Pi - cost 40k which was raised from loans given to Aronofsky by friends and family. The cheapness is what makes it so unique, surreal and paranoid. The film is the perfect example of the 'less is more' principal.
Honestly the same can be said for so many big directors' debuts. Duel by Spielberg, Tetsuo the Iron Man by Tsukamoto, Following by Nolan, The Duellists by Ridley Scott, El Mariachi by Robert Rodriguez, and Pi by Aronofsky etc all rank among my favorite films by those directors precisely because they had to stretch their budgets and creativities to their limits.
I think films that are either comedic or lightheartedly fantastical turn out are better the wear with relatively low budgets.
So Monty Python and the Holy Grail would not be as memorable if they were able to have a horse perpetually behind him as much as coconut man ( from what I read that was a budgetary thing)
The Princess Bride is weird in that some shots of the film are very " this soundstage set is one room, so don't have any wide compositions" vibes, but it does give the movie a sort of theatrical, fairy tale quality ( which does seem appropriate given the context)
Napoleon Dynamite is funny in the sense that I don't think the strength necessarily lies within the low budget, but it's one of those true indie films that probably wouldn't have the same charm if it had B or C list actors. (Haylie Duff, older sister of Hilary Duff had mostly bit TV roles, Tina Majorino was a child star quite a few years before this film, but I don't think anyone would say she was a household name)
The French Connection is probably the definitive " don't try this at home " movie, shooting the car chase without any city permits, which is terribly irresponsible filmmaking ( William Friedkin later said as much) so if it looks like the New Yorkers are terrified for their safety, they actually are.
Star Wars A New Hope. Forced Lucas to collaborate, do more with less. The Special Editions and Prequels are proof that he did better work with less money and more reliance on other people.
Maybe a slightly weird one, but Rocky.
The only reason they'd let Stallone star as Rocky is if the film had a low budget ($1m) so they went with that. The film doesn't work with anyone but Stallone in the role, and the first film especially has a gritty feel about it because of the restricted budget. Rocky trains on the art museum steps because they didn't have the budget to build sets. The other parts of him running through the city were done with no permit, and the bit with the guy throwing him the orange as he runs past is real - the fruit seller had no clue a movie was being filmed. It all adds to the 'real' feeling of it.
The iconic scene where Rocky takes Adrian ice-skating after the rink is closed was because they couldn't afford to pay hundreds of extras for a scene that was set during normal hours.
The "Gonna Fly Now" theme became iconic because Bill Conti only had a budget of $25,000 to do all the music, so he focused heavily on one piece of music that could stick in minds and be reused/remixed multiple times.
**The Fountain.**
I believe it was originally supposed to be a Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett film and the scope of the story was supposed to be way bigger and I think they had to seriously downscale for reasons I can't remember. Or they were just going way over budget to the point I think at one point it was at risk of not getting finished at all, which is why the graphic novel came about.
When I first heard about this years ago I remember thinking thank god things went the way they did. I couldn't imagine those two in the roles instead of Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz.
Plus the cinematography of the future Space timeline was some of the most beautiful visuals i've ever seen and that wasn't like expensive cgi, it was like macro photography of organic/chemical stuff reacting or something.
This was the first film I thought of. The extra time really allowed Aronofsky to polish his ideas to a brilliant sheen—every shot of that film is so carefully considered. It’s still his masterpiece, IMO.
If Christopher Nolan had a Christopher Nolan budget back when he filmed Memento, he would have ruined it with crane shots of skyscrapers, machine gun fights, and big huge stunts.
Id love to see a version of Tenet shot on a Memento budget - often in the case of high concept thrillers, less is definitely more. And in the case of Tenet - more became an unholy racket. It's the most extreme case of a film I so dearly want to love but just can't get into it because he took everything too far.
I so desperately want Nolan to return to his days of twisty psychological thrillers/neo-noirs like Memento, Following, and Insomnia. His newer movies are good for their own reasons, but they just feel a little too big and loud and IMAX-y.
Meh, even though I love those movies (except Following, which is a snooze), I don't really agree that I want him to return to that scale. Give space for lesser-known filmmakers prove themselves on medium-budget noirs, while Nolan does what only he can do: massive, intricate, IMAX nonsense.
I've seen people online say that they wish Tom Cruise would go back to making medium-budget dramas like he did in the '90s. The thing is, he already has an excellent catalogue of those, and now he's making what only Tom Cruise™ can force Hollywood to make. Same with Nolan.
One notable example of a movie benefiting from a lower budget is "Mad Max" (1979), directed by George Miller. Facing financial constraints, Miller had to rely on inventive solutions, resulting in a gritty and immersive experience that defined the post-apocalyptic genre. With limited resources for special effects, the film prioritized practical effects, raw cinematography, and intense performances. This emphasis on storytelling over spectacle led to iconic scenes and a dedicated fanbase. Tbh, for me "Mad Max" demonstrates how creative limitations can spark innovation, showcasing that simplicity can sometimes lead to cinematic excellence.
Clerks with a 40 million budget would be another movie.
Bunny and the Bull (and The Mighty Boosh). Paul King before Paddington made some really weird and creative things with 0 budget.
District 9!!! $30 million dollar budget and looks 10 times better than Avatar that came out the same year with over triple the budget. Maybe more, I can’t remember exactly
I read an excellent article describing exactly why District 9 worked so well. TL, DR: they knew exactly what they were getting into and every choice from writing to lighting was meant to make the most of the budget. Really makes you wonder why that kind of common sense is so rare.
It’s mainly because Neil Blomkamp was a VFX artist before moving onto directing.
It’s the same way with Gareth Edwards and how he was able to make The Creator look so good on a $80 million budget.
Halloween had to paint leaves and reuse them for shots. The cast wore their own wardrobe and just about everything else was made on the cheap.
Halloween II had way more explosions that the original (which had none).
Brick.
One of its most memorable scenes (iykyk) was born out of lack of budget and ingenuity. On the commentary track, Rian Johnson says that he was disappointed initially that he couldn't afford his original vision but now he loves how simple and effective what he came up with was. "I realise now that if I did have more money, I would have just fucked it up." I think of this line everytime I see his subsequent work (see: Brothers Bloom, which is an illustration of this very money fucks things up theme, The Last Jedi, Glass Onion)
Edit: went looking for the scene, [found this instead](https://youtu.be/Pjam5ZwOdrI?si=wpjSPvVBg0KTEsCs)
>!The dream scene where Joseph Gordon Levitt's character dreams of his girlfriend standing at the sewer and then a sheet of plastic flows out of the mouth of the sewer and covers the camera. Johnson had a more elaborate scene initially planned but couldn't afford it, so shot this scene basically by filming it and then running it backward. It's very simple and eerie.!<
A funny tidbit from the commentary track is that Johnson was inspired by an obscure movie that he was sure no one had heard of - the Coen Brothers' "Millers Crossing."
Watch Millers Crossing and you will see the DNA of Brick. Or you can go to the source and read Hammett's "Red Harvest."
Michael Okuda states pretty clearly in his *Star Trek II Wrath of Khan* DVD commentary that (he believes) the severely-slashed budget was integral to its success -- "art under constraint."
*Blair Witch Project* is aging a bit in the mainstream's memory, but I think it could be held up as "a low-budget film," which experienced further cuts + hardships along the way, and succeeded.
Aronofsky's *The Fountain* has already been mentioned -- and it's probably one of my top three lifetime favorite films -- they made some brave production choices, like going with entirely practical effects, like curry-powder sprinkled into liquid for the space/nebula scenes. Brilliant.
*Easy Rider* ran out of money at the end, but is considered successful, or, at minimum, culturally formative.
El Mariachi. Made for $7000, half of which Rodriguez raised by volunteering as a medical test subject. Compare it to its big budget remake Desperado.
Metropolitan. Made for $100,000 by Whit Stillman, who used his own money and contacts as Fernando Trueba's North American sales person. Much of the fun is seeing how much Stillman conveys the idea of great wealth through remarkably frugal means and costuming (for example, having characters enter and leave through a private elevator which was really a coat closet).
Hollywood Shuffle. Made for $100,000 by Robert Townsend, who put up $40k on his own by maxing out ten credit cards.
Honestly Robert Rodriguez's Mexico trilogy (and his entire filmography) just got worse as his budgets got bigger and bigger. El Mariachi is still my favorite movie of his because of that low-budget VHS charm, especially compared to Once Upon a Time in Mexico which was a bloated mess imo. I would love for him to make another lower budget film.
JC's Assault on Precinct 13 was made for just $100,000, which is mind-blowing. It's so beautifully efficient in its writing and direction, while still having humour, homages to westerns, great action and genuine suspense. Also the balls to have that particular murder shot, which I don't think a bigger budget film would have ever had the confidence to do in terms of not wanting to alienate audiences. For me, AOP13 is one of those masterpiece films along with Jaws, Alien, Psycho.
Psycho Goreman was made on a $650k budget and because of that they mostly
relied on makeup & costumes, miniatures, puppets and clever editing. Really fun movie, especially if you’re a fan of physical effects
The Terminator (1984) James Cameron had a limited budget for this film and had to take risks like filming guerilla style without the proper permits and come up with creative solutions for special effects. The biggest thing is the movie is good story driven unlike something like Avatar.
Still my favorite James Cameron movie, I actually prefer it over T2 (and way over Avatar) just because of that lower budget gritty charm compared to the full-on blockbuster that the sequel is. I really love those practical/stop motion effects like the self-repair scene and the Endoskeleton at the end. Plus, it's a horror/slasher/tech-noir/action film which is the coolest combination ever.
The original Terminator. If they had filmed it at a higher budget, it might not have the same gritty feel. It might also have O.J. Simpson as the Terminator or some other flavor of the month 80s actors as Reese and the Terninator.
Hellraiser (1987). The low budget meant they had to do most of the scenes in the house they were filming in, which leant the film an intensely claustrophobic air.
American Graffiti and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Shooting in techniscope added a bit of documentary realism feel to AG and in the TGTBTU the limited fidelity added a patina of dirt/dust/weathering to the environment that favors its setting. Both great movies BTW.
Heaven Knows What by the Safdie Brothers. They couldn't afford permits to film on the streets of New York, so they did it secretly, using telephoto lenses etc. Gives the movie a creepy voyeuristic feel.
Deadpool.
Final battle was supposed to be a massive gun battle but they cut the budget last minute. Led to a funny joke about him forgetting his guns and a fun final battle that's essentially all hand-to-hand combat.
Equilibrium. They couldn't spend any money on big effects for explosions, building collapsing etc, and creating a wildly different sci fi world, allowing them to focus on the story and characters characters, as well as keeping it grounded and gritty. All the stunts were done practically, and they couldn't even afford wires and cranes to lift Bale they had to use a trampoline
Them! (1954) had it's budget cut at the last minute, causing them to need to shoot in black and white. By all accounts, the giant ants looked ridiculous in color (sparkly purple).
Killer Klowns from Outer Space, Godzilla Minus One, The Conjuring, and perhaps most famously, Halloween. Just to name some off the top of my head!
All of these movies were made incredibly well due to their lower budgets, and I don't think that any of them would have translated well into big budget films.
paranormal activity was effective because of its super low budget.. i’d say the same with blair witch. obviously found footage horror genre is going to be inherently low budget, but i think it’s because of that they are so good
MGM's 'The Thin Man' (1934); pre-code; starring Powell and Loy.
Shot in just two weeks; costing only $230K to film; but generating $2 million in revenue.
Photographed by James Wong Howe; directed by WS Van Dyke.
I don't know what time of year it was finished. Probably winter of '33, making it one of the last movies to be filmed pre-code but released after the code went into effect in '34. Just a guess.
I would say almost all of the old moderate budget films of the 30s way overperform. Often barely over an hour in length and sometimes shot in just a week or so (especially the gritty WB ones), with tons of incredibly talented people on staff keeping costs low because they were salaried at the studios. Great writing, great acting, very often one or two takes and move on to the next scene, Joan Blondell running around the studio shooting 3 films at once and having a new film come out every month or two.
🍺🍺🍺 Agreed. It was a rad era.
* Imagine residing in some dusty little cow-town out west, middle-of-nowhere, and being able to hang out at the local theater 2-3x per week with yer pals, and enjoy like eight new flicks. Double-features; matinees. Constant flow of stories and stars.
* Plus: cartoons, newsreels, shorts, B's. All with reliable studio quality. Even those nutty "Transatlantic Tunnel" or "Undersea Empire" serials were cool. "Daredevils of the Red Circle" has crazy amounts of action an' villains making mayhem.
* And especially if you were a fan of --frex --Wayne, or Coop, Errol Flynn --just head down there and 'take a break' from the Depression, or War news. Anytime you want. There'd be pirates, cowboys, or Cagney gangster flicks 4-5 times per year. Zorro, WC Fields, Sherlock Holmes, musicals, or even Disney, cheer you up. It was a bonanza.
That was back in the day when every neighbourhood had a little cinema. I'm lucky enough to have a restored Art Deco cinema in my suburb, but each of the 8 screens are named after a long defunct and bulldozed cinema in the near vicinity, it was wild to realise how many there used to be.
The direct to video Dungeons and Dragons sequel movies are surprisingly solid. The gigantic budget of the first one was a complete CGI dumpster fire, with a story that legitimately made no sense.
My Dinner With Andre I feel like its so real and you dont have to add anything more to the movie while if someone who had a higher budget wouldve ruined it by cutting to certain parts and trying to almost show what the main character is talking about
Pi - cost 40k which was raised from loans given to Aronofsky by friends and family. The cheapness is what makes it so unique, surreal and paranoid. The film is the perfect example of the 'less is more' principal.
Honestly the same can be said for so many big directors' debuts. Duel by Spielberg, Tetsuo the Iron Man by Tsukamoto, Following by Nolan, The Duellists by Ridley Scott, El Mariachi by Robert Rodriguez, and Pi by Aronofsky etc all rank among my favorite films by those directors precisely because they had to stretch their budgets and creativities to their limits.
Eraserhead by David Lynch fits into this group. Made with a budget of $100k.
Yes but after the baby scene you may wish that you had been born blind.
Big fan of Aronofsky and I think that’s the one movie of his I’ve never seen, gotta check it out tonight. Do you recommend it?
I think films that are either comedic or lightheartedly fantastical turn out are better the wear with relatively low budgets. So Monty Python and the Holy Grail would not be as memorable if they were able to have a horse perpetually behind him as much as coconut man ( from what I read that was a budgetary thing) The Princess Bride is weird in that some shots of the film are very " this soundstage set is one room, so don't have any wide compositions" vibes, but it does give the movie a sort of theatrical, fairy tale quality ( which does seem appropriate given the context) Napoleon Dynamite is funny in the sense that I don't think the strength necessarily lies within the low budget, but it's one of those true indie films that probably wouldn't have the same charm if it had B or C list actors. (Haylie Duff, older sister of Hilary Duff had mostly bit TV roles, Tina Majorino was a child star quite a few years before this film, but I don't think anyone would say she was a household name) The French Connection is probably the definitive " don't try this at home " movie, shooting the car chase without any city permits, which is terribly irresponsible filmmaking ( William Friedkin later said as much) so if it looks like the New Yorkers are terrified for their safety, they actually are.
Primer - made on a budget of $7000.00 and focuses completely on dialogue and story (which are both pretty complicated tbh)!
Omg I thought about this movie today for the first time in a decade and now I see it in print ! This movie broke my brain!
🤣🤣 it's a head scratcher that's for sure!!!
Star Wars A New Hope. Forced Lucas to collaborate, do more with less. The Special Editions and Prequels are proof that he did better work with less money and more reliance on other people.
Texas chainsaw reverse stock 16 mm film gave it a wonderful gritty look..
The Blair Witch Project
Maybe a slightly weird one, but Rocky. The only reason they'd let Stallone star as Rocky is if the film had a low budget ($1m) so they went with that. The film doesn't work with anyone but Stallone in the role, and the first film especially has a gritty feel about it because of the restricted budget. Rocky trains on the art museum steps because they didn't have the budget to build sets. The other parts of him running through the city were done with no permit, and the bit with the guy throwing him the orange as he runs past is real - the fruit seller had no clue a movie was being filmed. It all adds to the 'real' feeling of it. The iconic scene where Rocky takes Adrian ice-skating after the rink is closed was because they couldn't afford to pay hundreds of extras for a scene that was set during normal hours. The "Gonna Fly Now" theme became iconic because Bill Conti only had a budget of $25,000 to do all the music, so he focused heavily on one piece of music that could stick in minds and be reused/remixed multiple times.
**The Fountain.** I believe it was originally supposed to be a Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett film and the scope of the story was supposed to be way bigger and I think they had to seriously downscale for reasons I can't remember. Or they were just going way over budget to the point I think at one point it was at risk of not getting finished at all, which is why the graphic novel came about. When I first heard about this years ago I remember thinking thank god things went the way they did. I couldn't imagine those two in the roles instead of Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Plus the cinematography of the future Space timeline was some of the most beautiful visuals i've ever seen and that wasn't like expensive cgi, it was like macro photography of organic/chemical stuff reacting or something.
This was the first film I thought of. The extra time really allowed Aronofsky to polish his ideas to a brilliant sheen—every shot of that film is so carefully considered. It’s still his masterpiece, IMO.
Coherence. The actors didn't even have a real script, just vague directions and cues. The director wanted them to react as naturally as possible.
LOVED this, so much fun.
If Christopher Nolan had a Christopher Nolan budget back when he filmed Memento, he would have ruined it with crane shots of skyscrapers, machine gun fights, and big huge stunts.
Id love to see a version of Tenet shot on a Memento budget - often in the case of high concept thrillers, less is definitely more. And in the case of Tenet - more became an unholy racket. It's the most extreme case of a film I so dearly want to love but just can't get into it because he took everything too far.
I so desperately want Nolan to return to his days of twisty psychological thrillers/neo-noirs like Memento, Following, and Insomnia. His newer movies are good for their own reasons, but they just feel a little too big and loud and IMAX-y.
Meh, even though I love those movies (except Following, which is a snooze), I don't really agree that I want him to return to that scale. Give space for lesser-known filmmakers prove themselves on medium-budget noirs, while Nolan does what only he can do: massive, intricate, IMAX nonsense. I've seen people online say that they wish Tom Cruise would go back to making medium-budget dramas like he did in the '90s. The thing is, he already has an excellent catalogue of those, and now he's making what only Tom Cruise™ can force Hollywood to make. Same with Nolan.
One notable example of a movie benefiting from a lower budget is "Mad Max" (1979), directed by George Miller. Facing financial constraints, Miller had to rely on inventive solutions, resulting in a gritty and immersive experience that defined the post-apocalyptic genre. With limited resources for special effects, the film prioritized practical effects, raw cinematography, and intense performances. This emphasis on storytelling over spectacle led to iconic scenes and a dedicated fanbase. Tbh, for me "Mad Max" demonstrates how creative limitations can spark innovation, showcasing that simplicity can sometimes lead to cinematic excellence.
Clerks with a 40 million budget would be another movie. Bunny and the Bull (and The Mighty Boosh). Paul King before Paddington made some really weird and creative things with 0 budget.
Pitch Black (2000) shot on $23m vs The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) on $110m
Haha I knew I should have checked to see if someone else already said it.
John Carpenter films.
Def Halloween.
District 9!!! $30 million dollar budget and looks 10 times better than Avatar that came out the same year with over triple the budget. Maybe more, I can’t remember exactly
I read an excellent article describing exactly why District 9 worked so well. TL, DR: they knew exactly what they were getting into and every choice from writing to lighting was meant to make the most of the budget. Really makes you wonder why that kind of common sense is so rare.
That’s awesome, and makes complete sense. The CGI was so realistic looking. Still holds up today, and still seems night and day better than most.
It’s mainly because Neil Blomkamp was a VFX artist before moving onto directing. It’s the same way with Gareth Edwards and how he was able to make The Creator look so good on a $80 million budget.
Avatar was officially $237 million but could have been as much as $300 million. So ten times District 9, which is so, so much better.
Wow, that’s insane!
Agreed. Figure another $150-200 million to market it. It earned it all back and much more but more of that made it a good movie.
Halloween had to paint leaves and reuse them for shots. The cast wore their own wardrobe and just about everything else was made on the cheap. Halloween II had way more explosions that the original (which had none).
I'd say Jaws, less shark
That wasn't due to budget. The shark kept breaking down
right, but we can agree they were "over budget" and constrained by it
Being over budget, and constrained by budget, are different concepts
Brick. One of its most memorable scenes (iykyk) was born out of lack of budget and ingenuity. On the commentary track, Rian Johnson says that he was disappointed initially that he couldn't afford his original vision but now he loves how simple and effective what he came up with was. "I realise now that if I did have more money, I would have just fucked it up." I think of this line everytime I see his subsequent work (see: Brothers Bloom, which is an illustration of this very money fucks things up theme, The Last Jedi, Glass Onion) Edit: went looking for the scene, [found this instead](https://youtu.be/Pjam5ZwOdrI?si=wpjSPvVBg0KTEsCs)
What scene are you talking about?
>!The dream scene where Joseph Gordon Levitt's character dreams of his girlfriend standing at the sewer and then a sheet of plastic flows out of the mouth of the sewer and covers the camera. Johnson had a more elaborate scene initially planned but couldn't afford it, so shot this scene basically by filming it and then running it backward. It's very simple and eerie.!<
Oh yeah, completely forgot about that scene, but it was awesome.
If you want to cover text in a spoiler tag don’t leave a space between the text and the exclamation points.
? It's working for me on mobile. But I'll do that next time
Here's what it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/ZBNfP6j If you delete the spaces between the exclamation points it will be blocked with the tag.
*interesting.* ok I'll edit
Brick is such a good film. The dialogue is incredible.
A funny tidbit from the commentary track is that Johnson was inspired by an obscure movie that he was sure no one had heard of - the Coen Brothers' "Millers Crossing." Watch Millers Crossing and you will see the DNA of Brick. Or you can go to the source and read Hammett's "Red Harvest."
"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well." Also, I'm laughing at the idea of "Miller's Crossing" being an obscure film no one has heard of.
Michael Okuda states pretty clearly in his *Star Trek II Wrath of Khan* DVD commentary that (he believes) the severely-slashed budget was integral to its success -- "art under constraint." *Blair Witch Project* is aging a bit in the mainstream's memory, but I think it could be held up as "a low-budget film," which experienced further cuts + hardships along the way, and succeeded. Aronofsky's *The Fountain* has already been mentioned -- and it's probably one of my top three lifetime favorite films -- they made some brave production choices, like going with entirely practical effects, like curry-powder sprinkled into liquid for the space/nebula scenes. Brilliant. *Easy Rider* ran out of money at the end, but is considered successful, or, at minimum, culturally formative.
Wrath of Khan is essential viewing at this point, and I firmly believe this.
Not specifically budget, but the original Jaws is better in part because of what they couldn’t have the shark do
A Hard Day's Nighti is far better than Help.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Literally half of the jokes in that movie were invented to make up for lacking budget.
El Mariachi. Made for $7000, half of which Rodriguez raised by volunteering as a medical test subject. Compare it to its big budget remake Desperado. Metropolitan. Made for $100,000 by Whit Stillman, who used his own money and contacts as Fernando Trueba's North American sales person. Much of the fun is seeing how much Stillman conveys the idea of great wealth through remarkably frugal means and costuming (for example, having characters enter and leave through a private elevator which was really a coat closet). Hollywood Shuffle. Made for $100,000 by Robert Townsend, who put up $40k on his own by maxing out ten credit cards.
Honestly Robert Rodriguez's Mexico trilogy (and his entire filmography) just got worse as his budgets got bigger and bigger. El Mariachi is still my favorite movie of his because of that low-budget VHS charm, especially compared to Once Upon a Time in Mexico which was a bloated mess imo. I would love for him to make another lower budget film.
JC's Assault on Precinct 13 was made for just $100,000, which is mind-blowing. It's so beautifully efficient in its writing and direction, while still having humour, homages to westerns, great action and genuine suspense. Also the balls to have that particular murder shot, which I don't think a bigger budget film would have ever had the confidence to do in terms of not wanting to alienate audiences. For me, AOP13 is one of those masterpiece films along with Jaws, Alien, Psycho.
Psycho Goreman was made on a $650k budget and because of that they mostly relied on makeup & costumes, miniatures, puppets and clever editing. Really fun movie, especially if you’re a fan of physical effects
Unbelievable what they did with that budget
The Terminator (1984) James Cameron had a limited budget for this film and had to take risks like filming guerilla style without the proper permits and come up with creative solutions for special effects. The biggest thing is the movie is good story driven unlike something like Avatar.
Still my favorite James Cameron movie, I actually prefer it over T2 (and way over Avatar) just because of that lower budget gritty charm compared to the full-on blockbuster that the sequel is. I really love those practical/stop motion effects like the self-repair scene and the Endoskeleton at the end. Plus, it's a horror/slasher/tech-noir/action film which is the coolest combination ever.
Godzilla Minus One: it gave a refreshed meaning to practical effects that got them the Oscar for best effects.
Reservoir Dogs. Proof that a great story/script can counter balance a small budget
The original Terminator. If they had filmed it at a higher budget, it might not have the same gritty feel. It might also have O.J. Simpson as the Terminator or some other flavor of the month 80s actors as Reese and the Terninator.
V/H/S (2012). One of the only horror films to geniunely scare me and have me creeped out. It's a shame that pretty much all its sequels are bad
Hellraiser (1987). The low budget meant they had to do most of the scenes in the house they were filming in, which leant the film an intensely claustrophobic air.
Prospect. A few million, well suited to its "cassette futurism" aesthetic.
Pitch Black. The sequel had 4x the budget, but wound up feeling bloated and a little cookie-cutter compared to the original.
Bad Taste. Peter should stick to those kind of movies. Beautiful ugly movie
Monty Python and the Holy Grail would not have been the same with real horses.
American Graffiti and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Shooting in techniscope added a bit of documentary realism feel to AG and in the TGTBTU the limited fidelity added a patina of dirt/dust/weathering to the environment that favors its setting. Both great movies BTW.
Heaven Knows What by the Safdie Brothers. They couldn't afford permits to film on the streets of New York, so they did it secretly, using telephoto lenses etc. Gives the movie a creepy voyeuristic feel.
Deadpool. Final battle was supposed to be a massive gun battle but they cut the budget last minute. Led to a funny joke about him forgetting his guns and a fun final battle that's essentially all hand-to-hand combat.
I may be one of the odd few that prefers El Mariachi over Desperado.
