Quoted from The boy who could fly It looked shotty, which I forgive because it is obvious they didn't have any money so they did the best they could, so I can't really fault them there.

Looked shotty?  Shoddy?     No money?  They had a nice $18 Million budget, and IMO, the film looked excellent all around.

I'm really surprised to hear you say this.

I watched this on bootleg a month or so ago. That's right! bootleg! I'm from Cleveland dammit.

I haven't read through all of the reviews, but I dug this until the end. The twists come at you constantly and you want to try to figure it out, but you can't. Jessica did a great job, not surprised. I think she was also a producer on this film?

James

there is no tall man in this film so there is no real bad guy, just a lady who takes underpriviliged children and puts them in a good home, thats reallly all this movie is, just so safe, this movie needed some enegery, or at least try something new, or interesting, and the townsfolk, i mean this ain't 1930, they seemed to be in the wrong decade. It's sad cuz the tall man could have been a cool movie if it really had a tall man instead of taking the easy way out and making it a movie for a knitting circlke, oh well to each their own I guess.

I'm gonna knit me some sox. Yeah, that's a plan.

Just had a chance to watch the end of this one. I think I'm with Jordan. It started out great, but the second half and the twist, just turned it into a drama and all the suspense and intrigue went out the door.

PS. I have never seen anything where I liked Jessica Biehl. Don't know why, but she turns me off completely.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Just had a chance to watch the end of this one. I think I'm with Jordan. It started out great, but the second half and the twist, just turned it into a drama and all the suspense and intrigue went out the door. PS. I have never seen anything where I liked Jessica Biehl. Don't know why, but she turns me off completely.

I'm with Jordan and Pia on this one...

The twists came via voice over, exposition and dialogue.
Very little visual visceral discovery in this tale.
And that's what ultimately made me tune out.
A promising premise undone by convoluted twists and drab execution.

E.D.

I have to admit to enjoying this one. I was really surprised by it as I expected something completely different.

It was your typical thriller until about halfway and then it just threw it all out the window with twist after twist which left me, well, confused.

On the same note, it kept me engrossed to the end to see what it was all about and I have to be honest and say that when the ending came, it left me thinking and I like it when movies do that.

I thought it was brave to leave it as they did, the little girl questioning if she or the situation was right. She wanted this life but the younger ones didn’t have that choice and would never remember their first parents.

Also liked Jessica Biel in this one, probably the best I’ve seen from her. Actually, I found all the acting good in this one.

Good stuff.

It's all relative, too, Steve. If I paid $10 to see this in the theater, I'd be annoyed. But seeing it on Netflix, I respect that they did something different, created a solid mystery, generated some tension, and like you said, stimulated some thought.

The IMDB listed 18 million budget, but I don't know how reliable those numbers are. This was low budget, and I respect that they could achieve what they did on that.

Finally, I've watched a lot of movies in the last year, and as a result, my expectations for films are greatly diminished. I have not found a lot of very good movies, and all of them have their flaws.

Quoted from leitskev It's all relative, too, Steve. If I paid $10 to see this in the theater, I'd be annoyed.

Quoted from leitskev Finally, I've watched a lot of movies in the last year, and as a result, my expectations for films are greatly diminished. I have not found a lot of very good movies, and all of them have their flaws.

Kev, these 2 comments leave me very confused.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that one's expectations should be very low for literally any movie, because the vast majority of all movies seem like they were conceived by pre-teens.

It always surprises me when I see peeps quote $10+ for seeing a movie at the theater.  Why?  The only times I've ever paid $10 + for a movie is if it's 3D and IMAX.  Don't you people know what a fucking matinee showing is?

Whether or not I like a movie or think it's good, I rarely am annoyed when I see a movie at the theater, because it's the experience that makes it for me.  And, it doesn't hurt that I just enjoy seeing movies period.

Quoted from leitskev [quote=leitskev]The IMDB listed 18 million budget, but I don't know how reliable those numbers are. This was low budget, and I respect that they could achieve what they did on that.

How do qualify $18 Million with low budget?  What looked low budget here?

I have this funny feeling that the peeps who would call this low budget are the same peeps who only see "big budget" flicks at the theater, and don't know what a low budget piece of shit really is.

Not trying to start anything with you, bro, but your comments leave me very confused.

Man, I am so not in the mood for a fight. I'll oblige if I have to.

Ok, you win: I usually pay 6.75 and hit the matinee.

So I will amend my comment: I would not have been happy paying 6.75 for this film. Especially if I bought popcorn.

Budget: I've never produced a film, so I am not qualified to assess budget. My impression is that nothing was expensive in this film. There did not even seem to be a high scene count number, with a lot of wandering in the woods or similar locations.

While I cannot assess budget with any level of expertise, I can say that I have seen films that have been budgeted(according to IMDB) much lower and had similar or higher quality.

For example, Memento is listed as 5 million. I do know that a big part of cost is the number of scenes. That's why FF is so cheap, because there are long, uninterrupted scenes. Memento seems to have a lot of scenes, and also has bigger name actors.

Memento was the one that came to mind, but I've seen decent movies with even lower budgets that came out reasonably well.

Yes, I've also seen real low budget crap. They don't have the same appeal to me that they do to you, to each his own. But I'm not really talking about those.

What is the average budget for a studio movie? I suspect it's much higher than 18 million.

You say you're not trying to start something, but I am skeptical. You began this thread because you liked the film. My comments indicate that I generally agree with your opinion in this case. Others very strongly did not. Which is fine. But for some reason, it's my remarks that you've seized on.

If you just feel like arguing with me, can't we agree to pick a more interesting topic? If you are bored, I'm sure I owe you that. Let's move to another thread and find an argument with some entertainment value.

The Pats are on at 4, I will have my lap top, so I am available to argue with until about 7.

You two are funny!!!

I'm no expert at budgets either, but I'm pretty sure a script I'm familiar with *cough* that will shoot in January if things go according to plans will be low budget. Just a few million... To me, anything over $5M is not low budget. It's not BIG BUDGET, but not low budget. I think $18M for  The Tall Man seems high for what I saw.

No, not looking to argue or fight, Kev. Seriously.  I've been down all weekend with a really bad back.  I can literally barely move and walk.

I guess it was your comment about being annoyed if you paid to see this movie that caused my response.  But rest assured, all my questions and comments were not meant to upset you.

Yeah, Pia is right...anything with a budget over $5 Million is definitely not considered to be low budget.

Memento was released 12 years ago, first of all, but if you think about it or watch it, I'm pretty sure you'll see that it's actually a very small movie with no set pieces and very little action.

And for the record, although I definitely enjoyed The Tall man and its writer and director, I too had my doubts after it veered way off course.  Like Coop said, it made me think, and that's a good thing.  It was unique and contained the kind of twist no one will ever see coming, and again, for that alone, I give it kudos.

I believe IMDB adjusts for inflation. But that could just be gross numbers, I don't know.

But my point was that I don't think the real budget was anywhere near 18 million. And Pia agreed with that.

I Googled the average Hollywood budget, and it's over 100 million. So 18 is low for a studio level project. Very low, actually.

Quoted from leitskev I believe IMDB adjusts for inflation. But that could just be gross numbers, I don't know.

No, there is no adjustment for inflation.  A budget is a budget.

Quoted from leitskev I Googled the average Hollywood budget, and it's over 100 million. So 18 is low for a studio level project. Very low, actually.

Be careful thinking what is meant by "average Hollywood budget".  There's no way the vast majority of theatrical releases have a budget over $100 Million.

In fact got to boxofficeguru.com and you can get pretty much any and all the data you'd ever want to see.

There are only a total of 337 movies in the entire history of film that have grossed over $100 Million (at the NABO).

Also, keep  in mind that this movie was not (really) theatrically released even.  $18 Million is a very large budget for a DTV film.

Quoted Text First of all, let's get some details here.  Released overseas, but direct to video here, in the states.  Reported $18 Million budget, which always amazes and confuses me - why an entity would spend that kind of cash and then not release the finished project, I just don't understand, as there's no way it will recoup the investment without a theatrical release.

The film itself was aquired by Image Entertainment for domestic. They did not have much budget for marketing and release, so the plan was a VOD/ DTV platform after a brief limited theatrical run - which also effects distribution as not many theatre chains will book films like that - and with other big tent-pole studio films in the offeriing, Tall Man would get squeezed out. That seems to be the case. Another factor could be Pascal Laugier's past work as well - can a "mainstream" moviegoing audience get into his work? New French Extremism might be a hard sell in the US ? (I think it is a possibility, and I don't really agree with it if there is something to it)

But there's something else. I don't think Image had much faith in thier aquisition. Where's that friggin' artwork...



Do you see what I see? Jessica Beil "is" The Tall Man...?
I dunno. Maybe it's a reach. I do know it's probabaly just coincidence.

By the way--when horror fans think of The Tall Man...