Today's mid-budget B films

I'm watching a decent, mid budget, what I'll call a good B film. Siberia starring Keanu Reeves, a thriller taking place in Russia about diamond smugglers, the Russian move etc

By no means a great film, by no means terrible.

Purpose of the thread isin't Siberia film, it's a lot of modestly budgeted films I'm seeing, with well known actors, a bit past their box office heyday. I saw Bruce Willis in one , I see quite a few.

This isin't to be confused with the plethora, of truly hideous B films, that exist in huge numbers. Or bigger budget films, that aren't great.

I love this emerging trend, because they can make only so many 100 million dollar flicks, & a lot of these cheap, sci-fi, horror, western, action films, are literally to horrible to watch, for more than about 4 minutes. By the time the 2nd scene starts, it's off & I'm viewing the cable-dvd menu.

So is this mid budget, low A high B film, an emerging trend, or did I just get lucky ? Don't tell me it's a big budget 65 million film. Siberia is pretty good, sort of a cross between Insomnia with Al Pacino 10-15 years ago & the recent Red Sparrow with that young actress winning Oscars.

 

Blumhouse specializes in these low budget but highly successful films, usually in the horror genre. A of couple week, my wife and I saw a film that we really loved (but can't guarantee that anyone else would love it) call Assassination Nation. Had a budget of one and a half million dollars, and a really clever and inventive young director. The New York Times had an "anatomy of a scene" about a home invasion that he shot entirely from the outside of the home.

 

Trouble is: Some people seem to love EVERYTHING.

I frequently am damned for saying I turn off a lousy movie after TEN minutes, so I applaud your four-minute mark timing!

 

The problem all of these small budget films share, is that they only get one week in theaters. The movie studios, because they get the majority of the gate in the first week, have front-loaded everything. And people, for reasons surpassing understanding, have been convinced that they want to see whatever film is making the most money at the box office.

They advertise movies intensely before the first weekend, and if the film doesn't have a giant budget, it doesn't have a giant ad budget either. So films that would have attracted an audience if they've been allowed to play a few weeks, disappear in one or most two weeks.

One of my favorite films of last year was called Brigsby Bear. It had no budget, and if you weren't the sort of people who go to the theater every single week, you would have no idea that ever been released. It was by The Lonely Island people, and was truly a unique film. It couldn't have cost more than a million dollars, and it didn't need to tell the story they wanted.

Hopefully at some point it will be discovered.

One other thing? My wife and I prefer seeing films in the theater, and it takes an extraordinairely bad film to get us to leave the theater. What that means is that the director has the opportunity to win us back. And since we have an investment in seeing it, as opposed to just flipping through Netflix, we will give them the opportunity. Watching a movie on television is just watching television.

 

Chris, you're spot on about studios getting the biggest chunk of the gate for the first week or so (that's why popcorn costs $8 in a theater). So of course they're making movies that appeal to the largest movie-going demographic, which is generally teens and young adults. I've seen enough action flicks and gross-out comedies, thank you very much. Even a well made serious film is going to have problem getting butts in the seats, and is unlikely to get green-lighted. (How Ken Branagh got financing to do the entire Hamlet--in 70mm no less--is a wonder.)

A couple of trends are changing the way we're consuming movies. The cost of the equipment for making a decent image continues to fall. Of course only a big budget film could afford the Arri cameras used on The Revenant, but budget filmmakers now have access to tools that were unaffordable just a few years ago. Yes, we are seeing an explosion of lousy movies, but cream does rise to the top.

While a movie theater with good projection and sound does provide the most immersive experience, home viewing is getting better and better. I remember seeing The Wicker Man in the late 70's at the Orson Welles cinema in Cambridge. It was a long, skinny theater and I was seated toward the back; the image on my retina wasn't any bigger than what it would have been if I had been watching it on television. I'd rather watch a good movie that never made it to the local cineplex on my 70" LG than never seeing it at all. (Plus, at home I can watch it in my underwear. At the cineplex they frown on that.)