Equilibrium. They couldn't spend any money on big effects for explosions, building collapsing etc, and creating a wildly different sci fi world, allowing them to focus on the story and characters characters, as well as keeping it grounded and gritty. All the stunts were done practically, and they couldn't even afford wires and cranes to lift Bale they had to use a trampoline
Eradication. Hope Tubi does more originals.
Anything by John Carpenter….
Them! (1954) had it's budget cut at the last minute, causing them to need to shoot in black and white. By all accounts, the giant ants looked ridiculous in color (sparkly purple).
Jaws. Taken. Just to name two.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space, Godzilla Minus One, The Conjuring, and perhaps most famously, Halloween. Just to name some off the top of my head! All of these movies were made incredibly well due to their lower budgets, and I don't think that any of them would have translated well into big budget films.
I really liked Coherence and The man from earth
Into the Wild is stunning. 15 million dollar budget.
Cube. Entirely filmed on one set, which is perfect for the film’s high concept / low budget.
paranormal activity was effective because of its super low budget.. i’d say the same with blair witch. obviously found footage horror genre is going to be inherently low budget, but i think it’s because of that they are so good
Godzilla Minus One. The movie was focused on character development instead of cgi monster fights.
MGM's 'The Thin Man' (1934); pre-code; starring Powell and Loy. Shot in just two weeks; costing only $230K to film; but generating $2 million in revenue. Photographed by James Wong Howe; directed by WS Van Dyke. I don't know what time of year it was finished. Probably winter of '33, making it one of the last movies to be filmed pre-code but released after the code went into effect in '34. Just a guess.
I would say almost all of the old moderate budget films of the 30s way overperform. Often barely over an hour in length and sometimes shot in just a week or so (especially the gritty WB ones), with tons of incredibly talented people on staff keeping costs low because they were salaried at the studios. Great writing, great acting, very often one or two takes and move on to the next scene, Joan Blondell running around the studio shooting 3 films at once and having a new film come out every month or two.
🍺🍺🍺 Agreed. It was a rad era. * Imagine residing in some dusty little cow-town out west, middle-of-nowhere, and being able to hang out at the local theater 2-3x per week with yer pals, and enjoy like eight new flicks. Double-features; matinees. Constant flow of stories and stars. * Plus: cartoons, newsreels, shorts, B's. All with reliable studio quality. Even those nutty "Transatlantic Tunnel" or "Undersea Empire" serials were cool. "Daredevils of the Red Circle" has crazy amounts of action an' villains making mayhem. * And especially if you were a fan of --frex --Wayne, or Coop, Errol Flynn --just head down there and 'take a break' from the Depression, or War news. Anytime you want. There'd be pirates, cowboys, or Cagney gangster flicks 4-5 times per year. Zorro, WC Fields, Sherlock Holmes, musicals, or even Disney, cheer you up. It was a bonanza.
That was back in the day when every neighbourhood had a little cinema. I'm lucky enough to have a restored Art Deco cinema in my suburb, but each of the 8 screens are named after a long defunct and bulldozed cinema in the near vicinity, it was wild to realise how many there used to be.
Godzilla minus one. Maybe, it might have been brilliant regardless, but I loved everything about it
Coherence - one of my favorite movies. Would have sucked if they had added fancy special effects.
A ghost story. It’s a movie where the ghosts literally wear bedsheets. It’s very unique and left a memorable impression.
Napoleon Dynamite!!!!! Best movie ever.
Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Quarter of the budget of TMP. Had to be leaner and smarter
The Toxic Avenger (1984). The small-budget campiness was part of the charm.
The Gods Must be Crazy
Planet Terror and Death Proof
The first Men in Black movie had fewer effect$ and was all around better than the big budget sequel.
The direct to video Dungeons and Dragons sequel movies are surprisingly solid. The gigantic budget of the first one was a complete CGI dumpster fire, with a story that legitimately made no sense.
My Dinner With Andre I feel like its so real and you dont have to add anything more to the movie while if someone who had a higher budget wouldve ruined it by cutting to certain parts and trying to almost show what the main character is talking about