Añade un argumento en tu idiomaIn the name of medical research, a man experiments on animals. His relationship with his wife becomes stressed when she becomes inquisitive about his work.In the name of medical research, a man experiments on animals. His relationship with his wife becomes stressed when she becomes inquisitive about his work.In the name of medical research, a man experiments on animals. His relationship with his wife becomes stressed when she becomes inquisitive about his work.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 1 nominación en total
Susan Doukas
- Martha Boyd
- (as Susan Dee)
Reseñas destacadas
This is a low-budget movie that certainly has the look and feel of a low-budget movie. Marketed APPARENTLY as a "horror" movie, there is NO horror and very little even "horrific" except for the pretend cruelty to animals depicted throughout the movie.
The movie, thankfully, stars the very talented Miriam Healy-Louie, in what, sadly, appears to be her only acting credit. Yet, it was her "journey" that prompted me to watch to the end.
The movie has an unsettling atmosphere throughout, though never enough to be suspenseful or thrilling - or even creepy.
We're left anxiously awaiting what the devious husband is doing in the barn-turned-laboratory THOUGH we're given something of a preview when the wife finds research photos, at which point we can surmise that the "big reveal" is unlikely to be that earth-shattering.
There is the hint of an affair that never happens.
All this being said, I cannot recommend this movie to anyone looking for an entertaining or intriguing horror movie.
The movie, thankfully, stars the very talented Miriam Healy-Louie, in what, sadly, appears to be her only acting credit. Yet, it was her "journey" that prompted me to watch to the end.
The movie has an unsettling atmosphere throughout, though never enough to be suspenseful or thrilling - or even creepy.
We're left anxiously awaiting what the devious husband is doing in the barn-turned-laboratory THOUGH we're given something of a preview when the wife finds research photos, at which point we can surmise that the "big reveal" is unlikely to be that earth-shattering.
There is the hint of an affair that never happens.
All this being said, I cannot recommend this movie to anyone looking for an entertaining or intriguing horror movie.
I caught this movie EARLY one morning on the Independent Film Channel. Although it's not the greatest film, it is definitely thought-provoking and I thought the visuals were amazing, especially the final images were seared in my memory.
This film was made in 1991. Some may think this is stuff from Frankenstein and not give it another thought. It is now the year 2000 and these kind of animal and medical experiments are being done! After seeing this film, I felt like I had been kicked in the gut! Not many films have that power.
This film was made in 1991. Some may think this is stuff from Frankenstein and not give it another thought. It is now the year 2000 and these kind of animal and medical experiments are being done! After seeing this film, I felt like I had been kicked in the gut! Not many films have that power.
If you've ever driven up the I-5 from L.A. to San Francisco, you know how long, boring and unentertaining it is. Well, the very same thrills and expectations can be achieved by viewing the film NO TELLING. One major difference: the I-5 takes you somewhere, while this film goes absolutely nowhere. It centers around a scientist and his girlfriend escaping the city life for the serenity of the country. In this peaceful setting, he carries out mysterious experiments in the barn while she befriends the locals, including Alex Vine, an ecologist trying to help farmers with the dangers of pesticides. Her and Vine strike up a friendly yet non-physical relationship. Meanwhile, the mad scientist boyfriend becomes impatient with his corporate sponsor's lack of providing live specimens for study, so he decides to capture his own. I was beginning to think this was a political movie aiming to please animal rights activists, but it just didn't add up. As the film goes along, you wonder if you are on the I-5 and if an exit is in sight to release you from the boredom this film has produced. There are also these surreal scenes filmed with an odd camera filter, giving it a grainy super-8 look. Unfortunately, these scenes leave that dry taste in your mouth: What was that all about? Well, if you would like to watch a film that has no idea what it's trying to say and have a few dollars to burn, I suggest renting KRIPPENDORF'S TRIBE. If someone beat you to that beauty, then this is the film for you. On the Stevo cheese scale of Yanni to Carrot Top, Carrot Top being best, this film barely ranks a Kenny G.
Despite a lot of the frustrated reviews this film got, I think credit should be given where appropriate. Fessenden is trying to remain true to the horror genre and in doing so, he analyzes modern problems such as pesticides, vivisection, etc. The Frankenstein story has been told many times in movies like The Island of Dr. Moreau, which was also about vivisection and tampering with nature. As far as the plot goes, it could have moved a little quicker. The acting was decent but nothing spectacular. Many ironies were pointed at throughout the movie such as people who eat meat but love their pet dogs and cats. If anything was offensive about this movie, it should have been! This whole genre itself has pointed the finger at what truly scares people and most often it is ourselves. Vivisection takes place legally, under the false notion that it gives us some kind of advancement. The fact that animal testing actually SLOWS the process of finding cures is scary. Change in the world has come from knocking down doors and exposing the ugly truth behind them and I think this movie does its job. Despite their low budget, they did it with the conviction that you don't find in most Holly(hollow)wood films.
I became interested in this movie after seeing Depraved, Larry Fessenden's latest effort, especially after seeing thematic comparisons being made between the two films.
No Telling's plot is based on an intriguing idea and it tries to make a point about science and playing God, but ultimately it ends up being a pointless story. Nothing of note happens for much of the runtime, except for one powerful scene, and the acting is quite weak.
No Telling's plot is based on an intriguing idea and it tries to make a point about science and playing God, but ultimately it ends up being a pointless story. Nothing of note happens for much of the runtime, except for one powerful scene, and the acting is quite weak.
¿Sabías que...?
- Versiones alternativasThe original cut of the film, which premiered at the Boston Film Festival and played in several other festivals (including Avoriaz), was longer. Director Larry Fessenden cut 20 minutes of footage for the theatrical release version.
- ConexionesFeatured in The Making of 'No Telling' (2001)
- Banda sonoraWhat a Difference A Day Made
Composed by Stanley Adams and María Grever
Performed by Coleman Hawkins, Michael Warlop and His Orchestra Featuring Stéphane Grappelli and Django Reinhardt
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- La sindrome di Frankenstein
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresa productora
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
- Duración
- 1h 33min(93 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta