La sindrome di Frankenstein

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).

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 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.

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.