someone on twitter said it and I hate to admit it but I think its true. I mean good time might've been the last American cult film thanks to it being a Safdies film from a24, Pattinson with his grittiest performance. Now you cant have films where its like years from now peoples minds will change on this. people online and critics give good and bad reviews at the same time its now just mixed reviews. sure there are indie cult films but I dont think theres any real way for a cult following to happen. the days of perception changing with the times gone yes or no?
Comments
liberterrorism t1_j260i52 wrote
If anything there are more cult films than ever because people have more access to movies than they used to. Also, a lot of the time cult classics get mixed or poor reviews initially but over time gain wider appreciation.
Miklonario t1_j263z1a wrote
Hell, Skinamarink is already starting to develop as a new cult film favorite and it's not even officially out yet.
SpaghettiLove2 t1_j266iw1 wrote
How can a movie be a cult film favorite if it isn't even out yet ?
Miklonario t1_j266udo wrote
Well it's already developing quite a passionate fan base and is making a ton of peoples "Best Of Horror 2022" on Letterboxd and elsewhere from people who have been able to see it, so it's certainly checking the boxes thus far.
SpaghettiLove2 t1_j2676cl wrote
I feel like in order for something to be a cult film it has to stand the test of time
Just because some people on letterboxd like it doesn't mean anything
Richard_Sauce t1_j26ab1q wrote
Agreed.
Snakes on Plane had a "cult following," up until the day it actually came out. Other movies can initially spark a lot enthusiasm but become quickly forgotten. Cult Films, usually, are slow burns where audiences discover them after the fact. Sometimes that process even takes decades.
Though, how the internet age has affected all of that is definitely up debate.
ScottRiqui t1_j27sjog wrote
Agreed - I think "Serenity" from 2005 is a good example of a modern(ish) cult film. It was a follow-up movie to a TV show ("Firefly") that only ran for one season twenty years ago. It had a $39 million budget and only grossed $40 million, so it wasn't a commercial success at the time, but it's got an 82% critic score and a 91% audience score so there are a lot of people out there that enjoy/enjoyed it. And you can't go to a con without seeing people cosplaying the characters or selling related merch. Who knows how much of the popularity is from the TV show and how much is from the movie, but regardless - there's still an enthusiastic fanbase ~20 years later for productions that weren't widely successful when they came out.
Miklonario t1_j267sr0 wrote
That's right, longevity is also a very important factor in what becomes a cult film which is why I said "starting to develop as", and not "empirically categorized as", a distinction which acknowledges this.
ha-Satan t1_j27olqu wrote
It's easy to be seen as a cult film when people keep astroturfing it.
Miklonario t1_j27y5oj wrote
That's valid. It's had a lot of online engagement, and in todays age that's probably an inseparable aspect of viewership. But what constitutes as "word of mouth" in online discourse today, then? How can someone contribute positive engagement without it being perceived as astroturfing, or is that even possible now?
ha-Satan t1_j27yrk4 wrote
Skinamarink is garbage. It's a pretentious film school thesis that only really innovates in how fucking tedious a series of shots of closed doors and empty hallways can be and still be called a movie.
Skinamarink can go fuck itself. There's your word of mouth.
Miklonario t1_j27z7hb wrote
Okay see this is perfect, because someone (/u/stoudman who had a great response) elsewhere in the thread told me that their absolute key element of what constitutes a cult film is that it has to FAIL first. That for it to be a cult film, even before time passes it has to first be rejected by contemporaneous viewers.
Really, if the argument is that no one worth listening to right now likes this film and only a few passionate weirdoes are going to be talking about it 5 years from now... isn't that the literal definition of what a cult film is? Something that people didn't like when it was released and and the general public thought it was a failure?
MrMrAnderson t1_j286o3c wrote
Did you make it or something? Why do you care so much. It's not a cult film yet, if it ever is you'll know in like ten or fifteen years
stoudman t1_j28n63c wrote
To be clear, while I do believe that an overwhelming majority of cult classics fail before they succeed, the reason that factor is important is because it makes the licensing fees for the film more affordable.
The more affordable it is to license, the more streaming services and television channels will show it; the more it gets streamed and broadcast on television, the more people will see it more than once. That repeated viewing and opportunity to gain an appreciation for the movie is also integral as far as I'm concerned.
The kind of movies that will be cult classics tomorrow are going to be movies people have already seen half a dozen times today.
Miklonario t1_j29bxtp wrote
Good perspective!
stoudman t1_j26grxx wrote
I disagree.
