Well, that’s a simple question – or is it? Let me complicate it a bit.
I’d like to limit the discussion to movies made in the United States or Canada in the past 40 years, not because I think those are the only ones worth discussing, but I think financial considerations are/were very different for foreign films and old movies.
“Best” does not necessarily mean your favorite or most entertaining. Specifically, I would like to exclude “so bad it’s good” nominations and certain genres where enthusiasm for the content trumps production values. Porn and splatter come to mind. I’m looking for films made on a shoestring that I can watch all the way through without thinking about how corners were cut. Bad lighting and sound or incompetent editing are deal breakers. On the artistic side, cheesy dialog and amateurish acting are turn-offs, although I can forgive a lot if the film has a compelling story and interesting characters.
The Screen Actors Guild defines ultra-low budget movies as having production costs of $200,000 or less: Contracts and Resources for Independent Filmmakers - SAGindie. That’s really, really cheap. Clerks would certainly qualify. Clerks II would certainly not. The original Night of the Living Dead probably would not, if the budget were adjusted for inflation. Although I don’t expect everyone to know the budget of every movie, it stands to reason that a truly ultra low-budget film would not have a lot of exotic locations, name actors, elaborate sets, fancy costumes, or state-of-the-art special effects. We’re basically talking about the kind of film someone could make by maxing out his credit cards.
Damn, I immediately thought of Clerks, but I see you mentions that in the Op. Blair Witch did amazingly well for a low budget, but it was a view once movie for most if not all people.
I bet The Boys & Girls Guide To Getting Down was made on about a buck seventy five but it was screamingly funny, especially if you’ve ever been a party animal. My daughter loved it too, so there’s a two generation recommendation.
Six-String Samurai. Aside from having the most obnoxious little kid actor of all time (far worse than Jake Lloyd in Phantom Menace), it’s a totally kick-ass low-budget movie with an amazing soundtrack.
I believe that Primer wins some sort of Plot:Cost ratio, it had me mentally and emotionally involved the entire length of the film and only cost $7000 to make. A time travel movie with solid acting, solid technobabble, and just plausible enough time travel, it’s really only detractor is the viewer needed a flowchart to explain the timelines.
Made by a filmmaker from Texas, although all of the actors were from Mexico. Total production cost came out to something like $19,000 using 16mm film and a used camera, IIRC. Freaking loved that movie, far more than its sequel Desperado, and due to nostalgic value, just a bit more than Once Upon A Time In Mexico.
How much did Rejected cost to make? If you haven’t seen it, it’s a short film about an animator who gradually goes insane, as seen through his cartoons.
It’s out of the bounds set by the OP but Roma, città aperta (1945) is not simply a very good ultra-low budget film, it’s one of the best movies ever made.
Closer to now, I’ll nominate Eraserhead. Now, there are plenty of people who despise this movie, but that has nothing to do with its budget.
A lot of people liked The Blair Witch Project. I suspect it’s the “best” ultra-low-budget movie, if one defines “best” as “ratio of profits to production costs”.
It doesn’t fit the criteria of the OP, but Voices of a Distant Star would have been close to zero in budget, being made by one person on his own computer. The only other help he had was his girl friend as a voice actor. And, yes, it’s worth seeing.
The Last Broadcast was made for under $1000. That’s “thousand” with a “th”. Creative use of a digital camera and software available at Best Buy. It’s a documentary-style thriller, and actually not a bad movie. All the documents and newspaper articles shown were done only on a PC, not on paper; a crime-scene photograph has Photoshopped blood instead of using make-up. Never printed on film; I think it got one showing with a digital projector, and then went to DVD. I don’t know how much it brought in total, but it’s got to be profitable.
Almost anybody with a digital camera and a computer could theoretically make a movie like that these days; the remarkable thing is that the acting isn’t bad, and the editing is quite capable.
Ok, if I can violate this condition, I’d like to nominate Die Bad, a 2000 first effort by Korean director Seung-wan Ryoo. He did it on a shoesting budget (about $50,000). This award-winning film consists of 4 shorts filmed over several years and then woven together. Raw and gritty, but an amazing debut.
His trajectory follows that of Tarantino. Beg, borrow, and steal film stock and equipment to come up with a low-budget film that is highly regarded. Follow up with a slam-bang action and dialogue-driven tour-de-force (**No Blood, No Tears ** – my review here), and then branch out into dramatic action and interesting characters (Crying Fist), while never leaving the raw energy that he has become known for.
I got into this thread to mention Primer. A personal favorite movie - brilliant. Knowing it cost that little - and that Shane Carruth wrote, directed, scored and starred in it makes it all the more amazing.
Also, my daughter and I just watched **Voices from a Distant Star ** yesterday - very, very good.
Pi is an amazing film that was made for only $60,000. It’s a shame that Darren Aronofsky hasn’t done anything nearly as great since.
This movie wasn’t my cup of tea, but Tarnation was made for $218.32, although more was later spent to clean up the sound and clear copyrighted materials.
