in the film itself! These people in charge of this should be ashamed of themselves, as this turned out to be one of THE Worst films I've EVER seen. I'd rather watch Showgirls and Day of the Dead 2 over and over than sit through this horse SH*T again!
share$190k? I'd love to see the accounting info for this project.
share