Things

This is it my friend. When you haunt video stores in the hope of finding the worst movies ever made you can stumble across all types of elements that can make a movie terrible but 'things' managed to combine them all to produce a film that is so bad that it totally represents the bottom of the cinematic barrel.

1.Bad special effects. Check. The mutant ants (which seem to number in the dozens despite the tiny belly that they erupted from) in some scenes seem to be filled with green slime and in others, paper mache.

2.Bad dialog. Check. This is one of those movie where everyone seems compelled to make noise no matter what they are doing. My favorite scene involves a man looking through cupboards and saying "Hummm" as he opens each one.

3.Fully dressed Porn star. Check. Porn star and club owner Amber Lynne shows up as a reporter who spends the entire movie sitting on a chair and reading off cue cards. The remarkable thing is that in one of her first mainstream films, the set she is on has lower production values than any porn she had appeared in.

4.Referrences to better movies. Check. The biggest mistake a bad movie can make is reminding the audience of much better films and "Things" seem to revel is discussing movies like "Evil Dead" and comments about "last house on the left"

I could go on but the point has already been made. Of all the movies I have seen in my life this may actually be the worst. I know negative reviews will often cause people to seek out certain films but let me just say, watch at your own risk.

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.

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 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...

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...