Abstract
How quick can a scary movie establish a devoted fan following that turns a desired cinematic object into a contemporary cult classic? Pretty quickly, judging by the reception trajectory of Ginger Snaps. Less than five years after the release of the first of the off-beat Canadian low budget horror gems, Ginger Snaps (Fawcett 2000), and hardly a year after the sequel and prequel, Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed (Sullivan, 2004) and Ginger Snaps III: Ginger Snaps Back (Harvey, 2004), the series has become a b-movie buzz word for horror reviewers and fan communities alike. Critics have been quick to note the cycle‟s a-typical traits, claiming that the films focus on two teen sisters fighting off fur lined infection represents a “genre busting sensation” (Vatnsdal, 2004: 216), that extends horror mythologies to a new range of viewing groups.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 68-77 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Film International |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 21 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Menstrual Monsters: The reception of the Ginger Snaps cult horror franchise'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver