Where is that building at and what is or was it used for? Anyone know the history of it?
Thanks.
Ditto here.
The building itself was the best thing in the movie - both the exterior and interiors. Anyone know what/where it is?
I figured it was either CGI or a matte painting, and the interior was all sets. If it *is* real, I'd love to know more about it, too. It was fascinating.
Me? I aim to misbehave.
I, too, was intrigued by the building- because certainly no apartment building would be built in such a monstrosity in what looks like a surface mine miles from anywhere. Note as well, there are large parts of the lower floors which are windowless- my best guess, if this was a real building, that it was some sort of office building that contained labs- and hence windowless- on the lower floors.
Then, watching the god-awful "making of" ("the director was Sooo- Creative!"), I noted a drawing of the building that DID include more windows on the lower floors- so presumably, if this building DID exist, why draw/sketch it differently?!
And one or two exterior shots looked CGI...
So, if anyone has the answer?!
Although no one involved with the production seems to have explicitly indicated whether the building's real or not, common sense seems to dictate that it is fictional:
First, such a unique architectural and locational choice would have likely attracted public attention long before this straight-to-video film; styling which, as mentioned already, has limited functionality. Next, if the building was real, it's doubtful that its owners/occupants would give the filmmakers permission to attribute such a ghastly back-story as a serial killer and bodies trapped in the walls to their property. Third, the film's "famous" architect is fake, which leads me to believe that his unique masterpiece is likely fake as well. Finally, the credits name Regina, Saskatchewan as the filming location, meaning that it was likely all put together on an urban sound-stage, and since Western Canada is a popular go-to place for filmmakers on a budget it's unlikely the city was chosen for the featured (rural) landmark. And as others have pointed out the external CGI looked really fake in a couple of shots.
Not that the existence of such a building wouldn't be incredibly badass, but it seems pretty clear that this one was the product of the filmmakers' imaginations.
Unfortunately, the building is not real.
I took a close look at all the shots that the building was in and easily concluded it was CG. One of the most telling signs is when the foreground is moving and the brush around the building and in the distance is not, for example, the dog burial scene.
Also notice that the camera never moves in any of the shots with the building in it. It is not because this type of special effect cannot handle a moving camera, but if the camera is steady, it is SOOOO much cheaper--I know, I do low budget films all the time.
One last observation is near the end when the old lady is looking out her window. This shot didn't need to be CG but was. How you can tell is the lighting (which is usually the giveaway in most cases). The woman and the curtains are strongly lit. A shadow is cut across her face by the curtains, however, the face of the building is the same as it ever was and had no indication of any strong direct light.
Had I been shooting this film, I would have created a facade for that shot. Better to go with real v CG when you can.