Talk:Cult film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

older entries

I mentioned "Slaves of New York" in cult movies that found an audience in the gay community. It's article mentioned that it is considered a cult classic in the gay communtiy. Demoman87 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first link titled "cult movie reviews" because it was a dead link. I will add more quality cult film-related links in the coming days. Mondo68 08:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Alice in Wonderland being a cult film, here's an excerpt from the Alice wikipedia article: Release: Reactions & criticisms

Upon its release, the film was panned by critics and failed miserably at the box office. Disney later said he despised the film, claiming that, unlike Cinderella, Alice had a lack of "heart" and that compared to the sympathetic Cinderella (whom most people felt for), most people did not care about Alice. (It seems that Disney proposed the movie to be 75 minutes, mainly because he did not want the movie to be too long for people to watch.) As a result, it was not re-issued theatrically like most of the other Disney films until 23 years later. It was, however, the first Disney animated feature to be shown on television, as an episode of Disneyland, where it was edited severely to run within a running time of an hour.

[edit] Re-release schedule, home video, & beyond

The surreal elements in the film sparked a revival of the film in the psychedelic generation, which led to theatrical reissues on March 15, 1974 and April 3, 1981 and reruns on network television. The psychedelic association was furthered by synchronization enthusiasts who found similarities in run time and themes between the film and the Pink Floyd album The Wall and the Tool (band) album Lateralus. The film was released on video in 1981 and 1986 (though it was mastered for tape in 1985), staying in general release ever since, with a 40th Anniversary video release in 1991 (this and the 1986 video release were in Disney's Classics Collection), and again in 1994 and 1999 (these two were in Disney's Masterpiece Collection.) It was released on DVD in Region 2 in 1999 and in Region 1 in 2000 (under the Gold Classic Collection DVD series), and on a fully restored two disc edition in 2004. A video game version of the film was released on Game Boy Color by Nintendo of America on October 4, 2000 in North America. Additionally, Disney's take on Wonderland also appeared as one of the first worlds in Disney and Square Enix's Kingdom Hearts. Alice is also one of the fabled "Princesses of Heart" needed to open the Keyhole to Hollow Bastion.

Today, the film has a devout cult following and is considered to be one of Disney's classic animation movies.


I'd say that qualifies. DASA2 6:29, 26 December 2006

Can someone help with citations on the list of cult films? I know a back issue of entertainment weekly had a list of the top 100 cult films of all time, there is also a large book called "Cult FLicks and Trash Pics" that I've read but do not have. This book is an encyclopedia of hundreds of cult films. If someone could track these down and use them for citation that would be great. DASA2 3:33, 19 December 2006

--- Unfortunately, part of the problem with the growing misconception of what a cult film is has come about because of ill-informed texts like the Entertainment Weekly article you're refering to and the Cult Flicks and Trash Picks book. There are many films listed in both of those sources which do not meet the traditional definition of cult film. An even more dubious reference is "The Rough Guide to Cult Movies", which features many big hit movies and incorrectly identifies them as cult films. As I noted below, I have a large collection of cult movie related books and magazines and would like to help straighten this mess out a bit.Mondo68 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca always seemed to be more of a classic film than a cult film. I don't see how it is cult film at all. DASA2 7:23, 27 November 2006

Casablanca sometimes gets listed as a cult film because for many years, before cable television and home video, it was not recognized as a real classic. Humphrey Bogart in general was a major cult figure for decades. At this point, it has been recognized as a classic for so long that it has transcended it's former cult status completelyMondo68 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Casablanca" may have a specific "cult following" but I agree with the two comments above - it could never be considered a cult film. It has always been recognized as a classic - it won three Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. Bogart and Claude Rains were nominated for Oscars for their parts in the film as well. Also, Humphrey Bogart was more than a "cult figure"; he was one of the most popular leading men in Hollywood throughout the 1940's and 50's. Proclivities