One of the main things that almost all cult films have in common is that they were not successful upon their initial release and only became popular in later years due to the rental market and cheaply licensed titles on television.
I do not think you can call a movie cult if it isn't even out yet, especially if it's already very popular upon and before its release.
Miklonario t1_j26inbr wrote
Well this particular example is only popular thus far within a very niche, but very passionate audience, is getting only a limited theatrical release where I anticipate it will be very divisive and not be particularly profitable given the extremely limited amount of screens, and then go off to the modern equivalent of "the rental market and cheaply licensed titles on television" which is niche streaming services that cater to limited audiences.
Contrast this to something like, say, The Blair Witch Project, a film which got heavy festival buzz, had a successful limited theatrical engagement before going on to a very profitable wide release, spawned an entire franchise, and is still considered by most reasonable measures to be a considered a Cult Classic.
Please, let me clarify I'm not saying that "Skinamarink" is a Stone-Cold Cult Classic at this time. I was offering, as a rebuttal to OP's assertion regarding cult films, a modern film that, in my experience, is showing all the hallmarks of something that has a strong chance to, WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, develop that reputation.
Interestingly, people keep saying "usually", "generally", "almost all" with regards to the criteria of what constitutes a cult film which is literally admitting there are cult films that do not fulfill said criteria. Again, my main point is that films like these are still being and will continue to be made.
stoudman t1_j26ki7v wrote
I wouldn't classify Blair Witch a cult classic, to be honest.
The Last Broadcast. The Poughkeepsie Tapes. The McPherson Tapes.
These are cult classic found footage horror films. Blair Witch was pretty much popular from the get go for reasons you yourself described.
These movies gained a cult following after the fact.
I feel like Lake Mungo is a good modern example that shows how it can be done today, but again...not popular upon release, only popular after the fact.
For sure some films develop a cult following in different ways from the traditional methods, but I feel like if we're going to define parameters for the genre, failure at first and success at last is the FUNDAMENTAL KEY that makes a film a cult classic.
To predict a movie already getting buzz will be a cult classic is a bold prediction as far as I'm concerned, but I could be wrong.
Miklonario t1_j26ntbr wrote
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I should clarify that I've seen Skinamarink, and while I loved it personally, I think the average viewer, even amongst horror films, is going to absolutely shit on it. And i can understand why -I anticipate there's going to be a lot of 1 and 5 star reviews with very little in between. As a genuine question, would this be the way to quantify success or failure for a film that's playing on a tiny amount of screens and then going straight to Shudder? Box office numbers aren't have the same measurement they used to be, and word-of-mouth is an entirely different beast. Interested in your opinion on how that works in a modern age.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, you got me on Blair Witch. By my own logic, it is not a cult film
sunshinecl t1_j27s8nm wrote
Does OP mean classic and not cult? There are tons of films that accumulated a cult following after Good Times. Malignant, Annihilation, Mandy.. to name a few.
nicesodajerc t1_j2abjt8 wrote
It’s even a simple thing to look up the word cult and find this. Maybe English isn’t OP’s first language or they are in 3rd grade.
sikapwach t1_j267p4i wrote
Yeah I love cult films like Star Wars and Avengers…Your definition doesn’t completely hit the mark either.
Sitherio t1_j25zqei wrote
You don't understand the definition and what keeps cult movies strong.
numbers_all_go_to_11 t1_j25yrij wrote
No. This is clearly not true. Cult movies will continue to exist. People’s minds have always changed. This isn’t a new concept. Cult films have risen and fallen in prominence, but they will always be there. In fact, I’d say MORE SO with the increasingly corporate IP driven franchise filmmaking dominating the mainstream.
NobleAzorean t1_j260cw8 wrote
The one that comes to mind right now, and was a failure back then, but a hit for millenials and Gen Z, is american psycho. Today is huge even and even more relatable (not talking about the killing). I remember loving it when i first watched at 2010, i can watch every scene and not get bored.
[deleted] t1_j25z588 wrote
[deleted]
WatchMoreMovies t1_j260bax wrote
Exactly the opposite. Now, because there are a million different opinions flooding in from everywhere and everyone at any given second, TONS more films are gaining their own cult of support every day. Go ahead. Name a movie here in the comments. ANY movie. Somebody will say they love it or its their favorite. It could be ridiculously obscure or came out two weeks ago. The fact that films can spread so much quicker and easier now make them way easier to attract attention.
senseofphysics t1_j260jd8 wrote
I feel the same with books as well.
stoudman t1_j26h8vu wrote
...but if 4 people respond that they like that random movie you mention, does a group of 4 people constitute a "cult following"?
I feel like the movie has to become profitable again for studios in order to consider it a cult film.
EDIT: Well, profitable again for SOMEONE, at least -- like Rocky Horror is profitable for theaters to run every now and then in certain markets. That might just be profitable for the theater, but the point is it draws in enough of a crowd to make money.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26ixa2 wrote
This is the stupidest take on this possible.
Profit has NOTHING to do with a film's PERCEPTION and FANBASE. MANY beloved films were financial failures. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND only sees "movies that make the most money as the best!"
stoudman t1_j26jdzs wrote
What?
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I didn't say profitability = good. I said profitability after an initial failure at the box office was necessary for cult status...
...and if you look at the actual, undeniable history of cult films? That's....100% true.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26kzwh wrote
Very deniable. Because you, or I, don't get to define cult status. It's not like a record that goes platinum where you count the units. There's no finite criteria. It doesn't even always apply to financial failures. Its just christened to films that are outside popular culture but have a passionate fanbase.
Something like Sweet Sweetbacks Badass Song that made 15 million dollars profit on box office alone is assuredly a cult classic. Because it's so radically different from everything being put out at the time.
You're just...incredibly misguided how you're looking at this.
stoudman t1_j26n5g9 wrote
I'm really not, but okay. Lol.
Talking to someone with decades of education in film who lived through the prime period of the cult classic, but sure I'm just wrong...okay. Right. Sure. Whatever. Hate this sub.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j26qpn9 wrote
Well that's just it then, isn't it. You think you "lived through the time period of the cult classic" and with all your decades of education you get to label what it is.
But you don't. Especially now. The new cult cannon isn't defined by your criteria and nobody, not even you, can learn yourself an education in how to predict the future, what will re-ignite a new generation's passion or how they'll see it, and what will define a film as a success.
And frankly, someone who seems as close-minded, stubborn and sour on not being agreed with doesn't even seem the type of person to be into any kind of cult scene, regardless of genre. Because it requires an empathy for offbeat things that have indirect conclusions.
stoudman t1_j26ufcd wrote
Wow, now you're just making assumptions about me as a person. I'm extremely empathetic, I have an anxiety disorder and part of it is literally feeling strong emotions over being wronged or other people being wronged.
I minored in film studies, took dozens of classes on film, and experienced firsthand exactly how and why movies became cult classics in the 80s and 90s.
You've pointed to an example that stands out among the crowd as one of the few cases where a film became a cult classic despite being successful upon its initial release.
You're trying to say that one example is proof that I'm wrong about the other 99.9% of movies that are cult classics and how they have historically become cult classics.
That's bullshit. That offends me as a film fan. There's more going on with a movie like Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song than "cult classic" can clarify -- you absolutely need to mention it's a blaxploitation film, you need to mention that it wasn't widely available for a long time, you NEED TO FACTOR THESE DETAILS IN...and at least from my perspective, you personally are just ignoring those factors and attempting to use this one film as an argument to insist that every other cult film that ever came out and the formula for their success is somehow wrong or misunderstood.
Like, you'd need to write me a whole ass book explaining your perspective on this if you want me to buy the idea that one movie defines cult classics in a way that thousands of others considered cult classics do not.
Jancipants t1_j26zsh3 wrote
When the person arguing with you basically says “yOu cAn’t dEfiNe what tRuth is” you know they aren’t a serious person. Half of culture debate is defining terms and categories. Watchmore is hardcore gatekeeping. Bleh.
WatchMoreMovies t1_j2703ba wrote
You're a brick wall. You look at film as some concept to be mastered and beaten with rules and logic at every turn. Black and white. Pass or fail.
And it's not. It's subjective. It's as simple as that. And so are vague classifications like "cult classic"
I'll say my point just one more time: there are no rules in defining why, how or when anything can be defined as a "cult classic" and just because it doesn't meet your specific qualifications doesn't mean it doesn't mean a great deal to "cult" of people.
I'm not going to write you a book you'll never read, and only go through with a red marker and point out punctuation errors or conjunctions in. Because that's the kind of criticisms you give. Absolutes. Great for English lit 101, maybe, but you're not listening to a single thing because you've already made up your mind and you just want to fingershit out more ranting and posturing to validate your one-dimensional opinions as fact despite it being on a medium that exists in speculation, personal taste and relativity.
