Total LOST smoke monster sound-effect ripoff at 1:00.

Still looks like it'll be good movie though.

*cinema

Adding video to channels (Cinema) - requested by ant.

It's interesting that the only praise for the movie they could find was from IGN and Ain't It Cool News (twice).

A friend of mine saw this at a film festival and highly recommends it.
And according to imbd: The production budget was reportedly just US$15,000.

In his house at R'lyeh, Cthulhu waits dreaming.

>> ^Tagichatn:

It's interesting that the only praise for the movie they could find was from IGN and Ain't It Cool News (twice).


Yeah, Rottentomatoes shows no 'real' reviews yet, only internet sites... My issue with what I've seen is the huge amounts of not-quite-good-enough CG objects in the trailers... that'd keep snapping me out of the movie to go 'oh come on, that's a fake tank, that's a fake engine part on the cart, that's a fake broken building' etc. etc.

Looks like rehashed, pedestrian shit.

Before you knock the film, read this:

"I think everyone here has missed what is the real story with this film. If it has any level of critical and in articular financial success it could be a major turning point in film making.

Even though D9 was done on a small budget that is small by standard SciFi movie budget standards. Compared to MONSTERS, D9 was a big budget film. MONSTERS was done with literally a handful of people and that includes the actors, director and behind the camera people including the sound guy.

HOW MONSTERS WAS MADE:

ACTORS: Only 2 actors were involved, all other persons are extras found at the time of filming.

SETTINGS: They went to several real world locations , no movie studio sets. Everything was a real place.

FILMING: The camera team consisted of 2 people, the guy holding the 1 camera they used (they only used 1 camera to do this movie). The camera guy was the director and he had 1 person assisting and that was the entire camera team. They did have 1 sound guy and that was the extent of the non-actor staff other then the editor.

EDITING/SPECIAL EFFECTS: The film was edited and all special effects done using a consumer laptop; something you can buy from BEST BUY.
They edited the movie using a consumer laptop.

So these 2 actors along with the director and 1 camera assistance plus a sound guy and an editor (6 people total) went on the road and filmed as they went. And now this thing is getting serious press via the trailer circulating and it is going to get a theatrical release.

How is this not something incredible in this day of multi-million dollar big budget productions that involved hundreds to thousands of people?" ~Screenrant.com

Seriously, how they did it alone is reason enough to watch the film. It won't be big budget, but you shouldn't expect it to be. And those two sites aren't the only places singing it's praise. I've yet to read a single negative review coming out of film festivals.

The production budget was reportedly just US$15,000.



So I guess it's become super-cool to say your production budget was tiny now - but that number is just dumb.

You can't make this film on $15,000 actual dollars. How much time went into it? What's that time worth at even half industry rates (for things like editing, CGI, sound work)? Heck, what's it worth at minimum wage? The only way you get the number that low is you get people to delay their pay (ie. you have a percentage later), and you creatively exclude other expenses so that your budget looks smaller coming in (I already had the laptop and camera! We were going on holiday to Mexico anyways!).

I'm happy to hear a film is low budget - low budget movies that make it to me are usually pretty good (thinking of Primer here). But this ridiculous "how long can we go" contest is silly and disingenuous.

If I build a house by chewing down trees and shaping them with my teeth, I don't have a free house - literal dollars parted with aren't the only costs that exist. Similarly, these people don't have a $15,000 movie - and I suspect that they literally spent more than $15,000 as well.

@Abel_Prisc: Seriously, I don't care how low the budget is, if it's a bad film, it's a bad film... if it's good, then also good. My issue is the CG looks fake, and there's a point where you should go, "You know, our budget can't stretch to this effect, let's do something more creative"... but no... they just fill it with CG that looks like CG.

So, no I won't watch it just because it's all low budget...

El Mariachi was that, was shot for $7K, and it was a blast to watch...

Hey, this film could be awesome, I just don't buy this 'hey, it was done by 1 man and a box of matches, WATCH IT!' malarky, it should stand on its own 2 feet. (You know... if film had feet)

@spoco2 Fair enough. Still looks like a fun watch to me. I'm sort of hoping rifftrax works their magic on it, because that'll be the closest to new Mystery Science Theater that we'll get anytime soon.