Does Anyone think Chuck Norris should be added to cult actors? He Is famous for mostly second rate movies that don't do well. yet they have diehard fans. then again his mainstream success with Walker Texas Ranger might take him out of the cult category. I'm not sure. Your input please?Technobabble1 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a Plane? Really? OTOH, if it is, then there should probably be a note about how it's the only film to have gained cult status before being released.AtomSmith 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime (most of it at least, Miyazaki movies and Pokemon, etc. are not included) and Chinese martial arts movies are still very much cult cinema. Citation (for anime): http://www.animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=1237. Also, Chinese martial arts movies being cult... that's just common sense. And anyway, I'll be damned if there are more anime fans than Monty Python fans. =/--Samurai Drifter 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we really say that the internet film "Life of A Tennis Ball" has gained cult status?

I recently got into a debate with somebody over whether or not Shaun of the Dead is considered a cult film. As discussed below, the definition of a cult film is something that attempts to appeal to a smaller audience than the mainstream. I brought this up, but he says that the sardonic nature of the film does prove popular among the general public. So, opinions abound-cult film or not?

  • "Cult film" can also refer to a film that has a devoted smaller group of fans within mainstream success. (
    Ibaranoff24
    00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Ask again in six years. It's in "potential cult film limbo" for a while. But remember that it sold an awful lot of tickets.24.33.28.52 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Shaun of the Dead seems like a cult movie because it parodies many cult movies. -Scruffy1

quote The attraction of cult films is often totally different to the original intentions of the director unquote

I would like to see the often changed into sometimes. When it would be often it would refer to B-Movies or camp movies or movies that are so bad that they are good (like E Wood) user:jahsonic

Hmmm. I think to be regarded as a cult film, you can't have massive mainstream success on first-run cinema release. Hence I doubt that the James Bond films, nor Pulp Fiction, should be on this list. Robert Merkel

I agree, I believe that cult films should meet some set guidelines. The list below is good, but we should add low-budget. Also, movies that attempt to gain a cult following, (eg. some of Hollywood's High-Definition video attempts at arthouse) should not be included.
Maybe we should make 2 different lists: one for cult films that have had mainstream success, and one for those that are only cult films. -- LGagnon 02:07, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Cult films that have had mainstream success" is an oxymoronMondo68 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The non-definition of "cult film" is a cop-out and is likely to annoy anybody looking for a definition, IMHO.

Some key points (not every film that has "cult" status has all of these):

  • Cult film is in the eye of the beholder.
  • Cult films attract obsessive fans
  • Cult films generally don't gain that status until some time after their release.
  • A film that attracts too large a number of fans cannot be regarded as a cult film.
  • Films of certain genres (horror, science fiction) are more likely to be regarded as "cult" films.
  • The attraction of cult films is often totally different to the original intentions of the director,

and often contains "subversive" elements like references to homosexuality.

What do others think RM

The non-definition was put up in an attempt to drive out exactly these sorts of ideas... Why don't you ramp up the definition accordingly? sjc

I must have misinterpreted your original article - I thought that you meant that saying *anything* about what makes a film a "cult film" is pointless. I apologise. In any case, if nobody else comes to the party I'll write some more on the topic in a bit-- RM

No, I can see how you took it that way. I maybe didn't phrase it too well: I wasn't saying it was pointless, more that as soon as one position becomes apparent, another contradictory one will tend to refute it. I think you have some well thought out ideas about it, though, and I'm interested to see what you come up with. sjc

I think that a series films like the Bond flicks might qualify differently that one-offs like Pulp Fiction, no matter the audience. The category seems to me like a different FLAVOR of cultishness from, say, Rocky Horror, but not a totally different phenomenon. --MichaelTinkler

Hi. Do you think that the Elvis films are considered cult ex.Viva Las Vegas and in what terms?I'm writing an essay on paracinema in relation with Elvis musicals and I'm quite stuck because I can't find an example of Elvis films as cult. basil

Yes, WRT some of the criteria I put up earlier (that haven't been transferred to the main article yet, unfortunately), I think Elvis films might well qualify. You might consider Elvis films as cult in the context of the Elvis (as a whole) cult. However, as criteria number one said, cult is in the eye of the beholder. My parents probably consider Star Wars a cult film. --Robert Merkel

Apocalypse Now and particularly The Graduate don't strike me as particularly cultish, by the way - certainly not in the way that Withnail and I is. --Robert Merkel

The article at present reads very much like someone's essay about what cult films are. If this is studied academically, as the article says, then can we explicitly represent the bulleted list of "cult film characteristics" as the mainstream view in academia of what cult films are?

