Badmovies.org Forum

Oh I dont know how to begin this rant (or even make it sensable) but I'll try.

Damit I'll try.

last night we watched "Intercessor: Another Rock 'N' Roll Nightmare (2005)" at first it was a surprising find for us (wow a Rock 'n' Roll Nightmare part 2) we didnt knew existed because the movie was made around the time we got merried and netflix didnt link Jon Mikl Thor to the Intercessor, although he's the first name in the credits. (maybe it was a sign) So naturally I'd Netflixed the movie and bump it on the queue and within 3 days we were sitting in the dark with our mouths dropping onto the floor within the 1st minute of the movie.

The movie was a "video project!" Ok, I was trying to figure a good term for these movies and read somebody's review on the Intercessor on IMDB that made sense to the term.


A Video Project is "let's grab our camcorder, go out in the yard, and sell it as a movie."


Sure "Video Projects" isnt new, I seen a few from the late 1980's. But it seems that "Video Projects" are rampantly growing in 2000 since the camcorder are so cheap and people are still trying to make their own blair witch project, but instead of playing reality they are actually trying to make a movie. The problem with these films are typical: The lighting is based on what the camera picks-up, the sound is poor, almost no editing, almost no scripting and special effects is based on what they picked up from a horror store (or halloween stores). It angers me because these films has no talent (almost no reason to watch) and a porno that is done with a camcorder has a better picture quility.

My wife thinks there should be a warning attached to these movies...

I think these movies should only be played on youtube!

yep, we call them "shot on video". there is a TON of these movies from the 80's. i am a film maker myself and unfortunately you have to take the good with the bad. there are a few hidden gems hidden amongst the garbage that should get noticed.

Try buying Mill Creek's TOMB OF TERRORS and DECREPIT CRYPT OF NIGHTMARES 50 Movie Packs . . . just about every movie in them appears to be a video project.

I'll remember that.  That would be kind of a disappointment to buy one of those and finding out that they're all video projects.

Id seen those movie sets... and I sense they are all video projects... Id guess 50 video projects for 19.99 isnt bad although I'd feel thats more then they are worth.

You do see worthwhile movies shot on camcorders, but they're just vastly outnumbered by the crap ones.  There are fewer excuses for it these days, considering the relatively cheap cost of a decent HD camcorder. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8myPjpeAPlQ

That was shot on an HV20. 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B001OI2Z4Q/ref=pd_luc_mri?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B001OI2Z4Q/ref=pd_luc_mri?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance)

The HV40, the SECOND successor to the HV20 (it's better in almost every way) is just $700 new.  You can get a used HV20 for $400, or a used HV30 for $500.  They shoot to miniDV tapes, which are quite cheap.  Buying a good light kit will cost more than the camera, but you can make do with much cheaper things like worklights and such for far less.  An OK tripod will run about $200.  The video above used no professional lights, and looks quite good.  In other words, you can get a workable camera with tripod, media to record on and lights for under $1000 these days.  No sound equipment though.  For a budget that low, you'd probably have to loop the dialogue after shooting, with a $70 USB mic. 

As far as good films shot on video... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcJlYgGC3rE

Plaga Zombies was clearly shot on a quite cheap consumer cam corder with very little lighting, with a budget barely into triple digits, and is pretty entertaining. 

But yes, any film that has the "video look" of very flat, non-dynamic lighting (you can usually tell from the images on the back) is probably not worth watching.  The lack of care in the image usually shows throughout the project in other areas.  There are a number of exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions. 

A bad example is Wedding Slashers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UrNiMJyYkg

They managed to pay Richard Lynch to show up for probably a day of shooting, but that was apparently about 90% of the films budget.  It commits the worst sin of an ultra low budget slasher film - it is frequently boring.  At least, that's how I remember it.

They have a whole series of these with 6 films per set and about 4 of the 50 movie sets. So, you own half of the crap they worked with Brain Damage Films to release. Buy the other two sets and you can ignore most of the "video projects" that have really floated to the top of the cesspool.  And that ain't saying much for this load of dung.

