Short of the Week
panic-attack-fede-alvarez-2

Panic Attack

Vengeful robots pummel downtown Montevideo in this surprisingly realistic sci-fi/lo-fi film whose $300 budget puts Hollywood blockbusters to shame.

It’s amazing what you can do with $300 (about £180) nowadays. Here in the UK you could buy 60 pints of Stella, 360 packs of Monster Munch, or, in Uruguay, finance an action-packed, effects-filled short movie about a giant robot invasion.

Like Alive in Joberg, the 2005 short from District 9 director Neill Blomkamp, this feels much like a calling card, showcasing the creative talents of the director Fede Alvarez, who, along with fellow animator Mauro Rondan, were responsible for the impressive digital effects. The opening sequence of the boy playing with his toy robots as the giant machines begin their deadly attack is pure cinematic genius. Within the opening 30 seconds of this almost 5 minute short, when the colossal robots emerge from the fog, you can tell you are witnessing something very different and something very special.

As the film progresses there are no punches pulled nor any distractions used to avoid showing this breathtaking assault. There are no Cloverfield tricks at play here, this is a full-on action sequence, giant robots crash through landscapes and city streets and, accompanied by dozens of attack ships, they proceed to destroy Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo.

This is a film that relies on careful planning, inventive shooting and most importantly, unforgettable digital effects. Looking at the amount of money cinema throws at visual effects in modern times, it’s quite astounding to think this was created for such a minuscule budget. After shooting principal photography in 2006, the film took 6 months of concentrated effort spread out over 2 years to complete, but in doing so the team behind Panic Attack have pulled off the rare and enviable achievement of creating an effective, believable science fiction short, that at times can put many of Hollywood’s attempts to shame.

~
hand-picked by
When not writing for Directors Notes, slumped in my local cineplex or dwelling at film festivals, I can usually be found online sifting through one of my favourite short film sites. The one thing I always crave in films is originality. Heart-pounding, mind-bending, eye-opening originality, simple as that.  
  • http://www.directorsnotes.com/2009/11/23/short-of-the-week-time/ Short of the Week time | Directors Notes

    [...] I kicked off my first spot as a ‘full-timer’ with a little bit about Fede Alvarez’s special FX laden short – Panic Attack. [...]

  • http://www.fosteronfilm.com Matthew M. Foster

    As a short film, compared on an equal footing with all other shorts, “Panic Attack” is pretty good, but nothing really special (being just an effects sequence). However, when judged on the basis of quality for cost (i.e. the way all discussions of “Clerks” end up), this may be the greatest film ever made.

  • http://www.directorsnotes.com/ El Vez

    Good point Matthew.

    Panic Attack is most definitely a shining example of money well spent

  • http://dabottomsproductions.com Daniel Bottoms

    I love a happy ending. The world blew up ,what’s my motivation to keep watching?

  • L

    Good short, but I’m not sure I buy this… I’m a filmmaker, film, not DV, and I know what it takes to make a film, at a “no budget level,” and I don’t think the budget of the short is accurate…

    http://vimeo.com/7093147
    http://vimeo.com/7339043

  • Jason Sondhi

    I think the much ballyhooed figure of $300 is accurate, it’s just misleading. What did the computers and the software cost? What is 2 years worth of labor from skilled animators worth?

  • El Vez

    I think Jason hit the nail on head here, the budget of Independent film can really be made to look at big or as small as the filmmakers decide. The one thing many filmmakers often forgot to put a price on is the time and dedication they’ve put in. If it took 2 years to make, what about the 2 years of electricity, 2 years of food and drink, 2 years worth of medical treatment for RSI, 2 years of presents to make up for time away from family and love-ons etc!

  • http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2010/04/08/philips-presents-parallel-lines/ Philips’ Presents: Parallel Lines featuring ‘The Gift’ | Short of the Week

    [...] 300 it ~_~), and in the 18 hours since I first posted this, The Gift has been getting a lot of Panic Attack-style buzz.  Johnny Hardstaff’s Dark Room is also entertaining though distractingly [...]

  • http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2010/07/07/reign-of-death/ Reign of Death | Short of the Week

    [...] Over the last several months Reign of Death has been a viral hit disguised as a festival film. Or did I get that backwards? It has been touring the UK’s film festival circuit, most recently playing Sci-Fi London, however with its easily digestible length, showy VFX, and cult-fave leading actor (Dr. Who’s Noel Clarke), I can’t help but feel its manifest destiny is to dominate the web in the tradition of recent short film internet faves, The Raven, The Gift and Panic Attack. [...]

  • http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2010/07/13/avatar-days/ Avatar Days « Short of the Week

    [...] huge numbers of YouTube views and unprecedented amounts of virtual column inches to films such as Panic Attack!, and Pixels. One may grouse about our propensity to continually reference these films, which by no [...]

  • anonymous filmmaker

    I am an indie filmmaker and I think 2 years of post prod efx editing would disqualify a $300 budget. I highly dispute the validity of that $300.

  • http://www.thomasbealecipher.com Andrew S Allen

    @anon, As others have pointed out, the $300 was cash spent specifically on the film—not an estimated production budget. Many get the two confused and use them interchangeably. As EFX pros, they’re using equipment and software from their professions and donating their time to do all the effects themselves—these are estimated costs that quickly inflate a production budget. For my film, The Thomas Beale Cipher, the estimated production budget was around $100K, but the actual cost was more like $800.

  • Frank

    Well, this short is fantastic. That is true. Not a real short film in a dramatic point of view, but more of a very well executed vfx sequence. But, I really, REALLY doubt this cost $300 bucks. That is a HUGE lie that I can’t believe people are eating up. So, how did he do the compositing of this? with glue and paper? Come on! What does the average 3D package cost? Compositing software? PC? Rendering time? So what did they eat that shooting day? Grass? All the team transported the equipment on bicycles right? Please, don’t believe that huge lie. This short is visually stunning. And it is low budget. But it did not cost $300 bucks.

  • Me

    So when people ask you how much is your big screen TV…. do you all add the gas money, mounting equipment, cables, and time it took for delivery/setup???

  • James Nelson

    I read somewhere that the director worked at an effects studio in Uruguay. I had always figured that meant he was using company equipment on his off hours to do his own thing. It isn’t unheard of, and I know a lot of people who do it in all walks of life. If this is the case then there was no cost of compositing and the like. Also time spent on a project is not an above or below line cost on any budget unless you’re getting a salary for the work you do. Just like getting a SAG actor to work at a lower fee because he/she likes the project, or as a favor. Do you factor in what he worked for, or what he could have made? I think ppl are having trouble believing what he said it cost because we’re used to the overinflated budgets and outrageous salaries factored into the average Hollywood extrasnoozefest, when you seldom see anything on screen that warrants that budget.

  • Joshua

    I can’t believe the comment made by the user labeled “Me”. Oh come on!The fact that we, as end-of-line consumers don’t add up gas and other expenses to the cost of our tv, doesn’t mean we didn’t had those costs. And most certainly, Sony, Panasonic and every tv builder in the world DO CHARGE US for every single dime spent in that piece of electronics, from the engineer’s coffee to the tires of their trucks. This short is awesome. But it didn’t cost $300 dollars. End of discussion.

  • Felonious Punk

    Joshua has spoken.

  • Deadbodypoka

    Yah uhh 300… hmmm… no way

  • http://www.shortoftheweek.com/2010/05/27/the-raven/ The Raven by Ricardo de Montreuil | Sci-Fi Short Film

    [...] of course Neill Blomkamp of District 9 fame with his short Alive in Joberg, but Fede Alvarez with Panic Attack and more recently Carl Erik Rinsch with The Gift, are members emeritus. The Raven, shot lean and [...]

  • Silver

    Joshua, to say that the digital electronics were not included in the cost is misstatement in itself.  Even IF the price of giant TV sets included company coffee and delivery truck tires, we’re still not looking at the costs “under the radar”, such as the poor, unpaid kid working in the mines to obtain the raw materials needed for the electrical wiring or the harmful emissions that the factories are emitting but are refusing to clean up.  It’s called “externalized costs”, in which the costs are borne by people unrelated to the seller; these costs thus are not figured into the actual pricetag.  
    I dont’ see how it’s different here.  If the director had gotten his hands on the compositing software without paying out of his own pocket (torrent or from work), if he drove around in his parents’ car (assuming no refuelings) or borrowed his friend’s camera for shooting, those are externalized costs as well.  $300 would be the amount of money that the team chipped in out of their own wallets directly for this project, and I say that’s a valid claim.  

  • Silver

    Joshua, to say that the digital electronics were not included in the cost is misstatement in itself.  Even IF the price of giant TV sets included company coffee and delivery truck tires, we’re still not looking at the costs “under the radar”, such as the poor, unpaid kid working in the mines to obtain the raw materials needed for the electrical wiring or the harmful emissions that the factories are emitting but are refusing to clean up.  It’s called “externalized costs”, in which the costs are borne by people unrelated to the seller; these costs thus are not figured into the actual pricetag.  
    I dont’ see how it’s different here.  If the director had gotten his hands on the compositing software without paying out of his own pocket (torrent or from work), if he drove around in his parents’ car (assuming no refuelings) or borrowed his friend’s camera for shooting, those are externalized costs as well.  $300 would be the amount of money that the team chipped in out of their own wallets directly for this project, and I say that’s a valid claim.  

  • Silver

    Joshua, to say that the digital electronics were not included in the cost is misstatement in itself.  Even IF the price of giant TV sets included company coffee and delivery truck tires, we’re still not looking at the costs “under the radar”, such as the poor, unpaid kid working in the mines to obtain the raw materials needed for the electrical wiring or the harmful emissions that the factories are emitting but are refusing to clean up.  It’s called “externalized costs”, in which the costs are borne by people unrelated to the seller; these costs thus are not figured into the actual pricetag.  
    I dont’ see how it’s different here.  If the director had gotten his hands on the compositing software without paying out of his own pocket (torrent or from work), if he drove around in his parents’ car (assuming no refuelings) or borrowed his friend’s camera for shooting, those are externalized costs as well.  $300 would be the amount of money that the team chipped in out of their own wallets directly for this project, and I say that’s a valid claim.  

  • http://metawilson.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/panic-attack-by-fede-alvarez/ Panic Attack by Fede Alvarez | Wilson

    [...] Panic Attack on shortoftheweek.com [...]