 

Kong Skull Island-good Saturday matinee b-flick.

 

I recently finished working on a small indie that I think is one of the most beautiful films I've done in a long time. No violence, no curse words, no foul language, just a straight-up PG-rated film with good acting, a solid story, and a message anybody can relate to. Not a huge budget, but decent enough that it looks terrific:

 

I thought all the B-"movies" were Netflix originals now.

 

Wow! This looks amazing, thanks for putting on my radar.

 

I'll keep an eye out for it, thanks.

 

really? you must be on another forum! Lol.
MORE HATE THAN LOVE FOR SURE...

 

Except for the "Cloverfield Paradox".

 

Lots of these sorts of B-movies do get Echo Bridge DVD releases.

 

Most of these 1 million $ budget movies, are genre specific, horror or whatever, & most of them are awful. With occasional exceptions.

But sometimes, I see a modestly budgeted film, $5-10 million, that's quite good. I'd like to see more of those.

Just saw one, Viggio Mortensen & Ray Langella. This hippie off the grid dad ( Mortenson ) raises the 4-5 kids totally off the grid, home schooling, the grand dad played by Langella, wants to take the kids away from Mortensen, when the mom, Viggo's wife, dies.

Can't remember the film title, no it wasn't the best movie ever. But it was good, & had to be in the $5-10 million range. Smaller movie, good actors, decent plot & script.

We need a lot more good films, shot on reasonable, but small budgets. So we don't have to watch Mission impossible-Marvel mega flicks, or really cheap slasher-horror.

Use stars like Viggo, Ray Langella, that will do a picture for half a million, or a million. Just saw Been Kingsley in a small Euro flick, he plays a Serbian military war criminal, hiding in plain sight. Again nice picture, had to be a small $5-10 million budget. More of this, less of the Purge meets Jurassic.

Sure I want to see the De Niro, Scorsese 175 million Irishman. But that should be an exception, not the cost of your average film.

 

Captain Fantastic.

 

The opening shot was a good example of high production values made possible with technology. That would have taken a helicopter previously, and can now be done with a drone.

 

One critique, which I probably don't have enough information or the right to make with so little information, but, 2-1/2 minutes of preview, and I'm already convinced this looks like one of those films I'd sure rather see 100 more of a year, rather than one more damn superhero unrecognizable to the dedicated readers of the comic. That said, 2-1/2 minutes of trailer, and I'm already convinced this could have done with a little more trimming; so many issues and threads have been bouncing around in the first hour of it, once the real theme of the story unfolds, it's bound to be a disappointment to many.

Writing really is about the cheapest and most crucial craft that makes or breaks a movie (unless, of course, one pays the writer what they're really worth - and how often does that happen!). Visiting the local indie cinema once to twice weekly, we see so many "small" films that more than earn their weight in entertainment ("bang" for the buck is so overrated). It's astonishing how many quality films you can see, week-in/week-out, without once running into Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis or Megan Fox - or even a Marvel property! All it takes is trusting your own instincts to bet on more films you have no expectations for...and shaving a major portion off your mall-cineplex visits for your yearly movie budget.

Most of our favorite films this year would be considered "B-Movies"...if they actually were. But they're not - they're considered, "small" films, or "personal" films, or "labors of love"; and, who would have thunk it, none of them involved a good old, feel-good act of violence or home invasion.

 

People are astounded that my wife tries to see a film every night of the week, when the truth is she misses getting to see films because they only get to play a single week, or only in one theater. When I was home, we had to take a Metra commutator train to see a small film called Support The Girls. Nothing amazing, but an enjoyable film about the staff of a sports bar, with a couple of really good lead performances. The ironic part is that it was exactly the sort of film that the people who rarely go out to the theaters claim "they don't make any more." They do, you just don't go to see them!

On the other hand, she also likes Marvel films. Vickie saw her 200th film of the year in the theater tonight - rather a light year for her - a film from 1970 called Wanda by a female director named Barbara Loden.

 

You and I have been 'round about this before, and I can't see the downside in placing yourself in a position to luck-into the best discoveries of the year, more often. Whether she sees thm, or you both see them, if the system works for you, chances are good, so will your luck.

 

I'm no film buff or expert like you or your Mrs.. But I do really enjoy a good film, & enjoy them both at home & the big screen.

I rarely go to the cinema anymore. But thats price & logistics, otherwise i'd go more often.

For about 6-7 years I lived in a small city in Oregon, with one cineplex. Maybe it had 7-8 theatres, low matinee prices $4-5 tickets, ans lots of movies with only 20-40 customers. That was great ! Last thing I want, is to sit jammed in with 300-400 people, drunks, screaming kids & $14 for a 2 hr film. Popcorn & candy was still too much. In a big city Cinema, 2 tickets, a shared large popcorn & 2 sodas is probably what ? $50 bucks ? Thats a lot ! For the new Tom Cruise or Jurassic park ? No thanks, not usually. Did I mention parking ?

 

Perfect example, of middling but good action scifi movie, with known actors in the cast.

EXCEPT For 1 thing. The production budget is listed as $185 million on Box Office Mojo.

You cant make a special effects laden picture like that, for 5-10 million.

You maybe could make a clever, less effects, less locations & sets, small cast, for $20-30 million. But for 185 million I might be able to make a movie !

I think the challenge, is to make a good movie for 10-20 million. How much was the recent John Le Carre starring Gary Old man, a great film like that might be possible, no special effects really, just 60s era clothes, cars, & locations.

Tinker Tailor Soldier, that was a 20.1 million budget, 80 million box office, plus whatever it's gonna be for DVD sale & rental.

That's what I want, more like that. If it had been an unknown, the budget mighta been closer to 15 instead of 20. That's real filmmaking.

I'm not going by genre, obviously certain things like Sci Fi, Super Hero's, Gone With The Wind or a giant musical, cost more than a cold war spy thriller. But you get what I mean.

If they can make Tinker Tailor for 20 M. With Oldman, Mark Strong, Colin Firth & John Hurt.

Certainly a good young director & cast, should be able to make decent films for $10 million. $15.

There will always be, big budget studio blockbusters, & mostly awful Roger Corman style low low budget.

How about more good pictures for $5-10-15 million. That's all I was trying to say.

 

I'm just a colorist -- I leave the story, character, direction, sound, and editing to the filmmakers. I did my part and everybody has been very happy with the visuals. I'm just saying that there's room in the world for small stories about very real characters having real-world problems, as opposed to superheroes, explosions, gun shots, and car chases. And it was refreshing for me to work on a film that doesn't have heads exploding, monsters jumping through windows, throats getting torn out, and blood spattering on the camera (which I see an awful lot of).

 

I'm with you !!!

 

I have always wanted to make Basement Budget (ie: $500 or less), cheesy, sci-fi movies. This is inspirational.

 

I keep seeing this, and I don't know how Vickie and my experience can be so different.

We're talking about Chicago, the greatest of all American cities (New York can bite me!) and my wife manages to see a film in the theater every night.

For the last year this was made possible via MoviePass, but as that heads down the drain she's had to use other systems like AMC's A-List which gets her into three films every single week for $20 a month.

She combines that with $5 tickets for first-run films at the AMC Galewood 14, and half price tickets that she gets as a member of the Gene Siskel Film Center to see all those Art House films that she loves.

She gets there via the CTA, and it's basically piggybacking on the weekly pass that she has to have to get to and from work everyday.

She spends less than $50 a week to see a movie every night, this is about what everybody's paying for cable with a couple of premium channels.

You know the popcorn and overpriced soda aren't actually a legal requirement?