Can a movie become cult, when its tryin so hard to?

Uhhh, Nightmare on Elm St is a CULT film? No, it's a well known movie everyone has seen and enjoys. Cult is more a small but devoted fan base. NoeS is in no way a cult film.

The whole "cult" thing can be pretty *beep* subjective. How do you determine what a cult is and how do you determine if a film has one? I don't think ELM STREET is a cult film. It's a great film, yes, and popular, but whether or not it has a devoted fanbase I couldn't say.

Furthermore, one could argue about a movie like ROCKY HORROR. For a while it was one of the preeminent and quintessential examples of a cult film. Nowadays everyone knows about it. Is it still a cult film or is it mainstream? Or both? One could very well argue both. Mainstream-wise there are probably more people who have heard of it and/or seen it then not. But it's still retained that cultlike feeling because it still retains the highly specific and highly devoted group of fans (you know, the guys who go to the midnight screenings and singalong with the film and *beep*

There are also films that are major studio releases but bombed from the get go but have become cult phenomena. An example might be SHOWGIRLS. Or films that are major studio releases but yet find themselves continually endeared by a certain devoted fanbase. STAR TREK and Trekkies come to mind. Even STAR WARS. Look at all the hardcore fans that take that movie to the next level. I mean, I love STAR WARS, but I've never had an inkling to dress up like Chewbacca or Jabba the Hutt (unless it was to get me some Leia).

I guess the point is: just because "everyone has seen" or heard of a film doesn't preclude it from having a devoted fanbase.

It was TRYING so hard to be a 'throwback/so bad it's good' type of flick, but it tried TOO hard unfortunately. Instead of it being organic, it's like they FORCED in the camp...

That's the biggest *beep* problem with exploitation (or exploitation-inspired) films today, and the one that pisses me off the most. They don't try to make exploitation films, rather films that imitate exploitation films. That's why they fail so hard. Too many of them try too hard to copy them they lose their own sense of identity. Not to mention trying to create something bad results in something bad (why the hell would anyone even want that is beyond me). Not to mention those days are *beep* over; I would love to go back to 80s-style filmmaking, but it just ain't gonna happen because it's the god damn 21st century.

An example of failing campiness, just look at SNAKES ON A PLANE. So many of bad films past were unintentionally hilarious; that is, they tried to take themselves seriously and strove to be good films. But they failed. Now, fast forward to the 21st century and it's like the producers of SNAKES were trying to create unintentional humor. How in the hell do you intentionally create something unintentional? It would have worked better if they tried to make a legit film and then *beep* failed. Like TRANSFORMERS. Now THAT was pure shtty hilarity. That serious version of SNAKES probably would have been funny. I mean, why in all hell would you try to create a bad film, anyway? Is that what people really want to spend money on? If they strive to create a great film and it turns out great, then great.

An example, IMO, of a guy who gets it right is Robert Rodriguez. The guy clearly loves exploitation cinema. He loves them with a passion. You can tell from every page of the script, every shot, etc. He loves them. The difference between him and everyone else is that he tries to create a *beep* FILM, foremost, that's influenced by films of the past. He doesn't try to create pale imitations of other movies. Now, you could argue that he's got bigger budgets to work with, but I think that argument is illogical. First off, they're not THAT big. I think MACHETE had 10 million to work with. Secondly, there are countless Hollywood blockbusters that *beep* fail weekly. Third, the great directors have always known how to work within budget, and plenty have. Four, the guy's first film (EL MARIACHI) cost an alleged seven *beep* grand. This means he's getting by purely on style, wit, script, direction, energy and good filmmaking. And this good filmmaking has led to exploitation-inspired films that are truly works of their own, and are legitimately entertaining, rather than being just pure crap.

Lower-budget and/or indie filmmakers can definitely strive to make good *beep* work. I don't know why they don't

Ah well, I could go on and on, but I got more crap to watch.

reply share

add reply

formatting help