so boring i fell asleep…
-
bowery_boy — 16 years ago(March 01, 2010 08:38 AM)
Still, I respectfully disagree.
Are you basing scale pay on 2010 standards or 1973 standards? I'm hard pressed to believe that scale pay was a
minimum
of $600 in 1973. That's sounds a bit exorbitant by 1970s standards but what do I know.
Also, in 1973 there was still a very grassroots approach to making independent and low budget films. I mean, weren't most of the extras in this film locals they recruited? I'm sure many of them wouldn't mind playing a bit part in the movie for free (assuming they were paid in the first place). Film makers, especially low budget non-Hollywood film makers, still operated that way back then, sometimes even using friends and family as extras. A perfect example are Andy Warhol films from this era.
As far as make up and costumes, in my opinion very little to no make-up or FX would be needed for the role of a crazy and costumes could be the clothes they're wearing.
I do believe this could have been a much more effective movie within the constraints of the budget.
I don't believe the budget is the culprit for a bad movie with sloppy storytelling.
Heck,
Night of the Living Dead
was made on a small budget as well yet is ten times more effective and suspenseful than this.
In any case, I will be curious to hear your thoughts on the remake. -
plingotti — 16 years ago(March 06, 2010 08:29 PM)
just tried watching this for the first time today. i saw the remake a week ago and heard good things about the original and wanted to see how different the two films were. most people hate when movies are remade, but i have to say that the remake is far superior. this movie is the reason i dont watch movies made before 1980. terrible sound editing, over the top acting, bad effects, slow and pointless dialog. if this movie had originally been made in the early to mid 80's things would be different. im still glad i tried watching this, because if i hadnt, i might always wonder if the original was good or not.
-
KristianHT — 16 years ago(March 08, 2010 05:08 PM)
This is not a well-made movie, but your notions about old movies lacking the handicraft of modern productions are simply ignorant. Technically excellent movies - watch pretty much any Hitchcock or Welles directed effort, and you'll find razor sharp technical ability on display. Plenty of modern movies have bad production value
Regarding the lack of crazies, I think the original 2000 Maniacs did a lot better job - and made for a better, and less misguidedly ambitious experience