Let me put it a different way. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate the contents of this article. What makes the various claims in the article true? I'm not asking anyone to justify them, I'm asking: what phenomenon in reality are we trying to describe? Common usage of the term "cult film"? Perhaps some academic usage of the term? Or one of these and some general description of cult films generally, given that usage? --

LMS

I plead guilty, here. Frankly, in terms of its common use, I doubt it has meaning any longer when it's applied to everything from
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
. As for an academic term, ask a cinema studies student and hope the reply uses words of less than seven syllables occasionally and doesn't quote Derrida and Satre :)

Seriously, in the absence of anything better to hand, I tried looking at the list of films here and deducing some common characteristics. If somebody has more or better information on it, by all means provide it. I suspect you'd need to be up on your cinema studies journals for a better definition, something which I am most definitely not. --Robert Merkel

As a thought & an aside :: If "cult" is in the EOTB, then who cares what a cinema studies "expert" or "journal" says about it? A cult film sticks its head out not. "The Graduate" has ascended to many a top 100 list o' cinema. Classic, not cult. James Bond defines a particular genre, enjoys mainstream success AND detailed academic criticism, and paints it on thick very un-self-consciously. Kitsch, not cult. Something like Roger Nygard's "High Strung" remains obscure but somehow isn't a cult movie (is it...?) while "Rocky Horror..." retains cult status despite being (now) well-known. The question we then return to is that of the audience & the spectator. Perhaps this question is why a film like "Rocky Horror..." will continue to retain cult status while Nygard's "High Strung" will pass into obscurity. Put "Rocky Horror..." in theater and "they" (you know who I'm talking about) will still come. And they'll still come in full regalia. "Rocky Horror..." doesn't create spectators but participants. ~~latexture

That's your opinion, and it might be yours alone. What prominent academics say about "cult film" is interesting. What the general public considers cult films, if it diverges significantly from the academic opinions, is interesting. A personal opinion (for instance, mine, which got this whole discussion started) is probably not all that interesting - no offense, but . . . --Robert Merkel
None taken, however it seems you glossed over my most salient point : The elevation(?) of a film to cult status occurs independently of both the director's intention and the academics' evaluations. I would like to place particular emphasis on the latter portion there because they become little more than inconequential observors (akin to pop-cinema's spectatorial public) -- reacting rather than interacting. ~~latexture

I can't wholly agree that "cult" is in TEOTB. We can set out some basic guidelines to determine if something is a cult film. Mondo68 08:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Larry, you'll be happy to know I've dug up the title of a book called "The Cult Film Experience" edited by a cinema studies academic, J.P. Telotte. I'll see if I can locate the book. --Robert Merkel

Sounds good! Looking at the listed films and deducing common characteristics would constitute original research, I think. --

LMS

A decent book - there's an excellent article on Midnight Movies in it that lists years and years worth of a specific theater's midnight movie bookings. This is a book that I do not own, but is available at my local public library, I may be taking it out again soon.Mondo68 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in this case, but this brings me to a point. There are some areas that are sufficiently new and obscure that there either isn't much credible research out there (video games, for instance). What do we do then? Not include them in the Wikipedia--Robert Merkel

Alternate definition of a cult film: a film which is pointless, humorless, and dumb while the viewer is alone, but totally hilarious and mind-altering when the viewer is either drunk or with a roomful of giggling idiots. --User:firepink

Useful links:

A link to "Big Trouble in Little China" is needed on that list, methinks.

