The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Let me tell you what i think makes a cult film. Not all of these apply to every cult film, but some may apply to certain cult films, that do not apply to others(if you get me)
1. Bad rep during release, meaning that the film is first sneered upon.
2. SEX, lots and lots of sex.
3. extreme use Foul language or violance.
4. Strange lingos and expressions.
5. Unusual characters.
6. If the film has a sequal(s) then there are usually links even if the films are completely different (Kevin Smith films for example)
7. Sad endings.
8. Enough plot twists to get you caught up.
9. Exploitation.
10. making the censors pull their hair out, trying to make the film less 'offending'.
11. A director that is a few sandwhichs short of a picnic, or so caught up in their art filled mind that the film becomes very surreal.
Did i miss anything? please feel free to correct me (unless you are obsessed with gimps and only desire to turn me into one)
1. Bad rep during release, meaning that the film is first sneered upon.
2. SEX, lots and lots of sex.
3. extreme use Foul language or violance.
4. Strange lingos and expressions.
5. Unusual characters.
6. If the film has a sequal(s) then there are usually links even if the films are completely different (Kevin Smith films for example)
7. Sad endings.
8. Enough plot twists to get you caught up.
9. Exploitation.
10. making the censors pull their hair out, trying to make the film less 'offending'.
11. A director that is a few sandwhichs short of a picnic, or so caught up in their art filled mind that the film becomes very surreal.
Did i miss anything? please feel free to correct me (unless you are obsessed with gimps and only desire to turn me into one)
Page:
hey! when I said in a gimpy a way, I meant a mutally gimpy way, because there is a whole lot of gimpery going on around these parts.
I criticised you about Memento, because I thought the extra feature was waranted and showed a great deal more of whatthe short story the film was based on wanted to convey, namely revenge and its various manifestations. In an effort to make a subjective film, from Leonard's point of view, Nolan made the film far too complex for many people to realise the story's message about revenge. When watched chronologically the film is equally valid as this motif becomes more obvious. Admittedly it does undermine the subjective perspective of film, with the exception of still having leonard's voice-overs, but it doesn't ruin it. I would still say that Nolan's version is better, but I wouldn't flame the other version as utterly pointless. I imagine that's why it was a hidden feature.
I criticised you about Memento, because I thought the extra feature was waranted and showed a great deal more of whatthe short story the film was based on wanted to convey, namely revenge and its various manifestations. In an effort to make a subjective film, from Leonard's point of view, Nolan made the film far too complex for many people to realise the story's message about revenge. When watched chronologically the film is equally valid as this motif becomes more obvious. Admittedly it does undermine the subjective perspective of film, with the exception of still having leonard's voice-overs, but it doesn't ruin it. I would still say that Nolan's version is better, but I wouldn't flame the other version as utterly pointless. I imagine that's why it was a hidden feature.
thank you for your input mr happy. at least you have something creative to say (even though some of the time you may be stuck for ideas so you just decide to insult me)
I should have added technical features as well, but why bother? the only people reading this are just here to take the mick, not to actually take into effect what i am saying.
It doesn't bother me that you 3 insult me, cos i know i am not a gimp and i find it quite sad that you take the time to find my forums and think up pathetic little things.
I should have added technical features as well, but why bother? the only people reading this are just here to take the mick, not to actually take into effect what i am saying.
It doesn't bother me that you 3 insult me, cos i know i am not a gimp and i find it quite sad that you take the time to find my forums and think up pathetic little things.
For a film student it's surpising that you missed out all of the director-side of things.. ie camerawork:
1. Use of lens filters - give your film a tint for guaranteed indie credibility
2. Use of lenses - use wide angle and telephoto lenses to make a statement, goes down well with those who know how cameras work
3. Use of tracks - the movement of the camera can be truly beautiful, some directors have used tracks to amazing effect. Others haven't.
4. Use of film stock - you can use black and white, colour and a plethora of in-between film stocks to achieve the artistic statement of your choice.
5. In camera effects - guaranteed sign of arthouse pretentiousness.
6. use of never-before seen camera techniques - sure sign of cult success to come, a film that does something new.
1. Use of lens filters - give your film a tint for guaranteed indie credibility
2. Use of lenses - use wide angle and telephoto lenses to make a statement, goes down well with those who know how cameras work
3. Use of tracks - the movement of the camera can be truly beautiful, some directors have used tracks to amazing effect. Others haven't.
4. Use of film stock - you can use black and white, colour and a plethora of in-between film stocks to achieve the artistic statement of your choice.
5. In camera effects - guaranteed sign of arthouse pretentiousness.
6. use of never-before seen camera techniques - sure sign of cult success to come, a film that does something new.
15). LOTS of gimpness. Just get BradW to help write the script.
Hell, get him to make the whole damn film!
Hell, get him to make the whole damn film!
Page: