I found this while doing some searching for another short film, and was so impressed I thought I’d share it here. I just wish he hadn’t stolen the music from 28 Days Later and had instead just found his own perpetual build music. Heck, I’da written him a quick tune if he’da just asked me.
It doesn’t even seem to have a proper name, but the music video is called Ataque de Pánico! (Panic Attack!), so maybe that’s the film’s name as well.
Where?
jeez, I had to fix the links. Patience, grasshopper.
Eek. That first attack is uncomfortably reminiscent of 9/11. Well done, though.
OK, it’s very well-done, and obviously an object lesson in what can be done for short funds, but I hope the filmmaker decides to use his powers for good sometime. 
Other than the visual spectacle, there’s not much to recommend it, really.
I’m mildly amused by the guy who abandons a perfectly good car to just run away…
Just to nitpick, it doesn’t say the whole thing was done on a $300 budget. The live shots were done for $300. The effects were done using several fairly expensive computer programs.
Not that he didn’t do an incredible job for a relatively tiny amount of money, of course.
True, but you don’t have to own the software to use it. I doubt he found a whole bunch of people who let him use their hardware & software for free, and the camera prolly cost more than $300, etc. But the actual cost of the live action shooting was cheap (actors, crew, equipment, etc.), almost negligible.
Still, the point is that Hollywood doesn’t have a monopoly on any aspect of filmmaking anymore. And great entertainment can be created by anyone with the talent, desire and drive to do it, along with a non-bankrupting personal investment in the tools of the trade.
Nice work, but the budget is the least impressive part. It just means he got a bunch of people to donate their time and supply their own props and wardrobes (as is done in 99.9% of independent short films). “Hollywood” doesn’t have that option. As well as likely not including the cost of software, it certainly doesn’t include the cost of hardware.
Wow, I guess it took me more time than I realized to type that paragraph.
Anyway, sorry, I wouldn’t call that great entertainment. It’s a technically impressive demo, nothing more.
There’s a lot left out, there: For instance, where are the footprints left by the robots? They don’t seem to interact with anything except the specific buildings they’re attacking at any given moment, and even that only via missiles.
Besides, it’s not like this is the first cheap movie Hollywood has ever seen. Scale this up to a full-length movie, with an actual plot and acting, and you might have something in the vicinity of The Blair Witch Project. But just because a few cheap movies can be made, doesn’t mean that all movies can be made cheaply.
As opposed to getting a bunch of really rich people to invest their money, so he can buy/rent props, wardrobe, etc.
What does it matter who the producer gets to supply props, wardrobe, etc.? Rich film investment company pays for it, or the actors bring their own: either way, the film’s producer had to convince people to help him make this picture, and provide gear, wardrobe, props, etc. He did that.
As for this particular little film being “great” entertainment, I don’t think anyone’s made that claim, exactly. But I did find it entertaining, with high production values. And it was made on the cheap, which appeals to me. Anyone ought to be able to provide great special effects and CGI with US$300 million, but to do it for $300+/-, IMO, deserves praise and recognition.
Technically quite good, though call it $300 for the camera work, but how much was donated in time of actors, time of animators, time of editing it all together.
That is the hidden cost of a hobby - the time it takes. How much does a CGI tech make per hour, how much does an editor make per hour? how much does a sound editor make per hour?
I see footprints left on the highway. Their feet crushes and mangles the pavement, and it stays that way after they take another step. You can see the water trailing off one robot’s foot at 1:21 as he takes a step. One of the UFOs crashes into an airplane at about 3:00.
But BWP didn’t have any special effects, unless a camera being shaken and out of focus is now special effects. It’s like comparing the production values in Star Wars to My Dinner With Andre, i.e. it’s not a worthwhile comparison.
No, but it does show that just because someone spent a fortune to make a movie doesn’t mean it will automatically have better production values and be a better movie.
For instance, i thought last year’s District 9 totally outclassed Avatar in it’s use of CGI (and was a much better movie, too). D9’s budget was US$30 million, less than 1/10th what Cameron spent to make his movie.
What you’re saying is true only if people charge for their work.
Look, I write and record my own songs. I have no idea how much money I have invested in microphones, mic stands, mic cables, mixers, my computer, etc. because I’ve bought them all over the last 20 years. And I don’t write down how many hours I’ve put in editing or mastering or mixing or re-recording.
My last album cost me about $200 to record, mix, master, print up CD inserts and CD labels, buy CD jewel cases and mail out copies. So I say that album cost me $200 to produce. I don’t bother factoring in every little expense. Should I add in the cost of the electricity I used? What about the cost of sewer charges as I flushed the toilet a couple of times each day while I was working on this? I had to pay for the food I consumed, should I count that? On a personal project, not everything can, should, or will be reduced to a line on a balance sheet.
I imagine the filmmaker here did a similar thing when tallying up his expenses. If he already had the camera, it didn’t cost anything. If the actors all showed up in clothes that were acceptable for the scene being shot, it didn’t cost anything.
And yeah, hobbies do take time, but look at how that’s worked out for people like Robert Rodriguez & Peter Jackson. Look how it worked out for Shane Carruth.
Did you notice the nod to Battleship Potemkin at around 2:10? (Baby carraige on the steps)
Yeah, he even follows the carriage with the camera for a second. I can picture the director watching someone watch this, all grins, and later being like “waddayamean you din’t see a Potemkin shot? I followed the fucking carriage down the steps for almost half a second in a tracking shot ffs!”
Oh, shaky-cam’s a “special” effect, alright.
I saw this months ago and had no idea there hadn’t been a thread about it here until now. I don’t know why you think Hollywood would be scared. They offered the director $30 million to make a feature film based on this short. (edit to add, the feature might not necessarily be related to this short, like District 9 was related to its short)
Give that man a Red!
Is the source a video? I’d like to see it up on a **big **screen and see how much resolution it has. It might look great on my ViewSonic, but it might look like crap blown up 100x or whatever a movie screen is.