Cocaine Bear (2023)

Here’s what people seem to be missing—those kinds of movies back in the 80s were actually taken seriously, at least by the kids watching them.
And honestly, maybe the directors making those horror flicks back then thought they were making legitimate cinema too.
They weren't sitting there beforehand telling themselves, "Alright, time to go make some total trash."

Take, for instance:
"Grizzly" from 1976.
Or "The pack" from 1977—you know, that one about a murderous pack of stray dogs.
Then you've got "Barracud", "Rats", and "Piran" from 1978.
Or "aligator" from 1980, featuring that massive aligator living in the sewers.
There was all sorts of stuff like that.

At their core, these were just conventional movies.
It’s only after you get some experience and grow up a bit that you really start seeking out trash.

With Cocaine Bear, the "trashiness" is intentional from the jump—it's the whole point—and the actual story about Cocaine Bear isn't the "serious" part; it's more like a side note.
That’s why it isn't just some "80s throwback" or a retro flick like some people claim—it’s a genuine, modern movie from 2023.

It’s a bit mid and hits some pretty mediocre notes here and there, but there’s definitely something working in this film. It’s a shame they didn't just lean harder into the trash aesthetic; I think it would have landed much better that way. As it stands, it just sort of lingers in that awkward middle ground between a light action-horror flick and a full-on trash comedy.
Still, it was an entertaining enough ride, and I'm glad I checked it out.

I think both aligator and Piranha are top-tier examples of that late 70s and 80s trash cinema. To me, Piranha trash knows exactly what it is, and there’s just something inherently fun about it. It’s a solid movie, and I know people who aren't into that specific flavor of 80s cheese are going to hate on it because they can't find anything "good" in it. That's actually why I mentioned it in the recommendation thread—it's perfect for anyone who lives for that 80s cheese and trash aesthetic. If that's your vibe, you're going to have a blast with this one.

Paul Anderson7 said:It’s a bit mid and hits some pretty mediocre notes here and there, but there’s definitely something working in this film. It’s a shame they didn't just lean harder into the trash aesthetic; I think it would have landed much better that way. As it stands, it just sort of lingers in that awkward middle ground between a light action-horror flick and a full-on trash comedy.
Still, it was an entertaining enough ride, and I'm glad I checked it out.

How much more trash could this possibly get? It’s impossible. 🤣

Daniel Kelly57 said:How much more trash could this possibly get? It’s impossible. 🤣

Impossible? You clearly haven't tapped into the true magic of cult cinema yet, so here are a few picks I've personally gotten a lot of enjoyment out of:

Iron Sky

Iron Sky 2

Dead Snow

Dead Snow 2

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus

The VelociPastor

I’d probably suggest watching these in small doses, though, since it’s a little hard to stomach too many of them back-to-back. Personally, I don't mind indulging in something like this every once in a while. 😬
In terms of pure camp, Cocaine Bear is on the same level as Pulp Fiction. And if I had to pick one, I’d say Dead Snow 2 is practically a masterpiece of the genre.

bluerider3 said:You're totally right—those guys basically pioneered this whole genre of Piranha trash. This one is such a great throwback, too. I don't really see what’s "wrong" with it or why it wouldn't work as a solid cult classic; honestly, if you ask me, everything is exactly how it should be. I've spent a massive amount of time diving into pretty much every horror flick from the 80s, whether they were major hits or just obscure gems.

Actually, trash films go way further back than the ones you're bringing up. You've got the works of Herschell Gordon Lewis, and even before him, you had Ed Wood. Then moving into the 80s, you had Fred Olen Ray, plus classics like ''The Killer Shrews'' (1959), ''The Phantom fra 10,000 Leagues'' (1955), and ''Robot Monster'' (1953)... so this genre has been around much longer than people realize.
Roger Corman, TROMA, and The Asylum built entire empires on trash cinema—though, to be fair, Corman and TROMA did put out some legitimate films every now and then.

The definicija biti trebati for these movies is that they actually had some resources behind them, but because of an untalented director or just poor execution, they end up looking silly. Trash films can be a blast—for instance, I spent nearly three hours the other day at work watching ''Baby Oopsie 1-3''—but they become absolute snoozefests if they lack that sense of fun.

