Use same prop twice or more times in unrelated scenes.
It cuts costs and some viewers will not notice.
Avoid watching. It is for your own good.
Avoid watching. It is for your own good.
10 Reviews
Cheap budget movie
amer-604034 November 2020
Crap
andyonmob10 November 2020
Didnt make it past 30 minutes then a quick fast forward to check it is all the same. Somebodys attempt at a do-it-yourself movie making project. If you really have nothing better to do like clipping your toenails then give it a watch. Every experience adds something to life.
Crazy Bad.
angrywasps6 November 2020
Just Horrible.
reellycynical4 November 2020
Horrid
Gordon-118 January 2021
There's no story, it is just a very poorly made gore fest. The plot isn't sensical. If people kill each other because there's no food, why does no one look malnourished? They look over nourished actually. The story, if any, is poorly told. There's no build up, tension or suspense. The characters are not introduced at all. Basically, everything about this film is wrong.
I'd throw a few big-name directors under a bus before slamming this film too hard.
fred-sickly23 September 2021
I get the feeling that the only person who wrote a review of this film that knew the slightest bit about making a film is Ron Emerson. (We know he does, since he was in this. Good on him for supporting the project.)
YES: This has several spotty bits of audio and the occasional unintentional audio ruffle or camera bounce. YES: It's pretty short on plot. YES: The acting isn't always "perfect," though in some places, it's better than in a ton of movies that came out this year with budgets 1000 times larger. SURE: The costumes, make-up, props, and colour grading are a little thin. FINE. It has a few holes in it.
All of that aside, it is quite an achievement, considering the budget. There are households that are getting excited to go spend more money on a pair of crappy, shiny, boring, new iPhones this year. If their estimated budget is even close to accurate, they did alright with it. Really. Their $2,100 budget is the same as John Waters' "Mondo Trasho." Is it as "good" and "entertaining" a film as "Mondo Trasho?" Maybe not. But it shows a ton of potential. $2,100 went a bit further back in 1969, and perhaps a lot of the crew on that film had a bit more experience or "vision."
The fact that they finished this production says a lot right there. A guerilla filmmaker just starting out could learn a ton from this film, as I'm sure everyone who worked on it did. I would definitely watch what they do next. Anyone with a budget so small should be so lucky with their results. At the end of the day, a lot of people spent their time and money on a couch, playing arcade games that are lamer than this film, on a wee, handheld rectangle, while this cast and crew went out and made a film. It's not a "great" film, sure. But, their next one could be, with a little more time put into the script and editing, a tighter pre-production, and maybe a slight hike in the budget.
I'm sure that next time, they'll do better. And that's definitely enough for me, from a crew dedicated enough to actually finish and release a film. It's not for everyone, sure. While not as polished, I'd say it couldn't be any worse than Zemeckis' past 6 films put together, and if you want that "polish" on your movies for your sit-around time, go waste your time on another soulless Zemeckis or Spielberg cartoon.
I gave this 5 stars. And it earned every one of them. While, Zemeckis spent millions of dollars making "Marwen" and "Witches," a pair of paper tigers whose productions did little more than waste time, talent, and resources on a grander scale. If it's not "fair" to compare the productions -- which may relatively be true -- I put this film on yesterday, after another indie low/no budget movie (to remain nameless here) that was less satisfying and showed less potential. Maybe that other crew had a bigger budget and had attended a few more film classes, but, while that film's acting and sound were cleaner, it had a more muddled plot, annoying colour grading, less "heart," horrible pacing, said less, and even obviously had (important) shots missing, as though the director had just forgotten to point a camera at the film's centerpiece, which was, confusingly, simply never shown... And the budget for that film was over 10 grand.
A little rewrite and a little more time in post-production might have bumped this up an easy few stars, for me. But they did a good job. As worth a watch as over 2/3 of what came out in 2020.
YES: This has several spotty bits of audio and the occasional unintentional audio ruffle or camera bounce. YES: It's pretty short on plot. YES: The acting isn't always "perfect," though in some places, it's better than in a ton of movies that came out this year with budgets 1000 times larger. SURE: The costumes, make-up, props, and colour grading are a little thin. FINE. It has a few holes in it.
All of that aside, it is quite an achievement, considering the budget. There are households that are getting excited to go spend more money on a pair of crappy, shiny, boring, new iPhones this year. If their estimated budget is even close to accurate, they did alright with it. Really. Their $2,100 budget is the same as John Waters' "Mondo Trasho." Is it as "good" and "entertaining" a film as "Mondo Trasho?" Maybe not. But it shows a ton of potential. $2,100 went a bit further back in 1969, and perhaps a lot of the crew on that film had a bit more experience or "vision."
The fact that they finished this production says a lot right there. A guerilla filmmaker just starting out could learn a ton from this film, as I'm sure everyone who worked on it did. I would definitely watch what they do next. Anyone with a budget so small should be so lucky with their results. At the end of the day, a lot of people spent their time and money on a couch, playing arcade games that are lamer than this film, on a wee, handheld rectangle, while this cast and crew went out and made a film. It's not a "great" film, sure. But, their next one could be, with a little more time put into the script and editing, a tighter pre-production, and maybe a slight hike in the budget.
I'm sure that next time, they'll do better. And that's definitely enough for me, from a crew dedicated enough to actually finish and release a film. It's not for everyone, sure. While not as polished, I'd say it couldn't be any worse than Zemeckis' past 6 films put together, and if you want that "polish" on your movies for your sit-around time, go waste your time on another soulless Zemeckis or Spielberg cartoon.
I gave this 5 stars. And it earned every one of them. While, Zemeckis spent millions of dollars making "Marwen" and "Witches," a pair of paper tigers whose productions did little more than waste time, talent, and resources on a grander scale. If it's not "fair" to compare the productions -- which may relatively be true -- I put this film on yesterday, after another indie low/no budget movie (to remain nameless here) that was less satisfying and showed less potential. Maybe that other crew had a bigger budget and had attended a few more film classes, but, while that film's acting and sound were cleaner, it had a more muddled plot, annoying colour grading, less "heart," horrible pacing, said less, and even obviously had (important) shots missing, as though the director had just forgotten to point a camera at the film's centerpiece, which was, confusingly, simply never shown... And the budget for that film was over 10 grand.
A little rewrite and a little more time in post-production might have bumped this up an easy few stars, for me. But they did a good job. As worth a watch as over 2/3 of what came out in 2020.
Please someone help me forget this film
jonerogers1 January 2021
I don't know how I watched the whole of this film, it has to be the worst film of 2020. It has actresses that in the blink of an eye change clothes and hair colour.
There is no focus, no direction,no meaning and the worst acting around. The music is random and different for every scene, the visual effects are awful.
I came through this very confused, even my cat had turned his back on the TV and was looking at me like he needed help.
Avoid this crock of poo for your own good.
There is no focus, no direction,no meaning and the worst acting around. The music is random and different for every scene, the visual effects are awful.
I came through this very confused, even my cat had turned his back on the TV and was looking at me like he needed help.
Avoid this crock of poo for your own good.
Excellent movie 🎥 🍿
ronemerson15 August 2020
Low budget rough diamond
rainysng99-835-32860612 December 2020
Not as bad as everyone else seems to think, it is low budget, but the camera work is amazing using every shot for maximum impact. Little dialogue with a simple plot, the film provides a visual journey of despair, madness, apathy and suffering with a musical score to match.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