We're done here. Have a nice night.
ltdan84 t1_j28w9mk wrote
If those four people are so passionate in their fandom for the movie that they become a cult following then yes. And the movie doesn’t ever have to be profitable for anyone in order for it to develop a cult following.
SpaghettiLove2 t1_j25yni0 wrote
I don't think Good Time was ever a "cult film" .... not sure where you got that idea
Miklonario t1_j263cdt wrote
> someone on twitter said it
People really, really, really need to stop relying on this as a metric.
[deleted] t1_j261wq2 wrote
The premise of the tweet is wrong and misunderstands with a cult film is. There are always going to be films not appreciated in their day or missed by wider audiences at their release that develop intense followings.
You could argue that cult films go mainstream faster because of streaming/online communities, but again, that doesn’t mean cult films are dead.
Also, Good Time is universally loved. Come’on.
A40 t1_j2629z3 wrote
What do reviews have to do with cult followings?
Miklonario t1_j262v2h wrote
If anything most of what we would call "cult films" had bad reviews on top of bad box office earnings on release.
Kitahorror t1_j264joq wrote
Personally, I would define a cult film as one that was either a critical or commercial flop on release but which developed dedicated fans over time.
A poorly reviewed film that ends up beloved, is a cult film to me.
stoudman t1_j26icaq wrote
I mean, while it's not always a factor, reviews have driven people to see otherwise unpopular films in the past, and continue to do so.
Imagine how many people nowadays watched a movie because they saw it on Red Letter Media? A lot of those movies already have cult followings, but the point is that if a random popular YouTube channel decides to cover a random film that few people have seen or heard of, it could develop a cult following afterward.
stoudman t1_j26fs9j wrote
Due to constant opinion change? What?
...look.
The cult classic came about largely because of television and the rental market.
The reason they were considered "cult classics" is because traditionally, they were not very popular upon their initial release, and often bombed at the box office, but fans started becoming obsessed with watching them multiple times whenever:
A) The movie was broadcast frequently on television because the rights were cheap to obtain.
B) The movie was released on home video and fans started buying/renting the movie repeatedly to watch it over and over again.
Do you see how there was always an apparatus driving the sudden change in popularity? There was always a catalyst. Television networks looking for cheap content? Cult classics were born. Hell, that's literally the story behind A Christmas Story.
Home video didn't meaningfully exist until the 80s. Yeah, there were a few options in the 70s...that almost nobody knew about and were too expensive for the average consumer. Ever wonder why so many cult classics come from that era?
That 99 cents for 5 days rental did a lot of work, let me tell you. When VCRs finally became more affordable, the home video market opened up to a much bigger market, making it easier for a film to gain cult status just from rentals.
But even then, the reason a previously unpopular film became popular in modern times was because it was suddenly affordable and possible to watch them more frequently.
I would also argue movie channels like HBO drove the cult factor quite a bit as well, because a lot of my favorite cult movies are titles I saw dozens of times on those channels.
But...do you notice something about this phenomena that is no longer as present today as it was then?
They still show movies that are cheap to license on television....but who watches television anymore?
They still show movies that are cheap to license on streaming services as well....but the unpopular titles are typically buried by algorithms favoring more popular titles, so the types of movies that COULD become modern cult classics are more difficult to find.
Long story short, the means by which a movie can develop a cult like following are far more limited today than they were 30-40 years ago.
Is it still possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.
I would say the closest modern example I can think of is the Bad Ben series of films. Just some guy making stupid horror movies in his home, but they're absolutely hilarious, and have developed popularity not through promotion, but more through word of mouth.
So really, opinions changing is absolutely necessary for a film to become a cult classic, and I have no idea what OP meant by that being a problem instead of the catalyst for all cult films.
[deleted] t1_j2a3ovv wrote
[deleted]
trylobyte t1_j261ir5 wrote
>Now you cant have films where its like years from now peoples minds will change on this.
Why not? I find online critic reviews to only be prominent and widely talked about during the initial release. But most people will forget about them years later. It's actually getting easier for movies to get a "cult following" with all the different ways to get movies now i.e. streaming services.
jninethousand t1_j25z29p wrote
Movies and series will continue to initially fail to find an audience for a number of reasons, only to be discovered and treasured later when they finally do. To me this is the mark of a cult classic, reviews are only a part of the equation.
