Really? The movie cost $2 million to make?

I'm a big admirer of producers and directors who can produce movies on a shoestring budget. Even the major Hollywood studios used to do that a lot back in the early 1970s with their, 'movie-of-the-week' specials which reputedly cost $50,000 to $100,000 to produce, using well-known tv A list actors, top-of-the-B-list actors, and fading, aging A/B listers.
I assumed BLOOD SHED was a shoestring budget movie, given it's lack of props, special sets, big-name actors. I admired BLOOD SHED for doing a good job making do more with less and using the same principles of the early 70s made-for-tv movies which showed a good movie didn't necessarily need expensive sets and props and special effects.
But I read this movie costs $2 million to make. That's a lot of money for a movie like that. The movie itself looks as if it could have been filmed for under $100,000. The movie was filmed on one location essentially in different spots on the same locale.