I occasionally haunt the pound shop because I love the conversations I have there ("How much is that?" "A pound." "And that?" "A pound." "And that?"...) The DVD of zombie movie "Colin" was there. It was a pound. I read the effusive sleeve blurb telling me that "Colin" had cost ninepence (OK, forty quid) to make, and what a wonderful piece of work it was, especially given how little it had cost. I passed.
And then it turned up on late night TV. So I thought, "Let's try it out - if it's any good, I might go back to the pound shop and splurge." Ed Wood, he of the infamous Glen Or Glenda, Plan 9 From Outer Space et al, has achieved an affectionate respect among some mainstream filmmakers because of his sheer determination to get his films made with threadbare resources and his success in then getting them out there into the market place and seen by the public. Yes, one accepts that it was a remarkable achievement. But that doesn't mean that his movies weren't hamstrung by both technical ineptitude and an absence of production values.
Meet "Colin", the noughties equivalent of Ed Wood. Only, rather than the thousands of dollars Wood's films cost (a small number of thousands, admittedly, but still thousands, and during the 1950s, too), "Colin" cost forty quid.
It shows. Filmed on hand-held lo-res video throughout, it's not so much that production values are low, more that there aren't any. It is technically lacking in every respect - script, acting, lighting, pacing, editing - to the extent that it is more or less unwatchable.
And I say this as someone who actually watched "Aquanoids" all the way through.
I give it one star because I have to, and another for the Ed Wood factor.
And then it turned up on late night TV. So I thought, "Let's try it out - if it's any good, I might go back to the pound shop and splurge." Ed Wood, he of the infamous Glen Or Glenda, Plan 9 From Outer Space et al, has achieved an affectionate respect among some mainstream filmmakers because of his sheer determination to get his films made with threadbare resources and his success in then getting them out there into the market place and seen by the public. Yes, one accepts that it was a remarkable achievement. But that doesn't mean that his movies weren't hamstrung by both technical ineptitude and an absence of production values.
Meet "Colin", the noughties equivalent of Ed Wood. Only, rather than the thousands of dollars Wood's films cost (a small number of thousands, admittedly, but still thousands, and during the 1950s, too), "Colin" cost forty quid.
It shows. Filmed on hand-held lo-res video throughout, it's not so much that production values are low, more that there aren't any. It is technically lacking in every respect - script, acting, lighting, pacing, editing - to the extent that it is more or less unwatchable.
And I say this as someone who actually watched "Aquanoids" all the way through.
I give it one star because I have to, and another for the Ed Wood factor.