Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn 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.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Susan Doukas
- Martha Boyd
- (as Susan Dee)
Avis en vedette
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.
This is part of what is apparently Fessenden's "Trilogy of Horror," though the horror to be found in this one is minimal. It looks like it was created on zero budget compared to Wendigo, but it is much more watchable due to its original take on a classic concept. Basic plot: Geoffrey, a scientist trying to get a grant for some top-secret work, moves to the country for the summer with his artist wife, Lillian. They grow apart because he spends to much time in the lab. She meets an environmentalist who is the antithesis of Geoffrey, and she starts questioning what exactly it is her hubby is doing in the lab all day. She makes it her mission to find out. Overall, it is a pretty uneven film. The acting is great at times and really inexcusably bad at other times. This, combined with poorly written dialogue, nearly ruins the few sequences that are supposed to be scary. One scene, which presents the viewer with some horrific imagery, has our protagonists responding somewhat lethargically, making it difficult for the viewer to be properly creeped-out by it. Some of the camera work is really creative, but some of it seems pointless. One stellar aspect throughout was the effectively creepy soundtrack. I didn't find this movie to be preachy. The story is really Lillian's, and it is rare to see a healthy splash of feminism thrown into a movie like this. Not recommended for people who cannot watch depictions of animal cruelty. The DVD includes a "making of" doc that is worth seeing.
I'm a huge fan of sci-fi/thriller/horror films, and I think this film is definitely worth a watch. The pace is not as fast as some might like, but the storyline is definitely there and it's worth following to the end if you can give it time to unfold. The end was a little predictable, but that didn't make it any less impactful or horrifying for me. I'd highly recommend this to anyone who's interested in the early government conspiracy films of the early 70s (think Andromeda Strain, for example) or in the ongoing debate of making technological advances at whatever cost (i.e., stem cell research and animal experimentation).
A good film. Worth seeing if you can find it (not currently on Netflix).
A good film. Worth seeing if you can find it (not currently on Netflix).
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.
This movie's visual content is very strong, and I do not recommend it to anyone, especially if you have children. It does point out the dilemma of animal experiments, but the level of cruelty to animals pictured here is so high that it could be easily classified as an NC-17 -horror- movie.
Le saviez-vous
- Autres versionsThe 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Making of 'No Telling' (2001)
- Bandes originalesWhat 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
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La sindrome di Frankenstein
- Lieux de tournage
- société de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 33 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was No Telling (1991) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre