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.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Susan Doukas
- Martha Boyd
- (as Susan Dee)
Avis à la une
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- Versions alternativesThe 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 suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant