[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendrier de sortiesLes 250 meilleurs filmsLes films les plus populairesRechercher des films par genreMeilleur box officeHoraires et billetsActualités du cinémaPleins feux sur le cinéma indien
    Ce qui est diffusé à la télévision et en streamingLes 250 meilleures sériesÉmissions de télévision les plus populairesParcourir les séries TV par genreActualités télévisées
    Que regarderLes dernières bandes-annoncesProgrammes IMDb OriginalChoix d’IMDbCoup de projecteur sur IMDbGuide de divertissement pour la famillePodcasts IMDb
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestivalsTous les événements
    Né aujourd'huiLes célébrités les plus populairesActualités des célébrités
    Centre d'aideZone des contributeursSondages
Pour les professionnels de l'industrie
  • Langue
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Liste de favoris
Se connecter
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Utiliser l'appli
  • Distribution et équipe technique
  • Avis des utilisateurs
  • Anecdotes
IMDbPro

Things

  • Vidéo
  • 1989
  • Unrated
  • 1h 25min
NOTE IMDb
2,9/10
1,8 k
MA NOTE
Things (1989)
Horreur corporelleHorreur

Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn impotent husband, driven by a fanatical desire to father children, forces his wife to undergo a dangerous experiment. The result: the birth of a multitude of monstrous THINGS.An impotent husband, driven by a fanatical desire to father children, forces his wife to undergo a dangerous experiment. The result: the birth of a multitude of monstrous THINGS.An impotent husband, driven by a fanatical desire to father children, forces his wife to undergo a dangerous experiment. The result: the birth of a multitude of monstrous THINGS.

  • Réalisation
    • Andrew Jordan
  • Scénario
    • Barry J. Gillis
    • Andrew Jordan
  • Casting principal
    • Barry J. Gillis
    • Amber Lynn
    • Bruce Roach
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • NOTE IMDb
    2,9/10
    1,8 k
    MA NOTE
    • Réalisation
      • Andrew Jordan
    • Scénario
      • Barry J. Gillis
      • Andrew Jordan
    • Casting principal
      • Barry J. Gillis
      • Amber Lynn
      • Bruce Roach
    • 52avis d'utilisateurs
    • 35avis des critiques
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • Photos12

    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    + 6
    Voir l'affiche

    Rôles principaux19

    Modifier
    Barry J. Gillis
    Barry J. Gillis
    • Don Drake…
    Amber Lynn
    Amber Lynn
    • Reporter
    Bruce Roach
    • Fred Horton
    Doug Bunston
    • Doug Drake
    Jan W. Pachul
    • Dr. Lucas
    Patricia Sadler
    • Susan Drake
    Gordon Lucas
    • Tortured Man
    Bruce Hamilton
    • In Dream
    Daryn Gillis
    • Reporter #2
    Allison McGinnis
    • Reporter #3
    Jackie Seaman
    • Doctor's Assistant
    Jeff Payne
    • Hanging Man
    Jessica Stewarte
    • Nude Lady
    Glenn Orr
    • Stretcher Boy
    Tom Hochman
    • Igor
    Arthur Wenner
    • Joker on TV #1
    Cyril Gillis
    • Joker on TV #2
    Sohail A. Khan
    • TV Victim #1
    • Réalisation
      • Andrew Jordan
    • Scénario
      • Barry J. Gillis
      • Andrew Jordan
    • Toute la distribution et toute l’équipe technique
    • Production, box office et plus encore chez IMDbPro

    Avis des utilisateurs52

    2,91.7K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Avis à la une

    1spetersen-79-962044

    Worst thing to come out of America's hat

    I am a bad movie buff. But "Things" made me hate all of Canada by proxy. It is seriously that bad. I watched it TWICE. Once with a buddy. (He has not visited my house since then, so he might not be my buddy anymore. I don't blame him, really.)

    Then I showed it at a get-together with about a dozen friends who also love bad films. My hopes were that their good spirits and jolliness would find some seeds of corn in this turn. They were game - they tried to joke and laugh at it, but in the end it was Man vs. Machine. And, sadly, "Things"'s mean-spirited stupidity and bad sound quality triumphed over my friends' willpower - by the end, their spirits were broken. All they could do was sit there glumly and say mean things about my mom.

    I am a bad movie buff, so I thought I "needed" to see Things. I was wrong. If you are a bad movie buff, and you're considering this, back away slowly. Trust me. You do NOT need to see Things. It is worse than Curse of Bigfoot. It is worse than The Creeping Terror. It might not be worse than the soul-crushing dreariness that is Theodore Rex, but it's a toss-up. Get out while you still can.

    I actually BOUGHT this thing, and it's sitting on my DVD shelf right now. It's making me dislike the movies that sit next to it on the shelf by association. It's honestly that terrible.
    5Mike_T-Little_Mtn_Sound_Archive

    Either a 1 or a 10...I can't really decide

    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.
    1mindseye100

    Oh. my. God.

    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...
    EyeAskance

    At what point do you draw the line and say "this is NOT a movie"?

    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.
    rutt13-1

    D'OH!!!

    I laugh hysterically when I ask "What's the worst movie you've ever seen?" and my interviewee names the latest Tom Cruise, Scorsese,or even, Van Damme vehicle. (of course I'm not ashamed to admit the Belgian enetertains me). This flick is so bad I rented it for a second viewing just to convince myself, and a third to convince a friend...he agreed. This movie is disturbingly awful, but people still try to convince me they've seen worse. Of course, they've never seen THINGS and believe that the inclusion of nudity is enough to elevate THINGS to a higher level than, say, MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE 2. Laughable. Almost completely incoherent, nonsensical, no sound for looooong stretches, really lame attempts at humor (thouhg the part with the "Doctor" saying "This is horrible, ghastly BRUTAL..." is classic). Unfortunately, the only videostore around here that carried it closed down, so THINGS' reign of terror is over, and I can set no one else straight. I'm a man who likes to explore the video fringe, but this one almost convinced me to take in a steady diet of Spielberg for the remainder of my existence (blecch!!!) Anyone who can't see beyond their local multiplex should see this to learn what true bad is.....or, well, maybe not. Amazing, some of the things that get released...

    Vous aimerez aussi

    Le manoir de la terreur
    5,6
    Le manoir de la terreur
    Deathstalker
    4,6
    Deathstalker
    Vixen!
    5,6
    Vixen!
    Martin
    7,0
    Martin
    Le fils de Frankenstein
    7,1
    Le fils de Frankenstein
    Le piège
    6,0
    Le piège
    Intruder
    6,1
    Intruder
    The Room
    3,6
    The Room
    Things
    3,7
    Things
    Massacre au camp d'été
    6,2
    Massacre au camp d'été
    Double Down
    4,0
    Double Down
    R.O.T.O.R.
    2,7
    R.O.T.O.R.

    Centres d’intérêt connexes

    Jeff Goldblum in La Mouche (1986)
    Horreur corporelle
    Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby (1968)
    Horreur

    Histoire

    Modifier

    Le saviez-vous

    Modifier
    • Anecdotes
      Jessica Stewarte, who plays the nude woman in the opening scene, was a real-life prostitute. Attempts were made to include her in 2008 DVD release, but she could not be found.
    • Gaffes
      Much of the audio does not match what the characters are saying. Likewise, characters mouths frequently move but no sound comes out.
    • Citations

      Don Drake: The next time you come with me, you're staying home.

    • Crédits fous
      You have just experienced Things.
    • Connexions
      Featured in Half in the Bag: Summer Movie Catch Up and Things (2013)
    • Bandes originales
      Things Theme
      Performed by Stryk-9

    Meilleurs choix

    Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
    Se connecter

    Détails

    Modifier
    • Date de sortie
      • septembre 1989 (États-Unis)
    • Pays d’origine
      • Canada
    • Langue
      • Anglais
    • Aussi connu sous le nom de
      • Вещи
    • Lieux de tournage
      • Toronto, Ontario, Canada(The Amber Lynn sequences were filmed the North Star Media studio.)
    • Société de production
      • Left Field Productions
    • Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro

    Box-office

    Modifier
    • Budget
      • 30 000 $CA (estimé)
    Voir les infos détaillées du box-office sur IMDbPro

    Spécifications techniques

    Modifier
    • Durée
      • 1h 25min(85 min)
    • Couleur
      • Color
    • Rapport de forme
      • 1.33 : 1

    Contribuer à cette page

    Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
    • En savoir plus sur la contribution
    Modifier la page

    Découvrir

    Récemment consultés

    Activez les cookies du navigateur pour utiliser cette fonctionnalité. En savoir plus
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Identifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressourcesIdentifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressources
    Suivez IMDb sur les réseaux sociaux
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Pour Android et iOS
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    • Aide
    • Index du site
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • Licence de données IMDb
    • Salle de presse
    • Annonces
    • Emplois
    • Conditions d'utilisation
    • Politique de confidentialité
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, une société Amazon

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.