So add it to the list already. --Paul A 03:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Batman? Give me a break. ike9898.

Oh, I just looked and apparenently this is some old batman movie from 1966. I withdraw my objection.ike9898
It's actually the film based on the
Ibaranoff24
02:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

Napoleon Dynamite

Does Napoleon Dynamite actually belong on this list? It hasn't really been around long, and it seems to have more hype than an actual following from what I've seen. Could someone confirm if it belongs here? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 21:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

It certainly has cult potential. I would think it's a little early to decide. --Feitclub 20:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree -- it may be too new, but since it's already on the list and definitely has a high school cult following, at least in this area, it ought to remain. CsikosLo (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely don't know about that. It's far too popular to become one I think. Mostly everyone in my highschool knows of the movie, and most of Those people can quote from it. - Sheila (Jan.13, 2005)

The problem is the Napolean Dynamite has the feeling of a cult movie and the following feels that way to (minus the numbers of people who like it). Its wildly popular, so I don't know if that excludes it from the possibility of being on here, but it certainly feels like its a giant cult-that almost everyone is involved in. I think part of it is that thanks to better communication, strange ideas like this can become wildly popular quickly, (flash comics like Homestar Runner, for example) so even though they spread in a cult movie-like manner, they are not cult movies in the traditional sense. - Ian Burnet (December 7, 2005)

Not cult. Too popular. --Samurai Drifter 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments by 67.93.241.162 moved here from article

I am interested in making some trades with some people. If anybody else is interested in trading let me know.

I have:

Eraserhead direct from David Lynch's website.

David Lynch Short films from his website

badi - the turkish ET.

I also have a bunch of Miike Films. Including his vampire television epic. I will also soon have zebraman.

Crimewave

Electric Dragon 80,000 volts

big time - starring Tom waits.

I also have “Sympathy For Mr. Vengance”

I also have a lot more. Just email me at [email protected] if you are interested in making any trades.

The tommy page links to the tommy album by the who.... if there is a movie you should link to that else... it's not a film? -[user:Grenavitar|gren]


Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory - So bad it's good

While Willy Wonka may not have been a finacial success on it's release, I have never heard it refered to as a "so bad it's good" type of film and thus I've removed it as an example from the "so bad it's good" section. If anyone insists it should be put back please provide references supporting it as a "so bad it's good" film. --Cab88 12:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How about this? [1] It's not an "official" review, per say. But it does prove that at least some people view it as an (unintentional) "camp" film. (
Ibaranoff24
02:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

I'd like to second the notion that Willy Wonka does not belong in this category, or at the very least its status is arguable enough that it should not serve as an example of 'so bad it's good'. The cult appeal appears to be in its status as an object of childhood nostalgia, in its supposed drug references (or at least its psychedelic esthetic) and in the comedic performances of its actors. While its special effects may seem humorously dated now, the main appeal of this film seems to be in these performances. Compare it, for example, to an Ed Wood or Sam Arkoff film, in which the script and acting and preposterous in an of themselves, and likely were seen as such even when new. 141.155.136.90 18:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I third this. I did a double-take apon seeing it listed here. Whether or not is is good is NOT the issue. The issue is that it has not become successful as a cult movie because it is bad. It has become successful because many see the movie as artistic and creative. The provided article is hardly edivence for this sort of categorization. Unless more evidence is to be added that most people consider this movie with the lowest of the low (which will definitely not be the case), this should be removed from this section, which I am doing. Readding it without reason will result in it being removed further. And no, I don't mean to start a flame war, I just think that that is highly miscategorized for Wikipedia's standard of quality.-Ian Burnet (December 7,2005)

Delisted from GA

I delisted this from the

Good Article
list because it:

  • has no statement of references, which is a requirement (also no inline citations)
  • poorly written:
weak lead
needs expansion; many parts jump around from topic to topic. For example
The Dorothy section has to be explained
  • No rationale for list of Directors

AndyZ 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Actors and Directors

I’ve decide to restrict the lists of cult actors and directors due to overcrowding, especially with people who are extremely successful and mostly known for very widely acclaimed and/or viewed films. I also re-alphabetized the lists. I’ve eliminated the following for the following reasons. I’m open to any objection or arguments

Actors

  • Crispin Glover - although possibly a cult figure for his bizarre behavior, he’s best known for his roles in the very successful Back from the Future and James Bond series
  • John Cameron Mitchell - only starred in one cult film, worked mostly on Broadway
He belongs in the latter list, for directing Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Jonathan F 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keanu Reeves - a mega-celebrity who is starred in many blockbusters
  • Pam Grier - a major star in her day
  • Sarah Douglas - best know for very successful Superman and Conan series
  • Ted Raimi - he’s probably best known for his work in cult films and TV series but is he well-known enough at all to make this “select”ive list?

Directors

  • Herman Cohen - A producer, not a director
  • Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
    - known almost exclusively for the Matrix series, which were high-budget, widely successful films. Yes, there was a cult audience for those films within the larger audience but by that standard George Lucas and Steven Speilberg would be on this list.
  • Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Danny Boyle, David Fincher and Alexander Payne - each of these directors has a unique style and has experienced more critical acclaim than commercial success but does that really make them cult directors? Most of their films were either not categorized or questionably as cult films on Wikipedia and/or opened to wide availability and critical acclaim which defies the definition of cult film stated in the article.
Wes Anderson and Payne are cult directors because of their cult films (Bottle Rocket and Election, respectively). Rushmore, also by Anderson, had an estimated $10 million budget and went on to win awards and accolades, but not a wide audience. Instead, it won a small, devoted following, i.e. a cult. With Boyle's Trainspotting and Fincher's Fight Club continuing to play to midnight audiences, it wouldn't be hard to argue that these films too have cult appeal. Should we perhaps give it another decade before adding these names into the pantheon? Jonathan F 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agnès Varda, Takeshi Kitano, Jean-Luc Godard and Stephen Chow - these are all foreign directors who have been widely successful in their homelands. It’s short-sighted to call them “cult directors” because their work doesn’t receive the same due in the US; dozens of foreign directors would meet that criteria.
  • Jan Svankmajer
    - avant-garde filmmakers are more known to film and modern art students than the average person. I think they occupy a more scholarly place than the typical cult film.

Ed Wood

I have updated the so-bad-its-good section to feature Ed Wood more because he is so well knwn for this. Please let me know how you feel. Oogie13oogie 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've purged M. Night Shyamalan as there is no cult for Praying With Anger or Wide Awake and his other films are hits on any scale. Jonathan F 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Wannabes

Should there maybe be a small mention of movies which attempt to -deliberately- become cult films? Here I'm thinking specifically of BUCKAROO BANZAI. It plastered "cult movie" all over itself from the word go, but has only marginally become one in real life. I'm not sure that there are enough examples to justify mentioning it as a phenomenon, though. 24.33.28.52 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another set of examples might be "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" from Grindhouse. Both were made, essentially, to be deliberately "so-bad-they're good" movies, "Planet Terror" especially mimicking a lot of the tropes one might associate with cult horror films. Basically, they're faux-cult films - although considering Grindhouse's awful box office performance, it's quite possible that the films could grow in popularity and be able to be considered actual cult films - lord knows I've seen enough "Death Proof" t-shirts around my college campus. Festford (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Genex

Is this a neologism for Generation X, or what? --Emurphy42 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrence Malick

Does anyone else think that Terrence Malick is becoming a cult director, especially with his recent films "The New World" and "The Thin Red Line", which have large fan followings? Casey14 19:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

oh you are confusing terms there then. Malick is seriously far from being a cult director, every movie he releases becomes a huge critical and box office success. His only "weird" trait is that he directs a movie like every decade. I dont understand why George Lucas is on that list either, thats another big example of confussion there.