Now, these aren't trash:

"Grizzly" (1976), "The pack" (1977), "Piran" (1978), "aligator" (1980)...

They might look that way to someone today, but they aren't trash; they might just be bad or weak films. For context, ''Grizzly'' pulled in nearly 40 million dollars—until ''Halloween'' came along, it was actually the highest-grossing independent production at the box office.

A real trash film from that era would be something like ''Godmonster of Indian Flats'' (1973)... you only have to see the quality to tell the difference...
The fact that most of those movies had tiny budgets is a separate issue entirely. With these, you can actually see the effort put in to make everything look as good as possible.

Take ''Evil Dead'', for example—some people call it a trash film, but I don't see it that way.

Evil Dead definitely isn't trash; it’s a cult trilogy through and through. Honestly, even the series holds its own.

Betty Chase4 said:Actually, trash films go way further back than the ones you're bringing up. You've got the works of Herschell Gordon Lewis, and even before him, you had Ed Wood. Then moving into the 80s, you had Fred Olen Ray, plus classics like ''The Killer Shrews'' (1959), ''The Phantom fra 10,000 Leagues'' (1955), and ''Robot Monster'' (1953)... so this genre has been around much longer than people realize.
Roger Corman, TROMA, and The Asylum built entire empires on trash cinema—though, to be fair, Corman and TROMA did put out some legitimate films every now and then.

The definicija biti trebati for these movies is that they actually had some resources behind them, but because of an untalented director or just poor execution, they end up looking silly. Trash films can be a blast—for instance, I spent nearly three hours the other day at work watching ''Baby Oopsie 1-3''—but they become absolute snoozefests if they lack that sense of fun.

Now, these aren't trash:

"Grizzly" (1976), "The pack" (1977), "Piran" (1978), "aligator" (1980)...

They might look that way to someone today, but they aren't trash; they might just be bad or weak films. For context, ''Grizzly'' pulled in nearly 40 million dollars—until ''Halloween'' came along, it was actually the highest-grossing independent production at the box office.

A real trash film from that era would be something like ''Godmonster of Indian Flats'' (1973)... you only have to see the quality to tell the difference...
The fact that most of those movies had tiny budgets is a separate issue entirely. With these, you can actually see the effort put in to make everything look as good as possible.

Take ''Evil Dead'', for example—some people call it a trash film, but I don't see it that way.

I get this sense that back in the day, people weren't actually trying to make trash.
Even Ed Wood—as we saw in that biopic about him—actually considered himself a serious filmmaker.
And Corman—from what I've managed to watch of his, which isn't nearly enough, unfortunately—isn't really making trash, he's just making cheap exploitation flicks.

Low budgets, ripping off a cliché Hollywood blockbuster, and throwing untrained people at the camera—that's the recipe for garbage that happens to be fun. Eventually, people realized they actually enjoyed watching it... and only then did we enter this era where movies are intentionally designed from day one to be trash.

Nowadays, trash doesn't just emerge "organically" from a pile of bad filmmaking—it's a carefully calculated, pre-planned genre.
What would you even call that? Metatrash?

Paul Anderson7 said:Impossible? You clearly haven't tapped into the true magic of cult cinema yet, so here are a few picks I've personally gotten a lot of enjoyment out of:

Iron Sky

Iron Sky 2

Dead Snow

Dead Snow 2

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus

The VelociPastor

I’d probably suggest watching these in small doses, though, since it’s a little hard to stomach too many of them back-to-back. Personally, I don't mind indulging in something like this every once in a while. 😬
In terms of pure camp, Cocaine Bear is on the same level as Pulp Fiction. And if I had to pick one, I’d say Dead Snow 2 is practically a masterpiece of the genre.

Look, I've seen plenty of them. And I'm telling you, this is pure trash. 🍿

nimblemarlin6 said:I get this sense that back in the day, people weren't actually trying to make trash.
Even Ed Wood—as we saw in that biopic about him—actually considered himself a serious filmmaker.
And Corman—from what I've managed to watch of his, which isn't nearly enough, unfortunately—isn't really making trash, he's just making cheap exploitation flicks.

Low budgets, ripping off a cliché Hollywood blockbuster, and throwing untrained people at the camera—that's the recipe for garbage that happens to be fun. Eventually, people realized they actually enjoyed watching it... and only then did we enter this era where movies are intentionally designed from day one to be trash.

