The term "low-budget" carries certain connotations, but in practice it doesn't always mean the same thing. On the face of it the suggestion is simply of limited resources available to realize a project - nothing more, nothing less - and is no indicator of quality. We've all seen some movies that were incredibly solid and well-made, and defied the limitations of their financial backing. On the other hand, for lack of funding, "low-budget" also commonly communicates idiosyncrasies of style that fall below the standards of quality of major motion pictures. 'Ozone' immediately comes across as a bit of Column A, and a bit of Column B: I think it's safe to say that filmmaker J. R. Bookwalter and his collaborators did what they could with what they had to work with, and it surely seems as though the money available for the movie largely (wisely) went into practical effects. As far as that goes, at least, it's a job well done; the blood, gore, makeup, fluids, and all other gnarly, tangible visuals look pretty great to me, even if they were made on a shoestring.
On the other hand, the colloquial application of "low-budget" also undeniably shines through. Even though 'Ozone' is made competently at large, there's a definite, often glaring lack of subtlety and nuance in the feature as it presents. This pertains to most every last element of the picture, from top to bottom, in and out: cinematography, sequencing, editing, direction, sound design (fluctuating and imbalanced), scene writing, dialogue, characters, computer-generated visuals, stunts, costume design, props, vehicles, filming locations, production design, pacing, acting, lighting - and even some instances of the makeup artists' work are notably uneven, if not downright deficient. All these aspects, and more, are distinctly blunt, heavy-handed, and sometimes all but tactless. None of this is to say that this title isn't enjoyable, or that it's not well done such as it is. Yet the line blurs between lack of means, lack of skill, and lack of finesse, and it's difficult to discern at any given point how the flaws and shortcomings should be designated. What kind of "low-budget" is this? Full Moon Films? Earnest indie? Homemade, amateur passion project? Anyone's guess is as good as mine.
Putting all this aside - as if this weren't already enough - I'm not fully certain that the plot is entirely focused or cohesive; it seems to stray at times from a discrete path. Worse than that, some smaller scenes impress as self-indulgent, plainly overstaying their welcome, or going excessively over the top. This might be fine if 'Ozone' were written as a horror-comedy, but that's not the overall tone it holds to. For that matter, the general faults and deficiencies could be more easily forgiven in that instance, but again, not here. So when, for example, star James Black bends his knees and hunches down, then rapidly shifts his feet to spin in a circle - an attempt, with far less equipment or resources, to recreate that moment in a feature when a character clutches their head in confusion and madness and the camera revolves around them... well, this would be delightful in a title that was self-parodying; here's it's funny for the wrong reasons.
And still - still! - this isn't to say that it's not entertaining, or satisfying. For all the problems this movie struggles with, I can't say I didn't have a good time watching. I can readily envision what this might have looked like with the resources and guidance of a more practiced, established horror filmmaker (John Carpenter, perhaps, or David Cronenberg, among others; I see faint echoes of 'In the mouth of madness,' or 'Shivers'), and my mind swirls with joyous fancy. Accept and engage with 'Ozone' on its level, and its value and potential becomes more evident. In the widest of strokes, and even in some of the details, I think there are wonderfully strong ideas in the screenplay conjured between director Bookwalter and co-writer David A. Wagner. The concept is actually fantastic, opening up possibilities of psychological horror, body horror, a zombie flick, a monster movie, a terrestrial equivalent of cosmic horror, and other flavors. However one wishes to dissect it, the end result that is 'Ozone' is a strange, mixed bag, but for all its weaknesses, I see what it wanted to be, tried to be, and could have been. And against all odds, I think it's better than not, and I kind of love it.
Enjoying onself here requires that one is able and willing to ride with the feature in its lane; to judge it strictly in comparison to less humble productions isn't a fair playing field. I certainly do understand that this won't appeal to everyone, and why it wouldn't; at first blush, I too was rather aghast. But ultimately, the issues 'Ozone' faces are ones of limited money, and lack of polish. I feel confident that Bookwalter and Wagner had a meaningfully vivid, complete vision for their picture, and by one measure or another they just didn't have the opportunity to make it all that it could have been. For what it is, as we see it, the writing is mostly quite enticing, the (practical) effects are mostly splendid, and all involved put their best foot forward. That 'Ozone' still falters is unfortunate, but all the same, count me among its fans: horror flicks don't have to be perfect to be a whole lot of devious fun.
