La sindrome di Frankenstein

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 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.

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).

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.

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.