Sep 2010
El Mariachi
Sep/20/2010 09:57
★★★★
El Mariachi (1992) is sort of a miracle of filmmaking. For anyone interested in making movies, it should be considered required viewing. It launched the career of writer/director Robert Rodriguez, who has gone on to make so many other terrific films, including Spy Kids (2001), Sin City (2005), and Machete (2010). And he did it all for only $7,000.
When I first saw El Mariachi back in 1996, I wondered how Rodriguez could’ve possibly made a movie like this for so little money. The film stock alone would’ve cost nearly that much, which means that after buying & processing his film, he must have had approximately nothing left over to pay his actors, or purchase props or costumes, or pay for editing costs.
The excellent commentary track on the DVD answered all the questions I had about the making of the film, and it pretty much confirmed everything I figured must’ve happened. Rodriguez did indeed spend virtually all of his money on film & processing. He saved money on editing by immediately transferring everything onto video tape and edited using two VCRs, a method so basic that it only allowed him to do simple straight cuts; no wipes or dissolves or any other fancy stuff was possible. He didn’t have a sound recordist, so he shot silent and recorded his dialogue later. Not only could he not pay his actors, he couldn’t even afford to buy them lunch, so he’d try to only work them for half a day whenever he could.
And yet the movie works. It looks good — basic things like lighting and focus are never a problem. It sounds good — recording the dialogue immediately after shooting a scene gives it a natural feel, as opposed to dialogue recorded later in a sound studio. And while El Mariachi doesn’t have the most novel of story lines — it’s a mistaken identity flick wherein bad guys confuse a musician with a killer and try to rub him out — it’s handled with flair and humor. A movie like this doesn’t require its’ actors to be great, only serviceable, and everyone in this cast was serviceable or better.
There are a lot of chase scenes and shootouts, all of which are filmed expertly. It’s clear in this movie that Rodriguez knew what he was doing, and everything fell into place beautifully. He only expected El Mariachi to play on Mexican TV, but when the studio execs at Columbia Pictures took a look at it, they knew they had something special on their hands, and it’s easy to see why. This may be the best micro-budget movie ever produced.
El Mariachi (1992) is sort of a miracle of filmmaking. For anyone interested in making movies, it should be considered required viewing. It launched the career of writer/director Robert Rodriguez, who has gone on to make so many other terrific films, including Spy Kids (2001), Sin City (2005), and Machete (2010). And he did it all for only $7,000.
When I first saw El Mariachi back in 1996, I wondered how Rodriguez could’ve possibly made a movie like this for so little money. The film stock alone would’ve cost nearly that much, which means that after buying & processing his film, he must have had approximately nothing left over to pay his actors, or purchase props or costumes, or pay for editing costs.
The excellent commentary track on the DVD answered all the questions I had about the making of the film, and it pretty much confirmed everything I figured must’ve happened. Rodriguez did indeed spend virtually all of his money on film & processing. He saved money on editing by immediately transferring everything onto video tape and edited using two VCRs, a method so basic that it only allowed him to do simple straight cuts; no wipes or dissolves or any other fancy stuff was possible. He didn’t have a sound recordist, so he shot silent and recorded his dialogue later. Not only could he not pay his actors, he couldn’t even afford to buy them lunch, so he’d try to only work them for half a day whenever he could.
And yet the movie works. It looks good — basic things like lighting and focus are never a problem. It sounds good — recording the dialogue immediately after shooting a scene gives it a natural feel, as opposed to dialogue recorded later in a sound studio. And while El Mariachi doesn’t have the most novel of story lines — it’s a mistaken identity flick wherein bad guys confuse a musician with a killer and try to rub him out — it’s handled with flair and humor. A movie like this doesn’t require its’ actors to be great, only serviceable, and everyone in this cast was serviceable or better.
There are a lot of chase scenes and shootouts, all of which are filmed expertly. It’s clear in this movie that Rodriguez knew what he was doing, and everything fell into place beautifully. He only expected El Mariachi to play on Mexican TV, but when the studio execs at Columbia Pictures took a look at it, they knew they had something special on their hands, and it’s easy to see why. This may be the best micro-budget movie ever produced.
Insane in the Brain
Sep/15/2010 11:13
★★1/2
A Southern California brothel is located a little too close to a cemetery, emitting pheromones into the atmosphere that cause the dead to rise from their graves in search of sex, and of course, brains.
Insane in the Brain is part zombie movie and part 1970’s blaxploitation flick, made for a cool $10,000. It’s crass. It’s tasteless. The lighting isn’t always quite right, the audio isn’t always very good, the zombie makeup leaves something to be desired, and the constant groaning of “Brains! More brains!” from the zombies gets a bit annoying. But interspersed liberally throughout are moments that are genuinely funny, and the movie does a good job overall of capturing the look and feel of both the blaxploitation and zombie genres.
Compared to most micro-budget fare, the acting is quite good, and the movie as a whole stacks up favorably next to big budget horror spoofs like Scary Movie. Quite an accomplishment for ten grand!
A Southern California brothel is located a little too close to a cemetery, emitting pheromones into the atmosphere that cause the dead to rise from their graves in search of sex, and of course, brains.
Insane in the Brain is part zombie movie and part 1970’s blaxploitation flick, made for a cool $10,000. It’s crass. It’s tasteless. The lighting isn’t always quite right, the audio isn’t always very good, the zombie makeup leaves something to be desired, and the constant groaning of “Brains! More brains!” from the zombies gets a bit annoying. But interspersed liberally throughout are moments that are genuinely funny, and the movie does a good job overall of capturing the look and feel of both the blaxploitation and zombie genres.
Compared to most micro-budget fare, the acting is quite good, and the movie as a whole stacks up favorably next to big budget horror spoofs like Scary Movie. Quite an accomplishment for ten grand!
Freaky Farley
Sep/07/2010 15:10
★1/2
Freaky Farley (2007) is one of those weird micro-budget movies that somehow garners lots of positive reviews and makes you think that maybe, just maybe, it’ll actually turn out to be a good one, but then ultimately disappoints and leaves you wondering just what it was that impressed all those critics.
Not that Farley is all bad: for starters (and as any review of this movie will point out), it was shot on film, and generally speaking, it looks really good. Not only does the use of film, rather than video, give this movie a professional look that most other micro-budget flicks can’t match, but the autumn-in-New England setting helps set a mood that’s perfect for the story. The problem is that the story is never handled quite right to begin with, and then completely jumps the tracks in the last third of the film. But more on that later.
The premise is interesting: Farley (Matt Farley) is a 20-something oddball loser who lives with his abusive father and spends his free time spying on women in his neighborhood. Since the movie begins in an insane asylum with Farley recounting his story to a psychiatrist, we know trouble is coming, and it all seems promising enough, despite the atrocious acting that mars nearly every scene in the film.
The story starts to devolve when Farley meets Scarlett (Sharon Scalzo), an attractive young woman who forms an improbable friendship with Farley, even though she’s well aware that he’s a Peeping Tom. It gets worse when Farley finally freaks out and kills his father, and then proceeds to go on a murderous rampage through the town. It’s just all so ridiculous, and runs so counter to the tone of the preceding scenes, that it’s hard not to feel let down.
But there’s still twenty minutes or so left to go, and the film winds down by taking another bizarre twist, as Farley is released from the asylum to join a witch and a ninja in an effort to hunt down monsters that live in the local forest. Seriously, that’s what happens. It’s reminiscent of the old movie Rat Phink a Boo Boo (1966), which abruptly switches from a hard-boiled crime drama to a goofy superhero comedy midway through.
Of course, I actually like Rat Phink, so I guess I can understand why so many other people have given a “thumbs up” to Farley. It didn’t really work for me, though, partly because I think it had a chance to be so much better if it had stuck to the horror angle, and partly because I just didn’t find the last act of the film to be funny, which it would have to be in order to be effective.
(To see some of the good reviews, click here, here, here, here, and here.)
Freaky Farley (2007) is one of those weird micro-budget movies that somehow garners lots of positive reviews and makes you think that maybe, just maybe, it’ll actually turn out to be a good one, but then ultimately disappoints and leaves you wondering just what it was that impressed all those critics.
Not that Farley is all bad: for starters (and as any review of this movie will point out), it was shot on film, and generally speaking, it looks really good. Not only does the use of film, rather than video, give this movie a professional look that most other micro-budget flicks can’t match, but the autumn-in-New England setting helps set a mood that’s perfect for the story. The problem is that the story is never handled quite right to begin with, and then completely jumps the tracks in the last third of the film. But more on that later.
The premise is interesting: Farley (Matt Farley) is a 20-something oddball loser who lives with his abusive father and spends his free time spying on women in his neighborhood. Since the movie begins in an insane asylum with Farley recounting his story to a psychiatrist, we know trouble is coming, and it all seems promising enough, despite the atrocious acting that mars nearly every scene in the film.
The story starts to devolve when Farley meets Scarlett (Sharon Scalzo), an attractive young woman who forms an improbable friendship with Farley, even though she’s well aware that he’s a Peeping Tom. It gets worse when Farley finally freaks out and kills his father, and then proceeds to go on a murderous rampage through the town. It’s just all so ridiculous, and runs so counter to the tone of the preceding scenes, that it’s hard not to feel let down.
But there’s still twenty minutes or so left to go, and the film winds down by taking another bizarre twist, as Farley is released from the asylum to join a witch and a ninja in an effort to hunt down monsters that live in the local forest. Seriously, that’s what happens. It’s reminiscent of the old movie Rat Phink a Boo Boo (1966), which abruptly switches from a hard-boiled crime drama to a goofy superhero comedy midway through.
Of course, I actually like Rat Phink, so I guess I can understand why so many other people have given a “thumbs up” to Farley. It didn’t really work for me, though, partly because I think it had a chance to be so much better if it had stuck to the horror angle, and partly because I just didn’t find the last act of the film to be funny, which it would have to be in order to be effective.
(To see some of the good reviews, click here, here, here, here, and here.)