Cult film vs. cult classic

Are these the same things? Reviewers often say or write stuff like "This film is destined to become an instant cult classic". Do they mean it will attract only a very small number of followers (ie. a cult film), or are they predicting it will be extremely popular (ie. a classic)? I think it's often the latter sense that's intended, and they're just engaging in journo-waffle when they mix the two up. But given that the term "cult classic" has become widespread, the sense of "cult" seems to becoming distorted from its original meaning. JackofOz 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think a cult classic has to be a film. I came to this article from use of the term in a computer game article[2]. I question the validity of the "Cult Classic" redirect. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The terms are contradictory, or at least they used to be. Many movie reviewers, like sports commentators and writers, not only misuse terms, but often fall back on the use of hackneyed phrases and meaningless cliches; adding the word "classic" to another term is a perfect example of their shoddiness. It is part of an attempt to demonstrate that they have some ability to predict the outcomes of cultural events. To claim that a film "will become a cult classic" reminds me of when sports broadcasters say, before a game even takes place, that it will be "pivotal" (ie. "pivotal Game 3"). One cannot really know these things until after they have occurred. It is not some sort of professional sin to make such speculations, but they are only speculations; it has become so commonplace that these comments are essentially meaningless. Proclivities (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated List of Cult Actors, Directors and Films

Like with "Deleted Actors and Director", I decided to restrict the list due to overcrowding and especially with people who have since been hugely successful and bext known for their widely acclaimed and/or widely viewed films. The following has been removed for the following reasons. Feel free to comment.

Actors


Directors

  • Takeshi Kitano, Akira Kurosawa, Takashi Miike and John Woo - For the above reasons, they have been hugely successful directors in their homelands. Again, it would be short-sighted to call them "cult directors" on the basis that they did not recieve the same recognition abroad. By this logic, dozens of foreign directors would fit in this category.


Films

  • The Departed - Only just been released. At this point, it would be unclear whether the film will be quite successful and have a cult following or it becomes a huge blockbuster.
  • The Seven Samurai - A universally loved film, infact, the wiki article of this film did say it's "one of a select few Japanese films to become widely known in the West".

Now i see

Cult status, Cult director and Cult films are confussed with popular, fanbase or counterculture. There is no way that George Lucas, Ridley Scott or Sam Raimi could be called Cult Directors at this stage of their careers, Star Wars is known worldwide, it has a huge fanbase, but its not a cult film per se just because there is a cult-like group that follows their movies, on the contrary that is usually regarded with the more proper term "fanbase". Films like Fight Club are not cult films either, mainly because its a counter-culture film that is widely known and acclaimed (and not by just a small group). The main problem of this article is that it doesnt have its lines defined, thus movies are being confused here.


--- I have made some edits to differentiate between these two catagories of film. There has been a distortion of the term "cult film" in recent years to include widely popular, mainstream films which happen to have an obsessive fanbase. Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, The Matrix, The Big Lebowski, and of course, Star Wars, are all examples of this.Mondo68 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

zea I think that due to the success of the Big Lebowski and Fight Club on video as opposed to in theatres as well as the zealous fanbases, I think they can both be considered cult films. I think a film's mainstream success at the time of release can have alot to do with it. DASA2 12:13, 28 March 2007

that's kind of an outdated way to look at it - it is very common now for movies to do better on video than theatrically - the spirit behind the idea of the cult film is to find and celebrate movies that not many people know about. Before home video, if a movie failed at the box office, it would virtually disapear, so focusing on success at the time of release was a way of gauging if a movie was widely known or not - now, many movies are expected to do better on dvd than theatrically - the way movies are being delivered to audiences is changing, but a famous movie is a famous movie is a famous movie, and it's not a cult movie Mondo68 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

TCM Underground

I've recently made the article pertaining unto that very programming block for

cult films. It would really appreciated if anybody along this end would help out in improving its stublike being. DrWho42
18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult_film/Archive_1&oldid=248134311"