$70 Zombie Film Wows Cannes

Hobgoblin

Veritas veritatum
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
20,412
Reaction score
864
Points
88
Yes, you read that right. No, its not a typo.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/21/Colin/index.html

CANNES, France (CNN) -- A budding British director is enjoying success on a shoestring at Cannes with "Colin," a new zombie feature that cost a scarcely believable $70 to make.
"Colin" director Marc Price who spent 18 months making the film, working nights at a private car hire firm.

"Colin" director Marc Price who spent 18 months making the film, working nights at a private car hire firm.


Japanese distributors are currently in negotiations for the rights to the film and buzz around the no-budget zombie chiller has attracted interest from some major American distributors -- all of which is a very nice surprise for the team behind "Colin."

"We were almost fainting at the list of people who were coming [to the final market screening of the film]," said Helen Grace of Left Films who is helping the film's director Marc Price publicize the film in Cannes. "Representatives from major American distributors -- some of the Hollywood studios."

"When we say it's a low budget film, people presume a couple of hundred thousand [dollars]. People can't figure out how it's possible. What Marc's achieved has left people astonished."

It was by advertising for volunteer zombies on social networking site Facebook, borrowing make-up from Hollywood blockbusters and teaching himself how to produce special effects that thrifty director Price was able to make the film for less than the price of a zombie DVD box set.

"The approach was to say to people, 'OK guys, we don't have any money, so bring your own equipment,'" the the 30 year-old director told CNN.

With help from a makeshift band of friends and volunteers, Price shot and edited the feature -- which ingeniously spins the zombie genre on it's head by telling the story entirely from the zombie's perspective -- over a period of 18 months while working nights part-time as a booker for a taxi company.

Online social networking was an invaluable tool in both generating buzz and cheaply sourcing the undead: "We went on Facebook and MySpace and said 'Who wants to be a zombie?'" Price told CNN. "We managed to get 50 brilliantly made up zombies and stuff them into a living room."

In keeping with Price's beg and borrow approach, most of the zombie make-up in the make-up artists' cases was inherited from other movies. "One of our make-up people came off 'X-Men 3,' so we were having the same latex that was put on Wolverine," he told CNN.

Price says he came up with the idea to make a no-budget film because he realized that he and his friends would never be able to scrape together enough money to make even a low-budget film.

"A couple of friends were round a few years ago watching Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead,' recalls Price. "And we were lamenting the fact that we could never make a zombie film -- we wouldn't be able to acquire a budget."

"Then I just woke up before everyone else -- I was probably a bit hungover -- and I wondered if a zombie movie from a zombie's perspective had been done before."

The end result is "Colin," a zombie film "with a heart," Price says, shot using production values cribbed from endless re-watching of making-of featurettes and director's commentaries from his personal DVD collection.

Zombie fan Web site zombiefriends.com called it "as original, compelling and thought provoking as [George] Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead,'" while horror magazine SCARS predicted it would "revolutionize zombie cinema."

Price hopes that the film will generate enough interest to kick-start his career and allow him to make another film. "Hopefully we'll be able to generate some interest and maybe try to get some kind of a budget for our next film -- maybe a bigger budget, £100, I don't know."
The Screening Room
Bringing you the inside track on all aspects of the movie business around the globe.
See more from the show »

Price's cost-effective filmmaking may make him the envy of film executives sweating over whether their latest projects will break even, but even "Colin" may suffer at the market: "In a strange way it's kind of counter-productive." admits Price.

"Anyone involved in sales will say, 'Oh, it cost [$70], well how much do you expect us to pay for that?' but with the current economic climate it seems to be a great way to make movies."
advertisement

So, what exactly did Price spend the famous $70 on?

"We bought a crowbar and a couple of tapes, and I think we got some tea and coffee as well -- not the expensive stuff either, the very basic kind," Price told CNN. "Just to keep the zombies happy."
 
Must see. Can't live without knowing how they made a movie for seventy bucks... and if it worked.
 
in your face, Gavin Hood
 
My brother and his friend made a zombie movie once, and they must have spent at least $150 on it. For a film with half of that budget in today's economy, this movie looks surprisingly professional in terms of quality! I gotta see this, I'm sure it'll be an inspiration for indie and amateur filmmakers everywhere. :D
 
Did I hear the wilheim scream somewhere in there?
 
Amazing that they made it for $70 no doubt. As for the movie itself, another British zombie movie, made to look extra gritty? Sorry if I'm not impressed. I applaud the movie definitely, but I'm not that interested in watching it.
 
The article was a fascinating read and quite an accomplishment on the director's part. Then I watched the trailer...yeah, no thanks.
 
Yeah, I wish I could say it looked more that 70 pounds worth.....it really doesn't.
 
I'm actually impressed that got this film to Cannes. That alone cost more than the movie itself just to do. Though I like the nature of having a zombie POV film, it's a good idea for a film no doubt, the look of the footage I saw there wasn't something new or interesting. Gritty, shatter camera images. Blah. But the read was interesting and I'm glad to see this film got a chance to be seen, even for $70 (really, what is that in pounds?) it took a lot of work and "free" hands to make (over 18 months...wow..really?).
 
I'll bet a lot of movies could be made for 70 bucks if people just brought everything that was needed from home and everyone in the cast and crew worked for free.
 
That isn't a bad looking trailer at all so I don't see where you guys are getting that idea.
 
Wow, at first, I thought I read "$70M Zombie Film Wows Cannes". That would've shocked me having known that they would've even dared to make a zombie movie with that budget. But honestly, this is typical. How many cult-horror films have had super-low budgets?... 'Evil Dead', 'Night Of The Living Dead', 'The Blair Witch Project', and about a dozen others. However, I do congratulate anybody with the drive and heart to make a movie, in general. Especially off of such a minor budget, still goes to show that you can do anything with a few dollars in wallet-change.
 
I'm currently a film student about currently developing my senior project. I understand the ambition that goes with making a movie on a shoe string budget and I do support these types of projects.

That being said, the budget shows. The camera work gives it away. Simply put, it may take less time to just wing a shot and you can then let the brunt of the work be put on your actor's performance. However, you then risk taking your viewer out of the movie by having disorienting screen direction and lazy composition. It never hurts to literally take a step back and put the camera on a tri-pod.

there is always an interesting angle.
 
For a $70 budget, this looks like a lot of fun. I would love to see this get a DVD release.
 
I'm actually impressed that got this film to Cannes. That alone cost more than the movie itself just to do. Though I like the nature of having a zombie POV film, it's a good idea for a film no doubt, the look of the footage I saw there wasn't something new or interesting. Gritty, shatter camera images. Blah. But the read was interesting and I'm glad to see this film got a chance to be seen, even for $70 (really, what is that in pounds?) it took a lot of work and "free" hands to make (over 18 months...wow..really?).

About £45
 
Wow, at first, I thought I read "$70M Zombie Film Wows Cannes". That would've shocked me having known that they would've even dared to make a zombie movie with that budget. But honestly, this is typical. How many cult-horror films have had super-low budgets?... 'Evil Dead', 'Night Of The Living Dead', 'The Blair Witch Project', and about a dozen others. However, I do congratulate anybody with the drive and heart to make a movie, in general. Especially off of such a minor budget, still goes to show that you can do anything with a few dollars in wallet-change.

Blair Witch was made for roughly 500 times the budget of this film. Still low, but hardly comparable. The dinner my girlfriend and I ate last night could have financed a sequel to this film. Its amazing. I've seen A LOT of indie horror films...and the cheap ones, while far more costly than Colin, look even cheaper. There's one in particular called Kill Syndrome which is filmed almost entirely in a rental storage shed, lit by a strand of Christmas lights, a script made up as they filmed and has the worst fx Ive ever witnessed...and still cost more to make than Colin.
 
Must see. Can't live without knowing how they made a movie for seventy bucks... and if it worked.

They didn't make a movie for seventy bucks. This is alot of PR bull. Tons and tons of no-budget filmmakers did what this guy does. Borrow things, ask people to work for free. But all of those things are part of the film's cost, even if it's just on credit. And believe if this movie makes any money, those folks who worked for free will be looking for their money. Getting hold of a camera and video stock are part of the cost also as well as the computers and so forth to edit it. It's like when Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi for "$7,000.00", The movie that was onscreen actualy cost about $200,000.00. It makes for a nice story to build interst in the film, but is ultmiately fake.
 
They didn't make a movie for seventy bucks. This is alot of PR bull. Tons and tons of no-budget filmmakers did what this guy does. Borrow things, ask people to work for free. But all of those things are part of the film's cost, even if it's just on credit. And believe if this movie makes any money, those folks who worked for free will be looking for their money. Getting hold of a camera and video stock are part of the cost also as well as the computers and so forth to edit it. It's like when Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi for "$7,000.00", The movie that was onscreen actualy cost about $200,000.00. It makes for a nice story to build interst in the film, but is ultmiately fake.

Thats weird...I have no movie experience other than being a fan, but I know enough make up people, costume folks, actors ect that i KNOW would give me free work with nothing expected in return. Obviously if you make money its cool to spread the love, but I would assume if you had the skill and camera etc youd be able to network well enough to get stuff done.
 
Thats weird...I have no movie experience other than being a fan, but I know enough make up people, costume folks, actors ect that i KNOW would give me free work with nothing expected in return. Obviously if you make money its cool to spread the love, but I would assume if you had the skill and camera etc youd be able to network well enough to get stuff done.

It's a standard thing that film actors and such will work for free to build experience, a resume, get a clip for their demo reel and exposure. That's how hundreds of student films are made every year. And they're willing to work for free because they assume that more likely than not, the films won't make any money. I'm sure the folks working over the nearly 2 years on this guy's Zombie flick weren't expecting anything to come from it. But- if it does turn out to go somewhere then of course they'll expect some money from it Not to get rich, but industry standard pay for the job they did. For example, an actor with a speaking role gets about $800.00 a day. And they should- no one has a right to make money off of someone else's talent and not compensate them for it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"