Difference Between Craptastic and Cult Movies

Today on the Entertainment Weekly website, movie critic Lisa Schwarzbaum posed the question, "Craptastic or crap: How do you tell the difference?" People left comments about acquired taste (craptastic) versus offensiveness (crap) and good intentions (craptastic) versus lack of effort (crap). They compared the artistic merit and low production values of the French New Wave to the big budgets and small-minded entertainment of popcorn movies. I don't think that art and entertainment have to be mutually exclusive. I do think that both are purely subjective and both can be pure crap. All craptastic movies start off as objective crap (hammy acting and cheesy effects) but then find a willing audience (Elvira and Gibert Gottfried) - not a very large audience because that would be a cult movie, but someone somewhere sees something in the crap and they enjoy it, usually by themselves. You see, a cult movie gets shared, either at midnight screenings (The Rocky Horror Picture Show), conventions (The Big Lebowski) or as a TV staple (It's a Wonderful Life). Craptastic movies don't get shared. They flop at the box office and then become guilty pleasures. Obviously most popcorn movies don't flop but there is some overlap with craptastic movies when they do because they're such spectacular failures. Cult movies can be bad (Pink Flamingos) or good (Blue Velvet) artistically, possibly even boring, but as long as their audience is loyal and outspoken, box office totals and critics mean nothing. Craptastic movies are ALWAYS bad artistically but they're NEVER boring and their audience may be loyal but not outspoken. Now for a pop quiz: Catwoman? (craptastic, because I watched someone go for the DVD in a game of "White Elephant") Plan 9 from Outer Space? (cult, because everyones talks about it) Gigli? (craptastic, because you know Al Pacino and Christopher Walken fans watch it secretly) Showgirls? (cult, because it's got a gay following) Snakes on a Plane? (you be the judge)



My Top Five Craptastic Horror Movies (which brings up another question, since genres like action, horror, sci-fi/fantasy become craptastic when they're unintentionally funny, is it possible for movies intended as comedies to be craptastic?)

1. Troll (1986) I honestly think the little girl is scary and the dad's name is Harry Potter! The sequel has gained a cult following recently - it has three times the number of comments on IMDb.

2. Fright Night Part II (1988) A vampire on roller skates, the same Wolfman actor from The Monster Squad, a bug-eating chauffeur and I preferred it to the original.

3. The Return of Swamp Thing (1989) Heather Locklear wants to date a plant and trespassers get insect heads. That will leave scars, I don't care what anyone else says.

4. Spookies (1986) I remember the VHS case from childhood. The special effects are pretty decent considering the rest of the movie.

5. The Lair of the White Worm (1988) Hugh Grant pumps snake charming music out of speakers on his manor roof. The dream montages after each attack are so disturbing and that's all I'll say.