Sweet Jim H you do know your movies :)

The HD camcorder is acceptable filming material (even a 700 dollar price tag is a good steal for a low budget movie)

As for sound, I've seen a ton of "You can make it yourself" sound equipment and voice overs are also acceptable, actually in real movies they us voice overs to made the sound clearer.

The "video look" is a poor excuse of filmmaking and a poorer excuse to buy the movie and tag it to sell.

*COUGH*  Beast of Yucca Flats  *COUGH*

"Looping" is the term for replacing recorded dialogue with new stuff laid on top, another term is ADR (automated dialog replacement).  When it's done well by an actor who is good at it, it can be indistinguishable (on the Equilibrium commentary, director Kurt Wimmer says William Fichtner is one of the best in the biz, and tries to point out lines he looped but can barely tell himself).  Sometimes, if you listen to a commentary track, they'll mention when a line is looped.

Fun fact: watch almost any Hong Kong film made between 1980 and 2000, and it is likely the film was recorded without ANY live sound at all.  ALL of it is looped.  It was standard practice, since they had to record it in both Cantonese and Mandarin anyway, and of course Hong Kong is so loud at all times of the day they couldn't record live sound anyway, plus the equipment was expensive and often unavailable in the area.

It is very difficult to do perfectly (the sound will often sound off, just not pro quality in numerous ways), but not hard to do so it is at least understandable - which, in my mind, is FAR FAR superior to the mumbled, hiss filled and extremely quiet voice tracks films recorded purely from the onboard camcorder mic usually have.

It took me some time to actually enjoy shot on video movies. They look and sound cheap, and if the movie happens to be boring then the viewing experience is an even more awful one.
One of the worst shot on video movies watched was something called Hip Hop Locos (2001). Horrible beyond words. Another one to avoid is Invitation (2003). Not all made me claw out my eyes though. Here's a list of what I think are very entertaining shot on video flicks:

Camp Blood (1999)
Woodchipper Massacre (1988)
Vampire Stakes (2002)
The Bloodletting (2004) (It didn't suck as much as the IMDb rating indicates)
Blood Reaper (2004)
The Janitor (2003)
The Ghouls (2003) (A masterpiece in my opinion)
Night Ripper! (1986)
Las Vegas Bloodbath (1989)

I'm torn about Shatter Dead (1994), The Mailman (2004) and Redneck Zombies (1987).

Revenge (1986) and Skinwalker: Curse of the Shaman (2005) had its moments.

I really disliked Shatter Dead, quite a lot. But for what you describe, it's probably one of the better movies made.

I love the "shot on digital" revolution. Naturally, almost all of these films are garbage. And what's weird is that Blockbuster has some weird contract with these films, so almost every horror film you can find on their shelves are shot-for-nothing garbage. They're terrible!

At the same time, I laud the fact that anybody, and I do mean anybody, can create a movie in their spare time. Sure we all love high production values, but they're not always necessary for a good film. Of course we are going to get reams of horrible movies, but if at least two movies get made by people who honestly care about creating a good film even if they lack the budget, well let's keep this momentum going.

There are two no-budget films that you can call to mind as successes: El Mariachi and Primer. I believe both of these films were made for less than $20,000. But they were made by talented people, and got later exposure. (Although I think Robert Rodriquez is the only success story there.)

But I'm glad there are people making these crappy movies. Maybe one or two of them will go on to make actual good film.

El Mariachi and Primer were both 16mm, if memory serves.

Here are some better known good video movies: Avatar, Zodiac, chunks of Slumdog Millionaire, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, Sin City and Speed Racer.

I also think Robert Rodriquez sold his blood to complete El Mariachi...

A famous student film is Equinox (1970) it took 4 years to make, but when the movie was picked up the production company added additional footage into the film, in a way thet polished the film before distrubution.

I really think most of the "video projects" are unpolished by the production company because their intent is to sell it to the rental stores so they could make a fast buck, even if they sell a video project for 5 dollars to a Block Buster chain or you typical mom and pop video store could add up to the thousands of dollars. (I'm not quite sure how Netflix works when they buy movies)