B1gMay0 t1_j25zrzv wrote
I disagree. Movies can still develop a cult following in modern times. Not everyone goes online and reads reviews of movies so this theory would not flush out.
xxStrangerxx t1_j260k8g wrote
It's more a case of the box office becoming less and less a factor in determining a movie's "legs"
A cult film is something that didn't get a lot of traction at the box office and later did, via the secondary viewership audience. Which was the only way we could track a movie's popularity. Now that streaming has taken over, that's all changed. No one's rushing to see movies when they can take their sweet time, and these same people will often refuse to see a movie if they feel they're being pressured
Chainsawjack t1_j261nin wrote
Nonsense. Things do not typically change as much as we percieved them changing
Fantastic_Deer_3772 t1_j264l86 wrote
No. It just takes a while for something to become considered a cult film, so recent-ish releases haven't got the status yet.
xXSpaceturdXx t1_j26df9i wrote
A few modern ones I can think of would be Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Shaun of the Dead, Tucker and Dale versus Evil, John dies at the end, I could go on all day. I would say cult films are alive and well.
talyn5 t1_j26rm7s wrote
Haven’t seen frequently asked questions, but I love all the others!
therlwl t1_j26id10 wrote
RIP to dictionaries.
[deleted] t1_j260cvl wrote
[deleted]
Designy t1_j261qpz wrote
The Room is a recent cult hit
SpaghettiLove2 t1_j262ihu wrote
Not really that recent
Corpore_sano t1_j26ouwg wrote
The Room is a definition of a cult classic.
Kitahorror t1_j2648un wrote
Personally, I think the larger threat to the idea of cult films, is that in the age of streaming there's not as much permanence to media. Cult films of the past grew their fanbase slowly, overcoming critical or commercial failure over time.
This was often aided by a constant presence on video-store shelves, repeated TV airings and so on. But now there's a never-ending firehose of new content. Content content content! It feels like there's less room to rediscover 'old' films because 5 new ones are being released tomorrow. Many of the current generations aren't watching live TV. You're never in a position where you have to watch a 2* film from 2008 because there's nothing better on TV. The idea of not being able to watch exactly the thing you want with instant access is alien. But how else are you going to find the pleasant surprises?
And maybe that's just me being out of touch. Maybe there are new, different routes to cult classic status. I don't know.
ShimmerFaux t1_j26a656 wrote
…
Public opinion of films and watching history is what cements a movie into this status. No one person defines the movie as a “cult film”.
bvanbove t1_j26cglj wrote
I'm glad this "someone on Twitter" had such a convincing argument.
S3guy t1_j26g10k wrote
No, it's just had to identify what is going to be a cult film usually for years after it's release.
Corpore_sano t1_j26nznx wrote
Reviews hardly mean shit, every movie has good and bad reviews.
Cult classics are by definition not critic darlings and some are often mediocre or bad, but viewers love them to bits and they get a dedicated fandom.
Sabnitron t1_j272dj6 wrote
What do you think a "cult film" is, out of curiosity?
DJSchmidi t1_j27pwb7 wrote
The FP series calls bull shit on this!
Miklonario t1_j27xo8r wrote
Shit's fucked up in the FP, yo
DJSchmidi t1_j2cpm8i wrote
There's no ducks and shit yo!?
GhostMug t1_j29978x wrote
I don't think this idea makes any sense.
deathkissed01 t1_j29wrfz wrote
sigh
NicklePlatedSkull t1_j2b7rt7 wrote
I saw a video once that explained how modern media is creating silo effects that hinders future shared cultural phenomena. With the separation of media like it is, there are walls that have been created to group movie viewership into smaller swaths of viewers. Cult films historically are liked by people of similar tastes of film. In the past, any movie could be seen by anyone after it went to formats such as vhs or dvd. Single formats mosts people owned. A future films abilities to become "cult fav" are disrupted by the requirement for payment of potentially multiple streaming services. When you impede chances of viewership, you decrease the chance of the cult-like status a movie can develope. So basically, availibility. There will be cult films, but maybe like cult Disney films, cult Netfix films, or cult HBO Max films; ect... "Cult"only to the people who had those particular services. With the reworking of the film distribution industry it will be hard to experience true cult followings for future movies.
Anaaatomy t1_j269d49 wrote
Movies about the USSR lol
DeepSave t1_j26ajcw wrote
Did you just say that a movie from 2017 was the last of its category lol
LunaRealityArtificer t1_j26bstl wrote
Terrifier is new and 100% gonna be a cult classic horror movie series
TreeBearOne t1_j26g93w wrote
..yes..no..maybe?
