Image

Stop & Smell the Grindstone

Sports, Pop Culture, Lifestyle, Health & High Fives

Tag Archives: bad

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: NO HOLDS BARRED

/

“No Ring. No Ref. No Rules.”

  • Movie: No Holds Barred
  • Directors: Thomas J. Wright
  • Starring: Hulk Hogan, Kurt Fuller, Joan Severance, Tiny Lister
  • Rotten Tomatoes rating: 11%

Continue reading

A Little Context

First and foremost, I like professional wrestling. So there is no “I hate wrestling” attitude threaded throughout this review. I want to say that up front. I watched WWF/WWE, WCW, and ECW as often as a could through high school and the first couple years of college. And if you’re wondering, Dean Malenko is the greatest wrestler of all time. While I don’t watch it so much anymore, I will not hesitate to defend it. I’m saying all this because if you’re interested in watching No Holds Barred, you’re either a bad movie fan, a wrestling fan, or, like me, both.

In 1989 Hulk Hogan was riding high in the WWF. He has just beaten Randy Savage to win the championship at Wrestlemania V, but it had been a few years since his appearance in Rocky III. The time was right for a Hulk Hogan to be back on the big screen. Enter No Holds Barred.

Take a look at this sweaty-man-filled trailer:

 The Film

Hulk Hogan is Rip Thomas, World Heavyweight Champion of the World Wrestling Federation. It’s never really explained but in the world of this film pro wrestling, specifically the WWF, is the most popular thing on TV. And Rip is the biggest star. Not wanting his network to be second place in the ratings, Brell (played by Kurt Fuller), the head of rival channel World Television Network, wants Rip to jump ship. After his first attempt fails–literally a blank check–it’s time to play dirty. Brell’s plan B is a rival wrestling program–literally called “Battle of the Tough Guys”–that attracts the attention of the seemingly unstoppable Zeus. What follows is a series of attacks on Rip or those he cares about, in order to persuade him to meet Zeus in the ring.

Get ready for plenty of this

The main issue that keeps this movie from being entertaining is basically the same issue I have with any pro wrestling show–too much talking. For a movie starring a wrestler, and about a wrestler, there isn’t nearly enough wrestling. I know they want to inject a little meaning into the final battle, but come on. The Rocky movies had an excellent mix of story and boxing. Here you get two matches, one at the very beginning and one at the very end. You don’t even get any cool training montages of Rip leg drops. What we get instead is A LOT of Zeus doing things. Mainly punching and growling. You also get plenty of Brell talking. Exciting stuff. It’s a Hulk Hogan wrestling movie that doesn’t have enough Hulk Hogan and wrestling. I don’t understand how that happened.

When we finally do get a match, it’s mostly punching and face grabbing. The bout between Rocky and Hulk  contained more wrestling moves than this, and was way more exciting, and that was a movie about a boxer. There is no excuse for why the last match is so boring. Yes, wrestling is planned out, but it’s exciting because it’s largely improvised in the moment. If you were filming a wrestling movie and you had days to shoot one match, you’d think it would come out a little better. Ready to Rumble, another bad movie about wrestling, at least knew to get the wrestling right. Simply caring about Rip’s brother isn’t enough to make it exciting.

Moving on from the wrestling, No Holds Barred is just a weird movie full of characters that don’t make any sense. It’s already strange seeing Rip being taken seriously by anyone considering he’s in wrestling attire throughout most of the movie, but compared to the villains Rip seems like the normal one. Brell and Zeus are like caricatures of the mean, business man villain and the tough, crazy villain. Brell is such a colossal dick that it’s a wonder he was ever even hired, let alone made it to the top. But now that he’s in charge, he is apparently so set on having the number one network that he’s literally willing to kill in order to do it. Zeus is SO tough that his arms cannot drop below a 45 degree angle. He never really talks and apparently does not possess the ability to move at regular speed.

Joan Severance is fine, though it’s hard to believe that she is attracted to Rip at all. There is zero chemistry at the beginning and them growing closer throughout the movie is never believable. It’s that “there is more to you than I thought therefore I will fall in love with you” cliche. Their coupling just kind of happens, and we’re expected to believe it would happen. Who wouldn’t fall for Hulk Hogan I guess?

But Can I Drink To It?

A big yes. This is a fun bad movie, thanks to how over-the-top and absurd it is.

Rules (to get you started)

1.  Zeus walks slowly – DRINK for 3 seconds!

2.  “jock ass” – DRINK for 5 seconds!

