Things

THINGS is notable mostly as a curio, being the mainstream(?) film launchpad of blue movie queen Amber Lynn. So popular was she in the jizz biz, it was probably inevitable that she'd end up lending her...ehh..."star-power"...to some zot-budget video-exclusive horror flick. Well...in this apocalyptically awful mess, Amber remains fully clothed, but demonstrates that she is, indeed, able to read(!). Her participation consists entirely of prerecorded video footage which features her as a news anchor, blankly reporting some vaguely expository clack on a TV in the house where this "movie" takes place. As she reads from her cue cards with monotone vacancy, you'll wish Ron Jeremy was on-hand to shovel his hairy plonker into her flapping maw and shut her up.

What we're offered, besides the dramatic marvels of Ms. Lynn, is badly shot footage(sans synchronized sound)of two drunk morons in a trashy house, belching out lines of witless dialog as a woman in the bedroom gives birth to several quiescent paper-mache bugs which our cretinous protagonists proceed to exterminate. That's about all I can say for certain, as THINGS is such an unfathomably disjointed thatch of unfaltering laxity that it seems to want nothing to do with itself.

Sadly, I have little doubt that some will actually find reason to praise this steaming rejectamenta as some sort of "art brut" masterpiece, rhapsodizing with masturbatory ardor over its befuddling surreal quality and experimental concrete minimalism. God help them.

1/10...a legitimate contender for "all time worst" accolades.

I have only this to say: You may not remember what happened in this film, (or you may TRY to forget) but you will never forget the experience of watching it. Trust me on this. It is BEYOND bad. Are you listening? BEYOND bad...

I consider myself to be a bad film connisseur, but this movie is THE worst EVER!!! It's a badly made Canadian giant bug film, with even worse footage of former porno queen Amber Lynn edited between scenes as a reporter, reporting on things unassociated with this movie. Its a partial rip off of Evil Dead and Last House on Dead End Street, but without the charm of either. Watch at own risk,eh.

Things is something different, that's for sure. Released in 1989 this Shot on Video horror movie tells the tale of two friends who go to a cabin and "discover a womb of monstrous horror that demands graphic dismemberment". But I doubt anyone could have understood that if they went in blind.

Dialogue that makes no sense, random scenes that do not fit in with anything that's happening and not being able to see anything that's happening. The redeeming quality is the gore effects and the music aren't bad.

This movie makes for a great movie to watch with friends and crack jokes about but should not be taken as a serious movie at all.

I typically rate movies on personal grading system:

(How enjoyable it was) + (How well it accomplished what the Director attempted to do) = Final Rating

Now...for the first part, it's pretty simple. Did I like it? Was it enjoyable? Would I watch it again? This means lots of different things, as some movies are hard to watch due to their content but are nonetheless enjoyable and well made (well made being more the second part).

The second part is much more subjective. It's easy to discuss differences between a blockbuster Hollywood production and a straight-up indie film w/ limited budget and fx. It's much more difficult to determine when it's a film made for the purpose of being bad. Some films completely miss the mark by taking themselves too seriously (ie making a seriously crappy film but believing it is true cinema). Then there are films like Plan 9, or Things, which are made with the express purpose of being bad. And when I say bad, I mean, like, REALLY BAD. Like, SO BAD that the viewer questions how any sane person could make a film. When it comes to Things, that exact scenario is what we are met with- it's a bad...REALLY bad...and intentionally so. That said, the film accomplished exactly what the director set out to do, so how can it be anything other than "very good?" Serious film elitists will look at 'Things' but rare it based on comparing it to other films. How can one of the trashiest films in history be graded under such rubric? The answer...it can't.

Therefore, when I aggregate the scores, the film is DEFINITELY either a 1 or a 10. It is disgustingly bad...horrible...a travesty of a waste of the Super 8 it was shot on...despicable. But amazingly achieved in each way.

If you're looking for a serious film to get in to, this is not the one for you. It is a '1.' If you're looking for a filthy piece of trash that is offensive to you as human and steals 90 or so minutes of your life, and offering absolutely ZERO redeeming value, then this is your '10.' If you don't know which category you would fall under, then assume it's a '1' and skip it. If you believe you might fall in to the latter, then here is your '10.' The caveat is that you will not get back the 90 minutes of your life you spent on this, so consider it dead to you.