By Sydney Blankenship Posted October 20, 2010
It isn’t uncommon to see movies whose budgets exceed 150-200 million dollars. With budgets this big, a moviegoer would think they are going to see a high-quality movie with good special effects, acting and a plot. However, a bigger budget does not necessarily translate into a good movie. Are all the movies that use the fancy camera work and special effects really worth seeing?
When “2012” debuted, it had $200M to make this sci-fi movie. It was slow-moving throughout the whole thing. What happened in 2.5 hours could have fit into an hour and a half time slot. Anybody who has a problem sitting still to watch a long movie will have a very difficult time watching this one. The whole special effects of the flood were fake, they simply ruined the movie for me.
Movie critic, Manhola Dargis said,” Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple storylines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit.”
Not all movies like ‘2012’ are bad with big budgets. The movie, “Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End” topped the list with a $300M budget and, it was absolutely, hands down, one of the best movies I’ve ever seen with such beautiful scenes.
Movie critic, Claudia Puig, described it as,” The production design is eye-catching, particularly in the opening scenes set in Singapore.”
A wonderful, lesser expensive movie would be, “The Blair Witch Project”, which cost only $25,000 to make. It made me think twice before going into the woods.
Critic, Susan Wloszczyna said, “Blair Witch oozes spellbinding primal fear!” The camera work is not what you normally see, but it makes the movie look and feels a lot cooler.
Are movies really that much better with more money?