Nowadays, trash doesn't just emerge "organically" from a pile of bad filmmaking—it's a carefully calculated, pre-planned genre.
What would you even call that? Metatrash?

Most movies, just like today, are made for one reason: profit... not artistic merit. The goal is to invest as little as possible while squeezing out every cent.
So, they hire all sorts of people who juggle multiple jobs... but lack talent or even basic skill.
Regarding Ed Wood... honestly, if you look at his work, I don't think he was a bad director at all; he was just limited by time and resources, which forced him into that "gonzo" style of filmmaking—shoot it fast and move to the next scene.

Sometimes, you get lucky when people who actually love cinema make something great with almost nothing to work with—using whatever scraps they have available. Examples would be things like "bad tast" and "Evil Dead" (though the latter was technically born from a micro-budget, making it feel trashy).

These days, it seems like Charles Band is one of the few still making actual trash films... everything else is just straight-up garbage made by untalented hacks.

It honestly pains me to see so many people online categorizing "Evil Dead" as a trash film—it never truly belonged in that category.

Many of you are making the mistake of looking at this too superficially. Evil Dead isn't "trash," though it is a B-movie. There is a very fine line between what we call trash, cult classics, and B-movies. To address the point made above: while it is true that Evil Dead is a cult classic, suggesting it isn't trash implies that a trash movie can never be cult. I find that logic confusing.
Look, there are plenty of trash movies that have achieved cult status, such as Troll 2. A "cult" film is simply one that possesses a dedicated, obsessive fanbase. Evil Dead certainly has that, but being a cult film doesn't preclude popularity. In fact, Evil Dead is one of the most popular horror films out there, watched by people who don't even typically enjoy horror, yet it remains a cult staple because of its specific following.

Troll 2 is pure trash, yet it is a cult phenomenon. Why? Because fans hold annual festivals in honor of that movie, and there is even a documentary about it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144539/ It is likely one of the worst films ever produced.

Time Out maintains a solid list of trash films here: https://www.timeout.com/film/the-bes...vies-ever-made If you examine their top ten, would you find Evil Dead on it? Of course not, because it simply doesn't belong in that category. Evil Dead—especially the second installment—is an excellent film.
What I am attempting to convey is that if a production is labeled a B-movie, it doesn't automatically make it trash, though it certainly can be. The same applies to cult films; being cult doesn't necessitate being trash, though many cult films are indeed trashy. The distinction is subtle.

Evil Dead is a B-movie, and a great one at that. Here is the definition of a B-movie:

A B movie is any film that isn't created for an art house scene, but has a low budget. But that's not all that sets this type of movie apart, particularly when it comes to the horror genre. Most B-horror movies feature bad special effects, far-fetched storylines, and lackluster performances from their stars.

It is equally superficial to claim that "trash" is defined solely by a low budget. By that logic, Halloween would be considered trash, which it clearly isn't. Having a small budget doesn't make a film trash. On the flip side, you have high-budget trash; take James Bond, for example. By every technical rule, Bond is a trash film—it’s just been produced with a massive amount of money.

Trash movies don't have an ounce of actual dread or real emotion. It’s like they’re intentionally making fun of their own characters, using these cheap cinematic tricks just to lean into the garbage quality. Like, you know that scene where a bear leaps fifty feet right into the back of a car, and then they slow down the footage just to crank up the screaming? Total bullshit. And the people in these flicks? They act like complete idiots during even the simplest conversations. You can just tell something is off. It feels totally fake.
It’s like those animal attack horrors that didn't scare me for even one second. 🤷

Basically, you're only watching them to see how much stupidity they can actually pack into one screen.

Now, Evil Dead is grotesque as hell, but it’s got a damn good atmosphere of fear and paranoia. That’s a massive difference right there.

The whole trick is all about the feeling.

Sharknado

Just finished watching it. I was actually quite overwhelmed by how much fun it was—honestly, a bit surprised myself. It’s such a fantastic trash movie; you've got that perfect cocktail of an animal attack, ridiculous humor, and all those classic tropes. Plus, seeing Ray Liotta
is something else. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd say go for it. It’s great entertainment.

Man, what a wild ride. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this—it was absolutely brutal. My rating over on IMDb: 8/10.

Lisa Ross65 said:I went in expecting a decent little flick—something mindless I could just switch my brain off for—but man, what a letdown. It was a total drag. Boring, witless, and honestly? Almost a disaster. 👎

Jessica Jones9 said:Total garbage movie.
I was hoping I’d at least get a decent laugh out of it, but honestly, it didn't even manage that.

I suppose there isn't much to say here. Perhaps I should have provided more context, but I didn't feel it was necessary at the time. Maybe. kaže:
I want my hour and thirty-five minutes back...👎👎👎

Nancy Howard4 said:I just finished watching this, and honestly, I have to wonder why anyone would even bother throwing money at making something this stupid.

It would’ve been way more interesting if they had actually stuck to the real story about smuggling drugs out of a small plane over the States—you know, where the crew is tossing the stash out the window while being chased by the DEA in another aircraft, and then that poor bear ends up finding the loot. They could have shown the whole chaotic escape where the smugglers bail out of the plane, including that part where one of them fails to deploy his parachute properly and ends up slamming right onto someone's car.😁

I suppose I should weigh in on this. It seems necessary. Regarding the recent discussion about film direction, I find myself somewhat at odds with the consensus. Perhaps my perspective is too rigid, but I maintain that the pacing was fundamentally flawed. It felt disjointed. Maybe it's just me, but I found certain sequences to be quite tedious. I noticed boldviper16 had some strong opinions on the matter earlier. While I respect the enthusiasm, I think the argument lacks a certain level of analytical depth. It’s a bit simplistic, I guess. Similarly, when mellowskipper mentioned the cinematography, I found the point to be somewhat overstated. The lighting was adequate, nothing more. I have been looking at the ratings on IMDb, and while the numbers are high, they don't always reflect the structural integrity of the script. A high score doesn't necessarily equate to quality. It's a common misconception. I will likely remain skeptical of the upcoming releases as well. One must be cautious. The user says:
Pure garbage on every conceivable level. It doesn't even manage to land in that "so bad it's good" category. I guess it's just a total failure.

Someone apparently assumed the concept was so absurdly hilarious that it would practically direct itself. I guess they thought the idea alone would carry the entire production.

I suppose I should probably weigh in on this, though I'm not entirely convinced it matters much. It seems there is some ongoing discussion regarding the recent data. Perhaps. If you ask me, the current direction feels somewhat misguided. I guess it could be argued that certain variables were overlooked, but I find that hard to accept. Maybe it's just my perspective, but the logic appears flawed to me. It’s all quite messy. kaže:

- It could have been handled much better... the way it is, it’s just one watch and then you’re done...

Paul Anderson7 said:It’s a bit mid and hits some pretty mediocre notes here and there, but there’s definitely something working in this film. It’s a shame they didn't just lean harder into the trash aesthetic; I think it would have landed much better that way. As it stands, it just sort of lingers in that awkward middle ground between a light action-horror flick and a full-on trash comedy.
Still, it was an entertaining enough ride, and I'm glad I checked it out.

I am not sure if the issue lies with me... or how difficult it would be to make a diagnosis, but I actually found it okay... I watched it strictly as a comedy...
That one obnoxious character reminds me of someone just as deranged from back home...

I have watched all sorts of garbage that I could recommend without hesitation...

Perhaps what was missing were more close-ups of the bear actually mauling things...

Ice Cube's son is his spitting image...

How original can a slasher really be when it’s centered around some clunky, poorly rendered CGI bear? That’s pretty much what you get here. I honestly only picked this up because it was supposedly based on a true story, but they totally blew past that after a super promising opening... It’s definitely fun, though! It’s got that absurd, dark humor and over-the-top vibes, but man, I was personally expecting something way different.

Exactly. I was pretty disappointed because they basically gave away all the best jokes in the trailer.

I was expecting more screen time for the bear and actual action involving him, rather than all these cringey kids—especially that one little girl. Even their drug use wasn't funny; it was just uncomfortable. Honestly, watching those kids get high felt awkward 😬 and there were zero consequences, which sends a lovely message to any kid watching. Maybe it's just my inner boomer coming out, but I really didn't vibe with it.