Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Battle Royale has already achieved cult classic status in the US.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Pacific Rim has a chance of being a classic in time

PacRim is OK, if soulless adaptation of Neon Genesis Evangelion

The first PacRim is a pretty great OK movie, if you see what I mean. But yeah it is so derivative, I doubt it will ever be considered iconic.

I'll offer Fight Club as a suggestion. That movie blew me away in 1999, and its narrative style is unusual and fun. The characters have become part of pop culture, and it had some larger cultural influence as people took the themes to heart (some even stupidly starting their own fight clubs). It also represents an interesting water mark in our culture. It came out right before the "nerd hero" phenomenon of Judd Apatow which dominated the last decade and argued, perhaps tongue in cheek - perhaps not, for the embrace of masculinity. The central character is a "beta" male who struggles with his identity and latches on to an "alpha" to find himself, with questionable results. Today the topics of masculinity, toxic masculinity, and how to raise boys are high on everyone's mind, but in 1999 that didn't get discussed much in movies.

Plus that twist. On the level of Sixth Sense for OMGWTFBBQ!

Like Matrix, Fight Club is already considered a classic movie.

PacRim has all of the superficiality of Evangelion, but none of the soul. It's great to see the giant robots battle the monsters, but the battles themselves aren't anything special, and at no point does it try to be anything more than a popcorn movie.

Compare with MCU movies, where they surprise and delight in the battles, and they also try to raise a question, a mini-debate about something. Who thought sustainability would feature as a major theme of a superhero movie?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Like Matrix, Fight Club is already considered a classic movie.

Agreed. Fight Club should actually be remade as a Red Pill counter to the genderflip movies that have been coming out.

 Manchu wrote:
Battle Royale has already achieved cult classic status in the US.

This. Not just the US.
Too old to be “modern film” too.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
and post-pubescent Elsa is absolutely gorgeous,
[…]
Thank goodness for Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, plus Wasp coming soon.
[…]
Dredd's chick was basically useless and redundant.
[…]
[Sucker Punch is a] Hugely underrated movie

Getting a theme here.

Eva brought a novel (although completely appropriate) sense of angst to the bizarre notion of children enlisted by armies to pilot giant robots in combat. PacRim doesn’t add anything to either the kaiju or the mecha genres, nor to the crossover subgenre.

Speaking of the kaiju genre, Kong: Skull Island will likely be very well regarded for it’s naturalistic depiction of Skull Island as a coherent ecosystem. That aspect of the movie is so strong, the throwaway plot and characters barely offend.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
and post-pubescent Elsa is absolutely gorgeous,
[…]
Thank goodness for Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, plus Wasp coming soon.
[…]
Dredd's chick was basically useless and redundant.
[…]
[Sucker Punch is a] Hugely underrated movie

Getting a theme here.

Did you watch those movies? Or not.

If you have something to say, say it.

I think Pacific Rim has more chance of being more a cult than a classic. It's the same story as you get with say the Riddick films - they are good and as a series form a stronger franchise; but the lack the magic or even just the market appeal/marketing to make them true classics.

Pacific Rim - Riddick - Iron Sky

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did you watch those movies? Or not.

I have seen Dredd, Sucker Punch, some movie with Black Widow, and some part of Frozen at the end.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you have something to say, say it.

You don't notice a trend?

Just a reminder that Rule One is Be Polite. Thanks!

Regarding Judge Anderson in Dredd, she crrtainly was not at all redundant. The story thematics of that movie are about idealism and cynicism. Between her naive rookie take about protecting people and the corrupt judges betraying the system for bribes, we have the complex question of Judge Dredd’s own take on justice. She’s absolutely crucial to the movie.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you have something to say, say it.

You don't notice a trend?

I'm not going to speculate against your passive-aggressive nonsense.

Say what you think, and I'll tell you if you're correct

 Manchu wrote:
This is an excellent thread topic!

Malus is spot on that Fury Road will be considered a classic. Vaktathi and nou also nailed it with Dredd. I'll add Blade Runner 2049 to this list.

Cheesecat mentioned The Witch. That movie disappointed me but I think it will be well remembered for it's strict instistance on period dialogue. I haven't seen it but I think the first Conjuring movie will likely be remembered as iconic for this era in horror.

Thanks to its box office woes, Solo may be the first Star Wars movie that could qualify as a cult classic.

Battle For Endor beat Solo by a long way.

It’s not a race to the bottom. A movie needs to be good as well as not appreciated in its own time in order to eventually qualify as a cult classic. The Ewok movies are like terrible secrets your brain keeps forgetting as part of its natural defense mechanisms until some joker (ahem!) conjours the horror back from oblivion.

Speaking of good, nay great, and unappreciated in its own time, I would say Blade Runner 2049 is overall a better movie than its cult classic predecessor. The original will always be remembered for its urban dystopia (actually echoed in the opening scenes of Solo) but the sequel has better characters, more beautiful and intriguing imagery, and more fascinating questions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Agreed. Fight Club should actually be remade as a Red Pill counter to the genderflip movies that have been coming out.

You think the movie about how toxic masculinity will destroy society would serve as some kind of counter to films being remade with women as the leads?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not going to speculate against your passive-aggressive nonsense.

Say what you think, and I'll tell you if you're correct

Well, it's all about female characters.
Also seems the more sexy they are the more you like them.
[edit]And note that I didn't state anything about this being a good or a bad thing, just an observation, for the record.[/edit]

I think most of Tarantino's films will go down as classics. There's some great visual imagery in his films and he has a very unique way of storytelling both of which have influenced a lot of other filmmakers and writers. I didn't care much for Inglorious Bastards but I've enjoyed almost all of his other films. I also really like stuff from Robert Rodriguez, films like Desperado, Machete and Machete Kills may not go down as traditional classics but he'll have a cult following for years to come.

I think Fury Road and Dark Knight can already be seen as classics as elements of them are already being discussed and incorporated into film and acting schools. It's kind of like how the original SW movies or Avatar really shook up FX and world building for their time, even though the stories weren't that impressive compared to the spectacle.

Good call on Tarantino's films. They will all reach cult classic at the very least.

I'd also put forth No Country For Old Men. Powerhouse performance by Javier Bardem dominates the film but everything in it is great, in my opinion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not going to speculate against your passive-aggressive nonsense.

Say what you think, and I'll tell you if you're correct

Well, it's all about female characters.
Also seems the more sexy they are the more you like them.
[edit]And note that I didn't state anything about this being a good or a bad thing, just an observation, for the record.[/edit]

Nope, that's not it. Not even close.

I appreciate female characters that do things that are not stupid, and dislike characters that are female for the sake of being female.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
and dislike characters that are female for the sake of being female.

?
???
?????

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Is Elsa somehow “female for the sake of being female”?

Also the Sucker Punch girls are 100% doing things that are stupid but you don't mind.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
and dislike characters that are female for the sake of being female.

?
???
?????

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Is Elsa somehow “female for the sake of being female”?

Also the Sucker Punch girls are 100% doing things that are stupid but you don't mind.

I can't help that you don't get it.

The new Oceans and Ghostbusters are female for the sake of being female, and that's stupid. Instead, tell a new story about women that isn't a rehash of a story that starred men.

Elsa undergoes puberty in the space of about 10 seconds, transforming into a hyperfeminine, sexualized ideal with winter superpowers:


The Sucker Punch girls are the protagonists who drive the story. Sucker Punch actually has a *lot* to say about femininism, the male gaze and women striving in a male world, if you're smart enough to figure out what's actually going on. OTOH, if you got sucked into the superficiality of appearances, well, that's your failure to really watch and understand the film.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is an excellent thread topic!

I thought so too
It opens a lot of potential discussion, from what defines classic movies (is it the writing, the techniques, the performances, the themes and stories examined etc.), to whether a true classic needs to excel in all those areas or whether raising the bar in one can cover deficiencies in others (so, just for the sake of an example, does the Matrix's advances in technical film making such as the bullet time sequences make up for individual performances which are less than stellar?), and so forth.

I love the idea of this thread too. Helps us celebrate some of the more recent films, and recognize that a movie does not have to be old to be good. I’m also kind of glad the Dakkanaughts here aren’t immediately resorting to the whole “it’s new so it’s clearly bad,” schtick (though it’s not my place to tell people what their opinions should be either).

I’m somewhat tempted to mention the MCU as a whole. Perhaps not for the storytelling, but for incorporating such a large shared universe across 20+ films. DC aside, I can’t recall any other franchises that have attemped this sizeable of an endeavor (though I would certainly love to hear them if I’m wrong. ) Like other posters have said, Dark Knight seems like it will be another.

I also wonder if some of the movies that continued off of their much older original movies could be counted. Blade Runner 2049 and Fury Road for instance. From what I can gather, these ones continue off of the originals, retain the themes, and still appeal to the new crowds. All of this, despite the age of their older counterparts.

I can’t say I understand the appeal of Sucker Punch however. Most reviews I have seen bashed the movie mercilessly. What was it that drew peoples’ interest? I don’t intend to bash the interests of other people, I’m just genuinely curious.

Birdemic and The Room, obviously.

 Manchu wrote:
Like Matrix, Fight Club is already considered a classic movie.

Missed that, cool!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fight Club should actually be remade as a Red Pill counter to the genderflip movies that have been coming out.

