I am a fan of low-to-know budget movies. I appreciate them for what they are... a low-to-no budget movie. So the short comings a movie may have due to lack of money I can over look very easily. I also try to view such a movie holistically, see the movie as a whole and try to not pick at each and every flaw. Even the big budget movies have flaws, some of them are just hidden well.
Then there comes a point when the lack of money doesn't redeem. Writing, directing, musical composition, acting and editing are five points that can make or break a movie no matter what the budget is. For example, a movie can be good, even great, if the writing, directing, music and editing are cool but the acting sucks. Other combinations could make a good movie. However, if the only thing you have going is a great story and nothing else, well I'd think about not making the movie.
With that said, I found Living Dead Lock Up 2 a great disappointment. I haven't seen the first part but I did see Realm Trilogy: The Complete Saga, which was a painful watch. I thought that with a fews years later and a couple of more movies that this one would've been much better. It was better then Realm Trilogy, but only in a couple of areas.
I am not here to bash, I am here to point out some issues, hopefully taken as constructive criticism. There were several "no-no's" in this movie, no-no's that should be in any movie.
I did like the use of the "old time" drive-in animations. This made me think it was going to be okay, some creative thought put into it. At the beginning, there was a cool montage. The make-up was okay, it is what I would expect from a shoestring budget. There were a few times when you would see a really good shot composition, then the next shot would really suck. No consistency in direction or editing.
This may be a low-budget issue, but where are all the people? It was supposed to be a hospital with several survivors but all I saw were like four people, not counting zombies. If there were really all those executive and associate producers for this movie, couldn't some of them have played extras?? Extras are the easiest, they don't have to be able to act. It was called March of the Dead, and the most number of zombies in any shot was 3. Not much of a march.
Writing. Hmmm. I could tell what was going on, that is all. There was no dialog that stuck out. No plot elements making me wonder what was next or even keeping my attention. Why did bottled water help a zombie become normal again?? Locations. Good. This is one of the no-budget gotcha's. You usually use what you can get, however you may need to re-write the story to fit the locations.
There were several bad continuity cuts. Like cutting from the subject moving to the subject standing still. Five o'clock shadow in one shot, then the next shot no facial hair on the same person, same moment. This one has nothing to do with budget. There is a reason why a director shoots more than one take of each scene or camera angle. Coverage. Coverage. Coverage.
Acting. Hmmm. There was one composited zombie that had some good pantomime. And there was good acting from 11min 50sec into the movie until 12min 37sec. There is a kind of "bonding" scene as one guy is cleaning another guys wounds, very awkward direction and editing. A bit later, there is a bad beer drinking scene. Acting needs work. Sorry.
There was some bad audio. Sometimes that's a no-budget issue, however, I should never hear a voice over for an outdoors scene recorded in a non-sound-proofed room. It was obvious the voices were recorded in a room, while the shot was of outside.
Another piece of advice: If you need to use bluescreen (hospital background) on one shot and can't make it look good, then the next cut should be bluescreen as well. It was very distracting to see the nurse shot with poor bluescreen, then the shot of the man being a practical shot.
Overall, I think this movie would've been way better if it were only like 30 minutes long.
(So far, of the top of my head,there is one movie that I use as the basis of the worst movie for a vote of 1, it's called "Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven" by Ulli Lommel. So I give this movie a 3.)
Then there comes a point when the lack of money doesn't redeem. Writing, directing, musical composition, acting and editing are five points that can make or break a movie no matter what the budget is. For example, a movie can be good, even great, if the writing, directing, music and editing are cool but the acting sucks. Other combinations could make a good movie. However, if the only thing you have going is a great story and nothing else, well I'd think about not making the movie.
With that said, I found Living Dead Lock Up 2 a great disappointment. I haven't seen the first part but I did see Realm Trilogy: The Complete Saga, which was a painful watch. I thought that with a fews years later and a couple of more movies that this one would've been much better. It was better then Realm Trilogy, but only in a couple of areas.
I am not here to bash, I am here to point out some issues, hopefully taken as constructive criticism. There were several "no-no's" in this movie, no-no's that should be in any movie.
I did like the use of the "old time" drive-in animations. This made me think it was going to be okay, some creative thought put into it. At the beginning, there was a cool montage. The make-up was okay, it is what I would expect from a shoestring budget. There were a few times when you would see a really good shot composition, then the next shot would really suck. No consistency in direction or editing.
This may be a low-budget issue, but where are all the people? It was supposed to be a hospital with several survivors but all I saw were like four people, not counting zombies. If there were really all those executive and associate producers for this movie, couldn't some of them have played extras?? Extras are the easiest, they don't have to be able to act. It was called March of the Dead, and the most number of zombies in any shot was 3. Not much of a march.
Writing. Hmmm. I could tell what was going on, that is all. There was no dialog that stuck out. No plot elements making me wonder what was next or even keeping my attention. Why did bottled water help a zombie become normal again?? Locations. Good. This is one of the no-budget gotcha's. You usually use what you can get, however you may need to re-write the story to fit the locations.
There were several bad continuity cuts. Like cutting from the subject moving to the subject standing still. Five o'clock shadow in one shot, then the next shot no facial hair on the same person, same moment. This one has nothing to do with budget. There is a reason why a director shoots more than one take of each scene or camera angle. Coverage. Coverage. Coverage.
Acting. Hmmm. There was one composited zombie that had some good pantomime. And there was good acting from 11min 50sec into the movie until 12min 37sec. There is a kind of "bonding" scene as one guy is cleaning another guys wounds, very awkward direction and editing. A bit later, there is a bad beer drinking scene. Acting needs work. Sorry.
There was some bad audio. Sometimes that's a no-budget issue, however, I should never hear a voice over for an outdoors scene recorded in a non-sound-proofed room. It was obvious the voices were recorded in a room, while the shot was of outside.
Another piece of advice: If you need to use bluescreen (hospital background) on one shot and can't make it look good, then the next cut should be bluescreen as well. It was very distracting to see the nurse shot with poor bluescreen, then the shot of the man being a practical shot.
Overall, I think this movie would've been way better if it were only like 30 minutes long.
(So far, of the top of my head,there is one movie that I use as the basis of the worst movie for a vote of 1, it's called "Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven" by Ulli Lommel. So I give this movie a 3.)
