THUNDERCRACK!: WHAT THE…

To say you’ve never seen anything like this movie is an understatement. Truly, there has never been a movie made prior to this one like it and even following it’s “creation” nothing compares. Whether you consider it art, exploitation or just plain crap will depend on your point of view. I was stunned by the number of favorable reviews to be found on imdb.com for this movie, so much that I had to assume they were either written by cast or production members or those that find things like elephant feces tossed on a canvas to be art. That being said I think you can tell where my mind is when talking about this movie. If you loved it I’m glad that you enjoyed it. I think that the majority of people will be like myself, unaware of what exactly they’re getting into and wondering why they bought or rented this disc.

The story, as much of one that there is, involves the stereotypical old dark house theme. Well at least to begin with. Various drivers find themselves stranded during a storm with only one nearby house to go to that’s supposed to be a mansion. The hand drawn graphics used show a mansion, the interior screams someone’s house that could be used for this movie. The owner of the house is weird to say the least. While some who’ve reviewed her performance as Shakespearean it felt more like it like someone trying out for a junior high school play who was turned down. This character talks about her late husband, killed by locust and whose body parts she retains pickled in various jars around the house.

As the film progresses she tells her “guests” that they can change into dry clothes she has in the house in a different room. While they change she watches through a hole in the wall masturbating with a shaved cucumber the whole time. I told you this was weird. And this is where the movie changes from old dark house to possible art film to straight out porn. Each of the “guests” who enters becomes involved in various sex acts: masturbation, girl on girl, guy on girl, guy on guy, guy on blow up doll. Those are the few I can remember. I’ve tried to block out most of this film and have been for the most part fairly successful.

Shot in black and white, my guess is to make it qualify for “art” status, the movie is filled with poorly shot, poorly lit and poorly acted segments. If there was directing involved I’m not sure what it was. The script jumps from one thing to the next and is filled with various diatribes about things hard to decipher or that you won’t want to decipher. For instance a guy in love with a gorilla, played by someone in what is perhaps the worst gorilla suit of all time. Think back to any gorilla seen on a show like GILLIGAN’S ISLAND. THAT gorilla looked real compared to this one.

If porn offends you, you will be offended by this film. If “art” films are not your thing, you will want to ignore this one. If you want to watch this movie for “film history’s sake” then feel free; if you like that sort of thing you’ll be thrilled. For myself I don’t find much artistic in films like this. It becomes a jumble of ideas, concepts, weird acting/directing/photographing and off the cuff items that it doesn’t hold my interest for longer than a few minutes at best. I’m admitting that I’m more inclined to watch mainstream movies and favor those. But if this is your kind of thing then enjoy yourself while I watch something I consider more entertaining.

Click here to order.