Eh... no, thanks. I think you could make a pretty good argument that Fight Club isn't as pro-masculinity as many took it to be.

I'd rather they turned the Fight Club 2 comics into a movie. If only because feth making another remake.

 Manchu wrote:


Speaking of the kaiju genre, Kong: Skull Island will likely be very well regarded for it’s naturalistic depiction of Skull Island as a coherent ecosystem. That aspect of the movie is so strong, the throwaway plot and characters barely offend.

The best aspect of Kong: Skull Island is that it seems to be very, very conscious about every aspect of the genre it belongs to - like an extract of all previous films put into one movie that kinda breaks the fourth wall using the film language and subtle parody instead of direct dialogues. And Tom Hiddleston's gas mask scene is perfect example of that.

Blade runner 2049 suffers a lot from being direct continuation of a film that is a cult classic which have influenced all aspects of popculture but which is not at all either popular movie or great story. This dependency is a burden mostly because those two films do not share the same film building language, being separated by 30 years of filmmaking evolution...

Two other films I think have their place in this thread are Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" and "Tron: Legacy". Both because they don't really have any direct competition in what they tried to achieve. And while I'm at film&sound editing aspect of cinematography, I completely forgot about Matthew Vaughn in my first post - "Kick Ass", "Kingsman" and "First Class" are all great examples on how editing should be done in action movies.

While this thread is fun and interesting, I've realized, that it has one huge flaw "by design" - we have narrowed down "modern" to about a decade, but films naturally become self-identified classics in about 20+ years, so we are discussing a strange version of history of cinematography leaving out early XXI century and when making comparisons we are jumping between post-Iron Man era of MCU and late '90 closing right after first Matrix. But the thing is - between those two film A LOT have happened - X-Men and X2 jump started the whole superhero movies era, while "I, robot" was the first movie I can remember, where full CGI sci-fi was finally believable enough to not distract but build the atmosphere of the movie. It was also the era of incorporating music videos language into mainstream cinema (few directors made their way directly from music videos production onto big screen) and a late era of original stories in blockbuster cinema, before "universes" and saga adaptations took over.

 SkavenLord wrote:
I can’t say I understand the appeal of Sucker Punch however. Most reviews I have seen bashed the movie mercilessly.

Most reviews are based on the theatrical Warner Executive cut, which shares the same wrong-headedness behind the theatrical Warner Executive cuts of Batman vs Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. They kept the superficial stuff, and cut out the meat. The Director's Cut is quite good, but very few people saw it and reviewed it. If you started with the DC (which restores 17 minutes), you'd draw very different conclusions.

I, for one, look forward to the Directors Cut of Justice League a.k.a. Snyder Cut.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The new Oceans and Ghostbusters are female for the sake of being female, and that's stupid.

Were the first one male for the sake of being male then?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Instead, tell a new story about women that isn't a rehash of a story that starred men.

Where does that stop exactly? Does that include The Heat for rehashing the good old “Buddy cop” movie formula but having women instead? If so, are the other buddy copy movies bad too, those that are male for the sake of being male? Are you similarly antagonistic of Ocean's 12 and Ocean's 13 as you are of Ocean's 8?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Elsa undergoes puberty in the space of about 10 seconds, transforming into a hyperfeminine, sexualized ideal with winter superpowers:

Spoiler:

Failing to see your point. Also if that picture is “overfeminine, sexualized”, you have very weird perceptions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Sucker Punch girls are the protagonists who drive the story.

Well, I'm sure they do, when they are done with fighting mecha with a katana while wearing a sexy schoolgirl uniform, fighting WW1/WW2 zombie amalgam in sexy uniform, fighting dragons and orcs in a sexy outfit, and doing other unrelated to anything fights in sexy outfits. Or, you know, dancing sexily for the camera. With a side order of sexy, and an extra touch of insulting pandering to the most scornful and belittling idea of what geeks like. Because when they do those things I listed, it definitely doesn't drive the largely unexplicit story that we viewer are supposed to guess.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sucker Punch actually has a *lot* to say about femininism, the male gaze and women striving in a male world, if you're smart enough to figure out what's actually going on.

Guess I'm just stupid then. I sure missed the very deep and powerful symbol that was “kill zombie WW1 trench nazis” and “fight the orcs and the dragon”. Silly me!
I just need my movie to be a little more literal when they say stuff about feminism, the male gaze, and women striving in a male world. Stuff like, say, A gun for Jennifer works great. You should try it. Or even, if you want less heavy-handed, movies like Teeth.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[SNIP]

Yeah, you're deliberately not getting it, so I'm not going to waste my time responding to you any further.

*plonk* you're Ignored.

No need to reply - I won't see it