Real_Paramedic_1789 t1_j26iw6p wrote
No that’s not true
MrFluffyhead80 t1_j26mkxz wrote
Opinions have always constantly changed and movies ended up becoming cult films
MattMillz88 t1_j26oa3p wrote
Yes…I mean no
PerformerOwn194 t1_j28dp7h wrote
Cult films are all retrospective. You can’t tell until it’s been years and still has a passionate fanbase.
I’m betting on Bullet Train personally
YourMomsFishBowl t1_j28rxm9 wrote
A cult film is a good movie that was under appreciated, but a small group of people realize that it is actually pretty good. By good, I don't mean an actually well done, makes sense, has a plot type movie. I mean after watching it (and sometimes it takes a few views), you feel great and it's this movie that had no right to make you feel this way that did it.
[deleted] t1_j299qax wrote
[deleted]
TimeWellWasted25 t1_j29kagr wrote
Good Time is the last true American cult film? Absolutely not.
First off, I wouldn’t call it a cult film. Sure, there’s some people who love it to death, including me, but I’ve never seen a real cult following surrounding it. I don’t think it ever got much attention.
Second, there’s plenty of cult films that have been released since Good Time. Malignant, Terrifier 2, Cats, probably the new Barbie movie, just to name a few.
dee_ba_doe t1_j2a4all wrote
Who keeps asking these bizarre novelty questions as though they’re hot topics? David S. Pumpkins?
LNViber t1_j2a6hhc wrote
No. Nope. Wrong. Incorrect. False. Untrue. Fucking stupid.
The person who wrote this is severely under informed. I could go on, but I will become dumber trying to address this dumb of an opinion.
LoSouLibra t1_j2a7954 wrote
Maybe the term needs to be retired. It seems like a way to reinforce a notion that good movies are the ones critics, sales and rant personalities pick, and that anything outside of that is some weird thing that's not actually good.
Even the Superbowl is only watched by a little over 100 million people on a planet of 8 billion.
extremewit t1_j2adlbv wrote
I think the complete opposite will be true. People are so opinionated that film’s that would have had wider less passionate appeal will have smaller more passionate appeal. Thus creating more cult films, not less.
gobrowns69 t1_j2afn84 wrote
No
Simaul t1_j2am8jj wrote
Die Hard wasn't considered a Christmas movie until 2006.
bearvert222 t1_j2audl7 wrote
Not sure, but if so I think it’s more because modern films are too…planned for a better word? Too aware of their status?
Like a recent film I watched was The Thirteenth Floor (1999), which is very much a cult classic. Gorgeous film about a virtual reality 30s California and the people who dive into it. It’s something that bombed badly but people who see it and review it love it, and for good reason. Despite its flaws, it’s a surprisingly thoughtful film, and the Matrix seems silly compared to it. The ending has some wicked implications too.
But something like The Northman always seems to me to scream “I am a fucking ART FILM!” The A24 stuff is manufactured cult; like it expects to be and disappointed when it isn’t.
Like Don Coscarelli is cult, because Phantasm is just so damn out there. It’s not even a scary film but over the course of the movies it somehow grows into something really unusual. You can’t ever not be aware he is telling the story he wants to.
brownarmyhat t1_j29o68y wrote
Yes
brownarmyhat t1_j29o768 wrote
Well, no.
mattdamonsleftnut t1_j260cq6 wrote
Can we uncult the usual suspects? One of the worst movies of all time
SpaghettiLove2 t1_j262fij wrote
How is that one of the worst movies of all time? I agree it's not that good, but one of the worst of all time ? That's a stretch
mattdamonsleftnut t1_j26chhu wrote
If you look at the acting, story, half assed out of nowhere twist; ignore the famous actors… it is a terrible movie. Worst of all time? Maybe not, but one of the worst, yes.
ScienceWasLove t1_j26hn9i wrote
If you think it is one of the worst you clearly have not watched enough movies. Have you seen Iron Man 3 or Wonder Woman 2 or Escape from LA?
PerformerOwn194 t1_j28dkiz wrote
they’re downvoting you cause you’re right. one of the dumbest acclaimed movies ever
ScienceWasLove t1_j26hh27 wrote
You sound like a person who didn’t make it a cult classic by walking the aisles of block buster and selecting the VHS cassette.
Open-Alternative-979 t1_j261bbg wrote
Seems logical yeah. It’s a good point
mediarch t1_j25yzix wrote
I think you don't understand the definition of a cult film...
Cult films are known for their dedicated, passionate fanbase. As long as a movie has a fanbase it can be a cult movie. Not everyone likes Rocky Horror Picture Show but those that do like it really like it. Why would they care what opinion people have online?