Highlander (5 Stars)

I've never been able to define what a cult movie is. The Wikipedia page on the subject makes a good effort, but I still have a tingling feeling that something is missing. It's noticeable that this page is frequently being re-edited, showing that the contributors are also unhappy with the definition. I have an intuitive feeling as to whether a film is a cult film or not, but I'm not able to write a check list which I can use to make an objective decision.

One of the main deciding factors is that a film has a large fanbase that stays loyal in their appreciation of a film as the years go by. That would imply that to be classified as a cult film, the film has to be old. I agree with that, but how old? Is 20 years old enough? One thing often said about cult movies is that they're films which went unnoticed when they were first released, but have become popular later on. That seems right, but what about "The Matrix"? It was a big success when it was made, but everything in my head screams that it's a cult movie. Intuitively. If the lack of initial success isn't present, what makes it a cult film? Is it the genre? Definitely not. Is it the originality? Maybe. Is it the fact that people (i.e. many people) are still talking about it 20 years after it was made? That's definitely a factor.

This is a topic I'd love to talk about, in person or online.

Yesterday I watched "Ghostbusters". Today I watched "Highlander". For me both films are cult movies. Both have a huge fan following. The difference is that "Ghostbusters" was a big success in the cinema, whereas "Highlander" was a failure. My "success rate", which I add at the bottom of most of my reviews, is a good indication of whether a film was successful or not. One thing the two films have in common is that they're both imperfect, but fans overlook the imperfections, either saying they don't matter or arguing them away. That's another factor I could add to pointers about the cult status of a film, but it certainly doesn't apply to "The Matrix".

Today "Highlander" was shown in the cinema as part of the "Best of Cinema" series. The cinema was almost full. That made me happy. I could tell from the audience reactions and snippets of conversation that I overheard that the majority already knew the film. Interestingly, there was a couple sitting next to me, who couldn't have been older than 25. They were born long after the film was made (1986). The man knew the film, but his girlfriend didn't. She reacted with shock at some of the events, starting with Christopher Lambert cutting off the man's head in the underground car park. Will she become a fan? I don't know, but I hope so.

One thing that amused me was the reaction of the audience to the first Quickening. It was overdone. It was exaggerated. When the cars rolled forward in unison, there was laughter in the audience. This is one of the film's imperfections. But I'm sure that if I'd talked to anyone about this imperfection they would have defended it.

It's obvious that "Highlander" was intended to be a standalone film. Several awful sequels were made, though I'm not sure why. Normally sequels aren't made to an unsuccessful film. A brilliant TV series was made, also called "Highlander". The TV series was better than the film, because it answered many questions, such as "If they're all immortals, why do some look older than others?"

Shortly after I began my blog I wrote a long post which summarised the Highlander franchise. I still consider it one of my best posts. I was inexperienced with blogging at the time. I made a perfect layout for viewing on the PC, but I didn't realise until years later that it looks messy on a mobile phone. I've decided that I'll reformat and republish the post. I shan't change the text, I'll just make it look better. I hope I can find time before this year's Fantasy Film Festival.

Success Rate:  - 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de