3.  Rip makes someone literally shit their pants – finish your DRINK!

4.  Someone’s face is being held onto as an offensive move – DRINK for as long as it happens!

He dresses like this through 95% of the movie. Unsurprisingly.

I watched No Holds Barred on Netflix for free. However, there is a blu ray on Amazon for $10. I’d by lying if I said I’m not seriously considering buying it.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: IN THE NAME OF THE KING: A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE

/
King - title

“Rise and fight”

  • Movie: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
  • Directors: Uwe Boll
  • Starring: Jason Statham, Leelee Sobieski, Ron Perlman, John Rhys-Davies, Kristanna Loken, Matthew Lillard, Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds
  • Rotten Tomatoes rating: 4%

Continue reading

A Little Context

I know it might seem a little unfair going after an Uwe Boll film, but at the same time, he is so synonymous with bad movies that I couldn’t just not pick one at some point. For those who may not know, Uwe Boll is a director/writer/producer of many bad movies including BloodRayne, Alone in the Dark, and Postal. While his entire filmography isn’t all video game adaptations, one of his commonly implemented strategies is buying the film rights to video games no one really cares about, then spending $10-25 million on the movie. The sad part is that while not all of his movies are profitable, his strategy is successful enough that he is able to keep doing it. Enter In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.

As you probably guessed from “a Dungeon Siege tale” this movie is based on the Dungeon Siege video game series, though the ties are few–both the movie and the game take place in the Kingdom of Ehb, both stories open with a humble farmer, and they both contain dungeons at some point. Regardless, this was to be Uwe Boll’s first real epic. Instead of his usual budget range, the budget here was $60 million and it would be the beginning of an epic trilogy you could put beside The Lord of the Rings. As you can imagine, that didn’t quite work out.

The Film

There are several reasons why In the Name of the King did not live up to expectations, and certainly did not end up on par with The Lord of the Rings. Let’s start with the story. If you can get to the end of this movie and figure out exactly what is going on, you are a much smarter person than I am. There appears to be some kind of political strife here a la Game of Thrones. The only problem is that the motivations don’t totally make sense. Jason Statham’s character is a farmer who they just named Farmer. He has a wife and son and, as you probably guessed, has inexplicable hidden fighting skills which includes being awesome with a boomerang. Ray Liotta is an evil wizard who wants to take over the kingdom from King Burt Reynolds. Liotta’s method is to, for some reason, use both orcs and poison to both overtly and secretly gain control. Spoiler alert for the first 20 minutes, one of the orc raiding parties under the direct control of Ray Liotta, kills Farmer’s son. Coincidentally giving motivation to the one person capable of defeating Liotta.

King - Farmer

Just a humble Farmer

Weirdly enough, there is something significant about Farmer, and therefore his son, but Liotta would not have known about it at the time when he signaled out Farmer’s son. It’s like the significance of the character is known to the writer, but the writer then forgot to add that motivation to the villain character. In the movie Farmer’s son is targeted seemingly at random… just because. I guess.

Another way you can see the failure of the story is during the big battle scene, oddly enough. In The Lord of the Rings you get several big battles and despite their length they all manage to be gripping, particularly in The Two Towers. Not only do you get a lot of action, but you also care about those involved. Things seem desperate. The battles in In the Name of the King, despite being long and full of action, are also pretty boring. One big battle scene in particular, one that is most of the way through the movie, just highlights that up to this point I hadn’t really started to care about anyone. It feels like someone just threw a bunch of action figures together. It’s somehow the dullest, longest battle scene I’ve ever seen.

The casting of this movie is also baffling (but not if you’re familiar with Uwe Boll). It’s clear that there is a lot of “who can we get?” mentality going on here, but you’d think someone would have said “hey, maybe we should just shoot for someone who actually works in the part?” Sorry Burt, I know you can act (Boogie Nights), but you don’t belong in a fantasy film. Same with Ray Liotta, he’s not bad but never seems not out-of-place. Which makes his performance distracting. John Rhys-Davies is really the only person who looks and sounds like they belong in this movie. But seriously, John, you were Gimli, what are you doing here? Everyone else is basically exactly what you’d expect although I want to commend Matthew Lillard for really going all out in his role.

Aside from the all-over-the-place performances, it’s clear that there is no one really paying any attention to consistency. Accents differ from person to person. Some people have weirdly tidy hair. Jason Statham appears to have similar training as The Transporter. All of this contributes to this weird something-is-out-place feeling that you get watching this. You can tell some money was put into the movie, but things sometimes still seem cheap or amateur.

Very elegant

But Can I Drink To It?

Yes. This movie goes on for too long, so prepare to go in excited but you’ll start to find yourself checking the time.

Rules (to get you hammered)

1.  Jason Statham gets a kill – DRINK!

2.  Whenever something/anything seems weirdly modern for a medieval fantasy film – DRINK for 3 seconds!

3.  Whenever you’re confused by how much time or distance has passed – DRINK for 5 seconds!

4. “What the hell does that mean?” – finish your DRINK!

I watched this movie for free on Netflix. You can also find it on Amazon here: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale for $11 on blu ray. No trilogy box set unfortunately.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: SLEEPAWAY CAMP

/

“…you won’t be coming home!”

  • Movie: Sleepaway Camp
  • Director: Robert Hiltzik
  • Starring: Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten

Continue reading

A Little Context

If you’re a slasher or horror movie fan and you’ve heard of Sleepaway Camp, then you know this movie is famous for its ending. I struggled a bit with labeling this a “bad movie” because it seems like it often gets a pass due to the ending alone. Rotten Tomatoes for example has it at 83%, but reviews are all recent, and aren’t shy to disparage the movie despite giving it a good score. Ultimately I decided that a memorable ending does not negate the shittiness that proceeds it. This movie without the last five minutes is very generic. Take a look at this trailer and you’ll see what I mean. If you didn’t know this movie even had a twist, let alone a good one, you’d probably pass right by it. Oh yeah, AVOID THE COMMENTS:

Released in 1983, at a time when slasher films were in the their heyday, Sleepaway Camp feels like an obvious attempt at cashing in on the craze. Eventually it becomes apparent that someone had a great idea for a payoff, and just needed another 80 minutes to make it a film. Five years prior to this, John Carpenter and Debra Hill wrote the amazing Halloween and the slasher boom began. While slasher movies existed before, many tropes common in films of this type originated here. In 1980, we had another trendsetter in Friday the 13th. By 1983, we had copies of copies with nothing new to say. Enough history, let’s jump into this…

The Film

Sleepaway Camp follows two children–Angela and Ricky. Due to events during the opening of the movie, Angela lives with her aunt Dr. Martha Thomas and cousin Ricky Thomas. She is quiet and introverted with poor social skills. In order to get her out of her shell, Angela, with Ricky, are sent to Camp Arawak for the summer. The camp is full of bratty and/or horny teens and preteens and creepy and/or uncaring staff. Overall, everyone kind of sucks it never really seems all that fun. But then suddenly–murder!

For a slasher film Sleepaway Camp isn’t particularly scary. It doesn’t really seem like it even tries to be. It doesn’t seem like a horror film. Which is either an interesting stylistic choice, or ineptitude. If you removed the murders this movie would appear to be a boring story about summer camp and teenagers trying to get laid or being mean to each other. Both of which you get a lot of. I appreciate the frankness of the dialogue as it does feel authentic, after all teens and preteens are pretty vulgar. Though there are definitely some awkwardly written lines that you will laugh at. I feel like a lot of modern movies and TV shows tend to shy away from this.

On the flip side of the “realism” however, is that this movie introduces some vulgar/creepy camp staff. One in particular is a chef who is an overt pedophile, and makes comments about children to other people. Apparently no one cares. The camp owner is an elderly gentleman that is looking to get with one of the much younger staffers. Overall, just be prepared for a sometimes-uncomfortable sexual element to this movie.

Besides slashers in general, there is one other movie that you can really draw some parallels to with Sleepaway Camp and oddly enough it’s Wet Hot American Summer. I don’t know if anybody involved in Wet Hot American Summer has ever credited Sleepaway Camp as an inspiration, but I am convinced that it was. For one, the fashion. What people are wearing looks like  a parody of the early 80s, but exaggerated to the point where if this movie were modern you’d say “there is no way they actually wore that.” White socks are pulled up. Shirts are very tight. Shorts are VERY short. One camp counselor in particular is basically always showing an outline of his penis. It seems strange to me that either in real life, or in the movie, someone wasn’t like, “hey, maybe you shouldn’t show your penis-outline to all these kids.”

1983!

Before I wrap this up I’d like to touch on something that I think the movie does well. Sleepaway Camp delivers some fairly satisfying deaths. Despite sometimes being somewhat uninspired (naked girl in the shower? really?), they manage to be pretty gruesome. This is due in large part to some pretty decent make-up effects. Again, I feel like there is something missing atmosphere-wise as the suspense never really lasts pass the scene itself. The fact that the camp staff is constantly hiding the deaths means there is no real suspense among the campers, which meant that I also didn’t really feel the tension build. At the end, when shit is going down, is the first time you really feel anxious. It’s a feeling I wanted through more of the movie.

Again, not to belabor the point, but this movie is ultimately all about the ending. I don’t know that it will really scare you, but it is one of the most interesting I’ve seen. And it will make you want to watch the movie all over again to look for the clues.

But Can I Drink To It?

Yes, definitely. This will be a fun movie to drink to and alcohol will make things that much better when shit goes down.

Rules (prepare to get hammered)

1. Whenever Angela doesn’t respond to someone – DRINK for 3 seconds!

2. Uncomfortably short shorts – DRINK for 5 seconds!

3. “wicked dump” – finish your DRINK!

4. If someone can guess by twist before the end, everyone else has to TAKE A SHOT! If not, everyone takes a shot.

Here is the edition I watched and where you can find it: Sleepaway Camp (Collector’s Edition) from Amazon for $25. It’s a pretty well put together package with some good special features. HOWEVER the entire movie is available on YouTube for FREE. So yeah, that’s a good option too.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: HOWARD THE DUCK

/

“More adventure than humanly possible”

 

Continue reading

A Little Context

Almost immediately after the release of “Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi,” George Lucas has an idea. He spots a Marvel comic book called Howard the Duck and decides it needs to be on film. It seems obvious initially that the movie needs to be animated. However, the studio is contractually owed a live-action film. No problem! Lucas just worked on Star Wars, he can oversee this and make it work. At least that’s what I’m sure Marvel thought, which hadn’t seen one of their characters on the big screen since Captain America in 1944.

Take a look at this trailer:

Nailed it. Can you guess what the target audience for this movie is? It’s rated PG…but Howard’s favorite pastimes are “cigars and sex.” The movie stars a talking duck…and within the first 5 minutes you see a naked female duck with human-shaped breasts (complete with nipples). There appears to be some slapstick. I guess. Seeing this trailer, I would have no idea who this is aimed at. After having watched the film, I still have no idea and I don’t think anybody really thought about it.

The Film

What better place to start than with Howard himself? First and foremost, he’s not very likable. Nor is he unlikable to the point where he’s at least interesting. Instead, he’s just kind of… there. I can’t quite put my finger on why exactly, but for as much stuff as Howard does, he’s is just never really very compelling. Sometimes he seems street smart. Sometimes he’s the ignorant alien. Sometimes he’s sassy. But never so much of any one thing that I actually want to watch him onscreen. It’s easy to see why this film should have been animated. Even with the limitations of the suit/puppetry, and great voice actor would still be able to give Howard some personality. Instead, Chip Zien is just kind of dull. I don’t know who is actually to blame, but I’m not sure how this voice performance made it to the final cut.  The costume itself suffers from dead eyes. Sometimes Howard goes from an actor in a costume to a puppet, which is definitely noticeable and contributes to Howard seeming just a little off.

The stuff of nightmares

As I touched on before, one of the biggest issues with this movie is tone. In the “Howard the Duck” comic, Howard is an asshole. The movie only just barely flirts with this. Instead, he’s occasionally just kind of sassy. This change would be fine, but it also seems like they couldn’t quit commit to a younger audience. As I said earlier, we get some human breasts on a duck in the bathtub. Lea Thompson seriously puts the moves on Howard. He smokes. He’s not particularly lovable. I just don’t get why someone didn’t really notice this. Or didn’t care.

Surrounding Howard is a pretty strong supporting cast who, despite the script, are really trying. I mean seriously, Lea Thompson deserves an Oscar. I’ve never felt worse for an actress than when she had to seduce a man in a duck costume. Never in this movie does she phone it in. Tim Robbins plays a scientist friend of Lea Thompson, who is stereotypically dorky. And like Lea Thompson he really goes for the gold here. I’m sure if this movie wasn’t led by George Lucas, both actors would have been able to spot this dud. The villain in this movie is played by the always reliable Jeffrey Jones.

Yep, that’s Tim Robbins

But Can I Drink To It?

Yes, for sure. Despite being about 30 minutes longer than it should be, “Howard the Duck” is a pretty good bad movie. Seriously though, almost two hours?!

Rules

1. “Ducky” – DRINK for 3 seconds!
2. Someone under reacts or just thinks Howard is wearing a costume – DRINK for 5 seconds!
3. DRINK whenever you feel bad for Lea Thompson!
4. Human breasts on a female duck – FINISH your drink!

Here is the edition I watched and where you can find it: Howard the Duck on Amazon Instant for $3-4 depending on quality. It’s also available on DVD for $10.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: SAMURAI COP

/
Samurai Cop title

“You have the right to remain silent…dead silent”

Continue reading

A Little Context

After “Things” I wanted to get back to the classic B-grade action movie. I think most people have seen at least a few 80’s action movies. There are awesome ones like “Die Hard” and “First Blood” but there are quite a bit more of the cheesy-but-awesome variety. I’m talking “Commando,” “Cobra,” and “Bloodsport.” Trying to capitalize on the fighting-and-guns craze is a little gem called “Samurai Cop.”

Take a look at this trailer:

The Film

Let’s start with the characters in this movie. Did you notice the guy in the trailer with the big jaw and the beard? That’s Robert Z’Dar. Despite getting top billing Robert is not the movies long-haired hero. That honor goes to Matt Hannon, he plays samurai cop Joe Marshall. Joe is a super cop who is skilled with a gun, with his fights, and with katanas. He also has amazing hair and an unreal ability to pull in ladies. Also, no shorts for him, he likes to swim in speedos. Basically, he is THE man. His partner is cool-black-guy Frank Washington. While good with a gun, Frank’s role seems mainly to exists so the camera has someone to cut to when Joe hits on or gets hit on by a woman, or just does anything particularly awesome. And speaking of, this movie cuts to Frank a shocking number of times. Frank is often in the center of the frame and occasionally looks directly into the camera when delivering his reaction face. It’s bizarre.

Samurai Cop Joe

Samurai Cop Joe Marshall… just look at that hair

Joe is brought in all the way from San Diego to fight a dangerous LA-based Japanese gang. I had to look it up afterwards but apparently the gang’s name is actually Katana, which is weird. I suppose it would seem exotic if no one knew Japanese, but considering everyone is either Japanese for familiar with Japanese culture, naming the gang what is essentially “Sword” seems lazy. The movie climaxes in a katana showdown between Joe Marshall and Yamashita (played by Robert Z’Dar). Fortunately for Joe Marshall, and for the audience, gang members aren’t afraid to get into one-on-one martial arts duels. There is nothing really of note here about the plot. It is extremely generic and predictable. However, if you want to sit down and watch an 80’s action movies, this tends not to be a concern.

Like a lot of B movies, what really stands out here is execution. The best way I can describe the feel of this movie is that it seems like some kind of old foreign martial arts movie dubbed in English, except “Samurai Cop” isn’t foreign. The dialogue sounds like it was dubbed later. Sound effects are comical and poorly mixed. The dialogue itself is often campy and unrealistic. Which should be very clear from the trailer.

Samurai Cop bad guys

“The Boss”

The visual aspects of the film are also clumsily done. Actors are often too low in the frame. Or too close to the camera. The car chases are very obviously sped up. As I mentioned before, for some reason Joe’s partner Frank is cut to A LOT for no longer than a second. Basically just to get a “I can’t believe it!” reaction face. Another interesting aspect of the film is the frequent nudity. Three different people get sex scenes. And they’re all uncomfortable. Not as bad as “The Room,” but they certainly aren’t sexy.

Bottom line: this movie has it all.

But Can I Drink To It?

Yes, definitely. “Samurai Cop” is a fantastic bad movie. Highly recommended, especially in a party setting.

Rules

  • “the boss” – DRINK for 3 seconds!
  • someone looks into the camera (probably Frank) – DRINK for 5 seconds!
  • Un-sexy sex scene – DRINK for as long as it’s awkward!
  • Stereotypical gay waiter is stereotypical – FINISH your drink!
MV5BMTI5MzY0MzY5OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjE2NzUyMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR4,0,214,317_AL_

Nothing in this movie looks like this. The cover of the Special Edition DVD is equally unrelated.

Here is the edition I watched and where you can find it: Samurai Cop on Amazon Instant for $2. It’s also available on DVD for $10.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

Bad Movie Review & Drinking Game: THINGS

/

  • Movie: Things
  • Director: Andrew Jordan
  • Starring: Barry J. Gillis, Amber Lynn, Doug Bunston, Bruce Roach
  • Rotten Tomato Rating: none

Continue reading

A Little Context

If “The Room” is the band selling out arenas, “Things” is the band playing in the basement of your favorite dive bar. Actually, it is the band playing in the dumpster at your local dive bar. “Things” is the bottom of the bad movie barrel.

“Things” is the product of Canada’s own Barry J. Gillis and Andrew Jordan. The two met in high school and bonded over an issue of Fangoria magazine. And again, like “Birdemic,” this movie almost seems too bad. More than just low quality cameras and effects, it seems absurd that anyone would have sat bad and said “yep, it’s finished.” However, it doesn’t take much research to learn that this is movie is the real deal.

I know I said in my “Birdemic” review that it “might be the most poorly made movie I’ve ever seen” but it turns out I spoke way too soon. Shockingly, “Things” was actually filmed for about $25,000 more than than “Birdemic” and I’ll touch on that later.

Take a look at this NSFW (nudity and gore) trailer:

Our hero

The Film

First of all, a little film terminology lesson for those that may not know. “B movie” or “B grade movie” is a fairly common idea, even to those who may not have seen many. Movies of this caliber, despite some bad or campy elements, generally display some level of awareness or production value.  From there we devolve into C movies and, at the bottom of the ladder, are the Z movies. Movies in this circle of hell are poorly written, poorly acted, poorly shot, poorly edited, actors might look into the camera, actors might seem to be reading cue cards, the story probably doesn’t make sense, and, in many cases, contains significant levels of gore and/or sexuality. “Things” pretty much has it all.

There is a story here but to say it’s vague it putting it lightly. It appears to revolve around a man who, in his efforts to reproduce, is resorted to some kind of demonic or evil experimentation. The result is the birth of some kind of weird spider-meets-Alien-facehugger creatures that infest the house. Bottom line is that it’s confusing and even the Wikipedia synopsis is only two sentences long. There also appears to be a group of people who are involved in routine murder, which I’m guessing is related to these experiments, although the group is never really explained and we only see a couple of them once. Anyway, our protagonists arrive at this house to hang out and shit starts to go down. Also, we get random cutaways to some sort of news broadcast seemingly filmed at a pawn shop.

Things newscast

the news

It’s fairly obvious with movies like this that the story is just a simple bridge to the gory action shots. Like porn, the story doesn’t really matter. Which is fine. What is strange though is that “Things” actually appears to try really hard to tell some sort of story. Certain scenes and conversations seem to function as a way to build character or suspense. The problem is that the film is so poorly executed that these building scenes are mind numbing. Conversations are long, awkward, and unnatural. Small rooms and hallways are searched for way to long that suspense turns into me shouting “the room is obviously clear, keep going!” at my TV. Wherever they’re filming is obviously tiny and they really tried to make it seem like you couldn’t quickly search this house in about 60 seconds . Shots tend to feel extremely claustrophobic suggesting that there just isn’t room to back the camera up.

The practical effects are not great. I commend them for trying but  it seems like they could have spent their money a little differently to more effectively use the gore. Also, it seems like a large portion of their budget went to hire “porn queen” Amber Lynn to play a small part as a newscaster. I know hindsight is 20/20 but rather than pay her for probably a minute worth of screen time, it seems to me that a smarter decision would have been to use the money for more effects. Though who knows, maybe her name on the VHS box got a lot of people to check the movie out. I would imagine, however, that gore is a good enough selling point on its own. These little news breaks add nothing, and in some cases make reference to better horror movies you’ll wish you were watching.

I could go on and on about this but I think you get the idea. “Things” is everything you normally wouldn’t want a movie to be. Which, for our purposes, means it’s basically perfect. Pure Z movie goodness.

But Can I Drink To It?

Yes,  you will have to. Audience response to this is probably going to be all over the place, as the pendulum swings from funny to frustrating, but no one will forget the experience.

Rules

“Out” or “About” said in that Canadian way – DRINK for 3 seconds!

Cut to the news broadcast – DRINK for 5 seconds!

Puking scene – DRINK for as long as it’s occurring!

Whenever a character drinks and then finishes a beer, you must drink and finish a beer. Also, take a shot of whiskey when the character drinks whiskey (you’ll only need one shot).

Amazing

Here is the edition I watched and where you can find it: Things DVD for $20 (but most likely discounted). Digital availability is probably not good.

Additional viewing

Here is Barry J. Gillis talking about Things on TV from before the film’s release. Here is another little factoid to add some icing on the cake: the movie was originally promoted with a budget of $350,000 as a way to drum up interest. I imagine it was immediately apparent that this movie cost nowhere near that amount.

Enjoy!

Post by: Tyler P.

Tyler Phillippi is a former improviser and musician. Now, he mainly focuses on getting through his Netflix queue. Contact him at  tyler@smellthegrindstone.com

TwitterFacebookEmail