trashy movies that are fun, clever — with good screenwriting

Post Reply New Topic

What makes a movie trashy? The low budget or the subject matter that is filth? Won't something with good writing not be trashy by definition?

I have hard time calling things I like trashy.

Is Primer trashy because it was made on a shoestring budget? (Curious but not a favorite)

Is Hesher trashy?

Get the Gringo?

Being John Malkovich?

Johnny Got His Gun?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Dirty Deeds?

A Clockwork Orange?

John Dies at the End?

Bubba Ho-Tep?

Run Lola Run?

Dead Snow?

Re-Animator?

Assault on Precinct 13[Carpenter original]?

11:14?

Cube?

God Bless America?

Zero Effect?

Screamers?

Buffalo '66?

Grandma's Boy?

Roger Dodger?

Cherry 2000?

Defendor?

Harold & Kumar go to White Castle?

Pulp Fiction?

Reservoir Dogs?

Romper Stomper?

Cross of Iron?

Johnny Mnemonic?

They Live?

Planet Terror?

Death Proof?

Machete?

Hobo with a Shotgun?

The Cabin in the Woods?

Death Machine?

Shaft?

Black Dynamite?

Napoleon Dynamite?

Near Dark?

Enemy?

Class of 1999?

The Goddess of 1967?

12:01?

Miracle Mile?

Mandy?

(Got tired)

So tell me, what is trashy?

I have not seen this, and thank you for showing this.

Along similar lines:



from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975),

Dr. Frank-N-Furter created Rocky, supposedly the perfect man.

I guess I’d answer genre. You’re not trying to do an overall meaningful story (although that might come accidentally).

You’re lovingly, even obsessively focusing on a specific topic area. Like the movie The Endless Summer (1965) focused on surfing.

Harold and Kumar. {watch out i cant find the spoiler tag

Im not sure exactly what screenwriting is, but if that stuff with [hide]doogie houser has anything to do with it, its pretty good and really funny.

They didnt need doogie houser by any means, the whole White Castle Movie rocks and the G bay one is pretty good.

What really got me was that I had heard the Name Neil Patrick Harris and probably seen his face around, but didnt know he was doogie houser guy or that Doogie was still acting.

Then he shows up in one of the better recent comedies and does great. Kind of a surreal vibe in those movies that Neil highlights[/hide]

Not sure what a "trashy" movie is.

But I do know a "guilty pleasure" movie. Something that you're not supposed to like but like anyway. Can be high budget or low budget.

Any movie inspired by a board game (like Jumanji) can not be good.

"Battle Ship" is a high budget star studded special fxts CGI filled piece of contrived nonsense based upon the game of that name. But it IS fun to watch, and has a satisfying ending. And an actual retired admiral commented upon it on Utube, said it was one of his "favorite movies", and approved of its depiction of naval warfare.

a genre movie, because it so obsessively focuses on the dinosaurs, but it doesn’t deliver the goods.



Setting up this huge showdown between Robert Muldoon the Hunter and the Raptors,

it basically pisses it away with three seconds of cheap comedy.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a Steven Spielberg movie which does delivery on its promise.

And yes, the alien does hand-signal back!

^ I messed with my mashed potatoes after that just for sh*ts and giggles.

Trashy? those were state of the art blockbuster big budget extravaganzas....Made by the top people in the industry...in all fields... special effects alone were..... the very antithesis of trashy.

Jurassic Park was the highest grossing movie of all time, when it was released...
A smash hit...(only to be surpassed a few years later by Titanic.)
Close encounters was another worldwide phenomena. Another big money maker.
I think Speilberg holds quite a few spots in the top grossing movies of all time list.

They may be; American, non subtitled, consumer orientated, non-highbrow, products. But doesn't make they trashy.

Trashy is.....low budget, low class, unknown actors, unconventional scripts, somewhat shoddy movies, of questionable taste and reputation, which have some redeeming factors. And possible generates a cult following, years after they were nearly forgotten. And maybe with some questionable use of nudity... Gratuitous shower scenes, come to mind.

Brian De Palma movies, really walk that fine line. Trashy (or not?) I guess so.

Scarface is a renowned movie. But maybe its cult status has elevated it's importance.


But his other stuff, less known stuff...can go in to some strange territory.



Alot of his movies, can get quite violent, bizzare, and sexual. All elements of what I would deem a trashy movie.

Especially his earlier films.

Liquid Sky
I Spit on Your Grave

And that's exactly what the original Jurassic Park is, figuring out a new way humans can come in contact with dinosaurs.

And I still think I'm right that Spielberg set up this big showdown between the big game hunter and the Raptors, and then simply did not deliver.

And I think this is even more true when you figure his main target audience is most likely boys (?) ages 10 - 14 (attempting to get that repeat viewership like his friend Lucas got with the original Star Wars)

And this is my evolving definition of “trashy,” and not that there’s anything wrong with that!

But the author was fairly respected. Hardly trashy. Very cerebral, detail orientated, scientific accurate, or near-accurate. Atleast semi-plausible.



Trashy script is something like:

Carnosaur

Certainly not going to have the music of Jurassic, nor the life-like dinosaurs.

But I suspect “Carnosaur” will exceed its rather modest expectations as far as character, plot, conflict, heart, passion, arguments, fighting, etc.

Whereas Jurassic Park (1993) built up these huge expectations, and then through a combo of not wanting to and/or not being able to, simply did not delivery.

—————————————————

And this is where they teach us wrong about writing in school: Bad writing is not about the presence of mistakes, rather it’s the absence of positives.

That can be true with relationships, too!

Jurassic Park:





And if Jurassic Park is going to go there, they need to go there. I’m sorry, but I don’t think CPR would have saved the life of the boy Tim. The plot then becomes that the grandfather, for all his arrogance and his disrespect of nature, pays a ferociously high price.

And I do believe in CPR.

For suspected heart attack patients not breathing, or really for any person not breathing (and for children, also do chin tilt and finger-sweep of the mouth because choking is a real possibility). If CPR is used for an adult heart attack patient and AED (Automated External Defibrillator) soon thereafter, your odds of saving the person are about 1 in 5. Not great baseline odds, but beats the hell out of nothing.

I know someone can argue that electricity does funny things. That maybe the boy wasn’t grounded, etc. But the movie is setting up extreme danger, and then doesn’t deliver. It just kind of becomes like a head fake in basketball, oops, fooled you.