Just to clarify: this is about the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I’ve noticed that a lot of people tend to lump RHPS in with films like Plan 9 from Outer Space and the Giant Claw, which are viewed ironically because of their unintentional entertainment value rather than the merits they (obviously don’t) have.
The thing is, I’ve always considered RHPS a good film. Its individual elements (good performances, great music, a good sense of tongue-in-cheek and a healthy dose of anarchy) all come together to make a film that, IMHO, genuinely succeeds in what it tries to do. It’s a good comedy because it has good jokes, it’s a good musical because it has well-balanced, well-written and well-performed songs, and it’s even a good coming-of-age story for Janet (though obviously that’s not the main focus of the film). I don’t think it fails on any level, apart, of course, from the initial financial one. Compare it to a film like Repo: the Genetic Opera, which tries to do a lot of the same things and fails miserably, and this should be clear.
So, people in the so-bad-it’s-good camp (or even the so-bad-it’s-bad camp): in what way do you think RHPS failed? Is it Meat Loaf? It’s Meat Loaf, isn’t it?
Mostly so-bad-it’s-good, but it was campy, so it was like it intended itself to be that way. I think you punctuated your last sentence correctly, bad movie, good camp.
Hehe. Not the way I meant “camp”, but yeah, that works. And I’m not saying that RHPS isn’t camp, just that it’s succesful, well-made camp. I think it stands on its own without the audience participi…
pation.
It’s an amazing film. It feels like they achieved everything they set out to do - tell a weird, fun story, explore a set of oddball characters, pay tribute to the B-movies of the 50s and sing fantastic songs.
I’ve never understood the so-bad-it’s-good angle - to me, so-bad-it’s-good is something like Plan 9, where people are laughing at the film instead of with it. With Rocky Horror, they’re in on the jokes too. It is, after all, a comedy. There are some scenes where drama is taken seriously, but if they’d played it straight for the whole film like that, it probably would have fallen flat. They didn’t though, the story is mostly played for laughs, or at least with a wink towards the audience (sometimes literally, like Frank’s glance to the camera in ‘Sweet Transvestite’).
I agree. A good movie that succeeds in what it set out to do. The schlock and campiness is all intentional, and was already there in the very successful stage show on which it was based.
I’ve always thought that that “so bad it’s good” thing was unfair for RHPS. It got framed like that a long time ago and it just stuck as an easy categorization.
But then I’m a fan a musicals in general. I didn’t think Repo was as terrible as it was cracked up to be either, there are some seriously epic songs in that movie.
I think it’s good in that it is, basically, a campy comedy with song n’ dance, doesn’t take itself seriously, and is extremely entertaining - and when it came out, the gender bending edginess was new and somewhat shocking. I don’t see ANY so-bad-it’s -good in RHPS, it has some flaws, but it’s GOOD. (Are any movies quite like this ever going to be made again? Too many toys, cartoons, shooting and blasting, killing people, and fat guys with hangovers/lugging around a baby movies too make, I guess.) If you want to see schlocky bad movies, there’s plenty of that. If you want to see “good” movies, I understand there’s a movie about the life of Abe Lincoln in the works, maybe you can wait and go see that.
You’re confusing campy and so-bad-it’s good, but RHPS scores high on sets, musical numbers, and lights on a purely technical level (come on Peter Suschitzky is the DP here, he’s the DP of Empire Strikes Back).
There’s nothing cheesy in this movie, it’s defintely high level camp. Hence its cult status.
I saw RHPS for the first time in a drive in theater, by myself. So I didn’t get any audience participation action, but was able to understand most of the words. I enjoyed it.
Then I saw it in a regular theater, with the participation…and it was much better. I think it’s just a great movie that does what it sets out to do. For the most part, it sets out to give us some great song and dance routines, which I love.
I honestly thought it was so bad that it was bad. I’ve met people that go to the showings and enjoy the hell out of them, but I’m not exactly captain social so that’s not my thing.
As a movie, if you know nothing about it and watched it for the first time I’d think that most people would find it horrible.
I like Tim Curry.
I don’t like that movie.
So I can’t say it’s good in any sense really. A lot of people I know love it though.
Yes, but only if you are voting for Repo TGO. Boring film, supposedly a musical but it has no songs. Even the appearance of Anthony Steward Head and a cool premise weren’t enough to save it.
Rocky Horror: SO good it’s great. Super fun, non stop unforgettable songs, taboo breaking characters and plot, great acting and concept. Nothing there not to love. It’s a great film even without the midnight audience participation enhancement. Anyone who calls it bad is confusing “not serious realistic drama” or “campy” with “bad”. Bad films can be campy, but campy films don’t have to be bad.
In Glee, The Rocky Horror Glee Show they did a month or two ago (was it for Halloween, maybe?) John Stamos is the boyfriend of one of Glee’s more major characters, and rocks out as Eddie. Did a fine job, too. That man is aging well.
I’m voting “so bad it’s bad” option. I saw it at home (spare me the “it’s so much better in the theater” speech) and it was so boring I can’t believe I watched the whole thing.
This is the only good part of the movie, except when it ended.
I’m thinking that my older sister must have dragged me (ha!) to a couple of showings when I was a kid. I would have sworn I had never seen the movie until it was released on video, but when I rented it, I knew the entire movie by heart.