NO SUCH THING (3 outta 5 stars) A weird kind of project for indy art movie writer/director Hal Hartley... a modern day version of "Beauty and the Beast". A heavily made-up Robert John Burke is "The Beast", a near-immortal monster living as far from humanity as he can. Unfortunately, people still keep seeking him out, causing him to respond with violence. All he really wants is the peace of death... and when pretty, young reporter Sarah Polley is taken to him as a sort of sacrifice he offers to spare her life if she'll help him find a missing scientist who may be able to grant him his fondest wish. The movie starts out well... the monster gets some funny, earthy dialogue and the tentative relationship with "The Beauty" doesn't seem too forced. Towards the end, however, the story seems to fall apart a bit... becoming less believable and a little unfocused. The movie concludes in grand "art movie" style... with a series of arty crosscuts and fades that look very stylish... but don't really bring things to a satisfying close.
86 Reviews
The monster speaks!
jotix10021 July 2004
Hal Hartley is an original film maker. With this film, which I recently saw in DVD form, he presents us a modern day parable about the media an its influence on our lives.
It's curious to see how ahead of his times Mr. Hartley is when he deals with paranoia, even before the attacks of 9/11, in his own subtle way. It was not intentional, I'm sure, but he proves to have a keen eye for what was coming.
The film is not one of Mr. Hartley's best, but we see his sure hand behind all what he is trying to do here. He is working with a cast that is working with him for the first time, with the exception of Robert John Burke, the Monster. Sarah Polley, is one of the best actresses working in movies these days. Her Beatrice is a study in contrasts. Also excellent, as always, is Helen Mirren, Beatrice's boss who is ruthless, arrogant, and manipulative. She knows the secret of how to get attention in the worst possible ways. Julie Christie makes a rare appearance as a kind doctor who befriends Beatrice.
The scenery in Iceland is magnificent and Mr. Hartley captures it brilliantly.
It's curious to see how ahead of his times Mr. Hartley is when he deals with paranoia, even before the attacks of 9/11, in his own subtle way. It was not intentional, I'm sure, but he proves to have a keen eye for what was coming.
The film is not one of Mr. Hartley's best, but we see his sure hand behind all what he is trying to do here. He is working with a cast that is working with him for the first time, with the exception of Robert John Burke, the Monster. Sarah Polley, is one of the best actresses working in movies these days. Her Beatrice is a study in contrasts. Also excellent, as always, is Helen Mirren, Beatrice's boss who is ruthless, arrogant, and manipulative. She knows the secret of how to get attention in the worst possible ways. Julie Christie makes a rare appearance as a kind doctor who befriends Beatrice.
The scenery in Iceland is magnificent and Mr. Hartley captures it brilliantly.
Bizarre
russem3126 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is truly a bizarre film - I don't even know if I mean it in a good or bad way, just plain bizarre. If you consider it a black comedy, I guess it's very interesting and sometimes is very funny. This is mostly due to the actors: especially Robert John Burke, who expertly plays the Monster, a mythological alcoholic and overly cynical creature that has existed since the beginning of time. Helen Mirren is also a highlight (as she always is) in the role of the work driven and very cold-acting Boss of the female costar (Sarah Polley as a quirky Beatrice, who does the best she can given the material and dialogue she had to work with). However, aside from the acting, the story is so bizarre, I don't know if I really like it or not - it's the elements I already mentioned that I can appreciate and understand that make it worthwhile for me. Hence the rating I give it - 6 out of 10.
Cinematic Doubt
tedg13 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Cinematic Doubt
Spoilers herein.
I do not know Hartley's other work, and stumbled upon this as a result of a Sarah Polley survey. And I am wonderously aghast that I had not heard of this film.
I have a hobby of watching postmodern films about the nature of film and truth. In this community, there are some clever notions but they pretty much depend on quoting each other. So when someone comes seemingly out of the blue with a perfect, wholly original construction, it blows me away. Oh, there is quoting here, lots of it from `Forbidden Planet' and its source `The Tempest' to `Smilla' and `Dancer' and lots of obvious chintzy stuff. But it is all presented humorlessly in a sort of reverse irony and gives you `Mulholland Drive' -- a construction from the constructed characters -- without you noticing. Some viewers actually think this is a `Beauty and the Beast' story!
The game is that what we think of as a constructed world gone awry is just camoflage for a world that constructs us. The two feed each other with seemingly no escape. There are some lovely devices used as outlining material.
-- The use of Iceland as an originating location for myth. Very, very abstract as is everything else including the performances. But this gives us a visual registration for the synthetic space of this world. This sort of thing was tried in say, `Babette's Feast,' but just didn't work. Here, the rarified air of abstraction is helped by the odd, minimalist, hypnotizing score. Short of Figgis -- whose notions are adventuresome but mainstream -- I can think of no other effective filmmaker/composer, except by stretching the notion with `Sweet and Lowdown.'
-- The weaving in and out of the influence of `media.' It is hidden behind an Albert Brooks-like game of selfish media. But there is more there behind this `Our Man Flint' facade -- it is not just a selfish game, it is the creation of reality itself.
-- The wonderful dialogue, anchored by a sequence at the beginning. This would have been what the film crew would have gotten, but the subject took over and recorded himself. Opening scenes are both a promise and an introduction to the world in which you have just been dropped. There are few better. This ranks with `Farewell my Concubine' in that first scene.
-- The use of Sarah Polley. She has made some very wise career choices, following a sort of Parker Posey model of independent filmmaking. But Posey's filmmakers are Hollywood wannabees or skitmasters. Polley has worked with Gilliam, Cronenberg, Egoyam, Winterbottom and now Hartley. She adapts to their peculiar worlds. I am amazed and appreciative of her work and wish her a long career.
I am tentatively giving this my highest ranking, a rare honor. It is so intellectually novel it belongs with a few similar cinematic statements (from say Rohmer and Wenders) that both create and question themselves .
(The 4 of 4 ranking constitutes not the `best' films, whatever that means, but the most important and rewarding including the most competently innovative. It forms my recommendation for young people seeking to understand their visual minds.)
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 4: Every visually literate person should experience this.
Spoilers herein.
I do not know Hartley's other work, and stumbled upon this as a result of a Sarah Polley survey. And I am wonderously aghast that I had not heard of this film.
I have a hobby of watching postmodern films about the nature of film and truth. In this community, there are some clever notions but they pretty much depend on quoting each other. So when someone comes seemingly out of the blue with a perfect, wholly original construction, it blows me away. Oh, there is quoting here, lots of it from `Forbidden Planet' and its source `The Tempest' to `Smilla' and `Dancer' and lots of obvious chintzy stuff. But it is all presented humorlessly in a sort of reverse irony and gives you `Mulholland Drive' -- a construction from the constructed characters -- without you noticing. Some viewers actually think this is a `Beauty and the Beast' story!
The game is that what we think of as a constructed world gone awry is just camoflage for a world that constructs us. The two feed each other with seemingly no escape. There are some lovely devices used as outlining material.
-- The use of Iceland as an originating location for myth. Very, very abstract as is everything else including the performances. But this gives us a visual registration for the synthetic space of this world. This sort of thing was tried in say, `Babette's Feast,' but just didn't work. Here, the rarified air of abstraction is helped by the odd, minimalist, hypnotizing score. Short of Figgis -- whose notions are adventuresome but mainstream -- I can think of no other effective filmmaker/composer, except by stretching the notion with `Sweet and Lowdown.'
-- The weaving in and out of the influence of `media.' It is hidden behind an Albert Brooks-like game of selfish media. But there is more there behind this `Our Man Flint' facade -- it is not just a selfish game, it is the creation of reality itself.
-- The wonderful dialogue, anchored by a sequence at the beginning. This would have been what the film crew would have gotten, but the subject took over and recorded himself. Opening scenes are both a promise and an introduction to the world in which you have just been dropped. There are few better. This ranks with `Farewell my Concubine' in that first scene.
-- The use of Sarah Polley. She has made some very wise career choices, following a sort of Parker Posey model of independent filmmaking. But Posey's filmmakers are Hollywood wannabees or skitmasters. Polley has worked with Gilliam, Cronenberg, Egoyam, Winterbottom and now Hartley. She adapts to their peculiar worlds. I am amazed and appreciative of her work and wish her a long career.
I am tentatively giving this my highest ranking, a rare honor. It is so intellectually novel it belongs with a few similar cinematic statements (from say Rohmer and Wenders) that both create and question themselves .
(The 4 of 4 ranking constitutes not the `best' films, whatever that means, but the most important and rewarding including the most competently innovative. It forms my recommendation for young people seeking to understand their visual minds.)
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 4: Every visually literate person should experience this.
Different, kind of interesting, but goes nowhere
Samiam328 June 2010
The plot of No Such Thing is the kind that dreams are often made of, it is weird yet it has something in the way of a narrative.
Sarah Polley flies to Iceland in search of her missing fiancée only to discover beast dressed in a 17th century outfit, drinking his life away from depression. He wants to die, but he cannot, because he is indescribable. The forces of man's world cannot harm him. Polley, offers to help him by brining him back to civilization. They are searching for a famed doctor who has managed to manipulate the law of physics to create a force that 'may' be strong enough to break this unbreakable monster, but first, the monster has to clean up his act.
I have always liked Sarah Polley, I think that was why I was drawn to this film. The idea was intriguing, and the film certainly is, but that does not necisarily make it good. No Such thing has no such idea of what it wants to be. Sometimes it is happy, sometimes sad, sometimes cute and sometimes grim. One thing that is consistent is it's inconstancy.
Perhaps the best way to look at No Such Thing would be to call it a twisted take on Beauty and the Beast. Even if watched this approach, it is not so easy to fall in love with the movie. Polley and her large warty co star make a poor screen couple, and they have very little to say to each other. The screenplay is mostly dialogue for the sake of dialogue.
The film keeps you going, so I wouldn't call it disappointing, but the climax is way too short and contrived, and it is followed by an almost non existent ending. It the kind that wakes you wanna ask, 'What was this all about?'
I would imagine most people who have viewed No Such Thing have asked that very question when it ended. If you wanna join the list be my guest. For better or worse, it is a very weird tale.
Sarah Polley flies to Iceland in search of her missing fiancée only to discover beast dressed in a 17th century outfit, drinking his life away from depression. He wants to die, but he cannot, because he is indescribable. The forces of man's world cannot harm him. Polley, offers to help him by brining him back to civilization. They are searching for a famed doctor who has managed to manipulate the law of physics to create a force that 'may' be strong enough to break this unbreakable monster, but first, the monster has to clean up his act.
I have always liked Sarah Polley, I think that was why I was drawn to this film. The idea was intriguing, and the film certainly is, but that does not necisarily make it good. No Such thing has no such idea of what it wants to be. Sometimes it is happy, sometimes sad, sometimes cute and sometimes grim. One thing that is consistent is it's inconstancy.
Perhaps the best way to look at No Such Thing would be to call it a twisted take on Beauty and the Beast. Even if watched this approach, it is not so easy to fall in love with the movie. Polley and her large warty co star make a poor screen couple, and they have very little to say to each other. The screenplay is mostly dialogue for the sake of dialogue.
The film keeps you going, so I wouldn't call it disappointing, but the climax is way too short and contrived, and it is followed by an almost non existent ending. It the kind that wakes you wanna ask, 'What was this all about?'
I would imagine most people who have viewed No Such Thing have asked that very question when it ended. If you wanna join the list be my guest. For better or worse, it is a very weird tale.
I can't believe I made it through this terrible movie
mcc3330 March 2003
I've read the other comments . . . so many instances of self grandure and intellectual masterbation. One response even tries to use this movie as a baseline measure for determining a viewer's intellectual capacity!
This movie stinks. It's bad. I registered with imdb.com simply to report on this film.
Yes, the score and the Icelandic scenery are fantastic. Robert John Burke also delivers a fantastic performance, breaking through any "creature" role you've ever seen. Unfortunately, these high points hardly make up for the two-dimentional characters filling out the remainder of the cast, the horrific stereotypes, and the gigantic plot gaps and breaks in logic.
I've enjoyed much of Sarah Polley's recent work, however I'm amazed at how contrived and lifeless she is in this role.
Avoid this movie.
This movie stinks. It's bad. I registered with imdb.com simply to report on this film.
Yes, the score and the Icelandic scenery are fantastic. Robert John Burke also delivers a fantastic performance, breaking through any "creature" role you've ever seen. Unfortunately, these high points hardly make up for the two-dimentional characters filling out the remainder of the cast, the horrific stereotypes, and the gigantic plot gaps and breaks in logic.
I've enjoyed much of Sarah Polley's recent work, however I'm amazed at how contrived and lifeless she is in this role.
Avoid this movie.
Almost a Win
chzzyg17 September 2022
I wanted to like this movie more than I did. By the start of the third act I was starting to get fidgety and irritable. Without walking through the entire movie I can say the first act was a perfect setup for what I thought was going to be an interesting ride. The acting was great, the character dichotomy is excellent, the settings are beautiful, the characters are mostly predictable stereotypes without being annoying about it. Then there's Beatrice. Her character is a puzzle box waiting to be opened. She is written in a way that we don't quite understand her actions and yet she's very likable, independent, and brave. Having survived death numerous times in the first half hour, she's earned an interesting character to look forward to. (potential spoil-It is odd that she doesn't show much emotion over her deceased fiance at the hands of the monster, except for one short moment, but it's forgivable for what she's been through up to this point.) The monster is almost a perfect inversion of Beatrice. Without breaking it all down they are made to be together on this journey.
Now, where the movie loses me is the second act. It feels like a completely different writer took over, or maybe the story was rewritten during the shoot, because the tone is totally different suddenly. In hindsight this was likely to ratchet up the stakes for the third act but it all feels ham fisted. There are dead spots where nothing much happens with our main characters, and the time is spent on creating a side plot villain. While all this is going on I'm dying to know more about our puzzling main characters to see more of how they interact with one another. The opportunity is also a missed for the monster to push the limits of the promise he made to Beatrice.
Now the third act. It felt like the story mostly got back on track from the first act, yet the military is now involved, and at the same time I have zero interest in what the military wants. Not much time in the story is spent on this third faction so I have zero cares about them. The final moment is shot really well. There's a sense of excitement leading up to it, but at the same time all that ham fisting from the second act falls flat. I think this climactic ending would've come across more meaningful had we spent more time with the two main characters rather than shoving in all the extra chatter in the second act.
Overall, I wanted to like it more than I did, but the casting, make up, directing, cinematography, and settings were excellent. It was just a convoluted story that should've been more simplified down to a self vs self that becomes a romantic tale. Instead we get a decaf version that can be construed into a mold that resembles such a film. I wanted to like it more, but it's still a decent watch.
Now, where the movie loses me is the second act. It feels like a completely different writer took over, or maybe the story was rewritten during the shoot, because the tone is totally different suddenly. In hindsight this was likely to ratchet up the stakes for the third act but it all feels ham fisted. There are dead spots where nothing much happens with our main characters, and the time is spent on creating a side plot villain. While all this is going on I'm dying to know more about our puzzling main characters to see more of how they interact with one another. The opportunity is also a missed for the monster to push the limits of the promise he made to Beatrice.
Now the third act. It felt like the story mostly got back on track from the first act, yet the military is now involved, and at the same time I have zero interest in what the military wants. Not much time in the story is spent on this third faction so I have zero cares about them. The final moment is shot really well. There's a sense of excitement leading up to it, but at the same time all that ham fisting from the second act falls flat. I think this climactic ending would've come across more meaningful had we spent more time with the two main characters rather than shoving in all the extra chatter in the second act.
Overall, I wanted to like it more than I did, but the casting, make up, directing, cinematography, and settings were excellent. It was just a convoluted story that should've been more simplified down to a self vs self that becomes a romantic tale. Instead we get a decaf version that can be construed into a mold that resembles such a film. I wanted to like it more, but it's still a decent watch.
Artsy trash
p-stepien25 July 2010
"No such thing" is a modern fairy tale in a postmodern pop-cultural setting. In a weird rendition of "Beauty and the Beast" the monster (played by Robert John Burke) - who by the way is apparently American - resides on a rock in Iceland far away from civilisation. However legends persist and nowadays where there is a legend there is a film crew. One such crew gets torn to shreds before the beginning credits and soon after we hear the monster's existential monologue, who tries to warn off any further interference from outside. However Beatrice (who works for the same TV station as the killed crew and was romantically involved with one of them) offers to investigate further and her boss (played by Helen Mirren) is up in joy at the proposal. Soon she is on a plane and after about 30 minutes of pointless movie filler (with Beatrice getting mugged by an addict, crashing in a plane, breaking he spine, getting operated and recovering) she finally makes it to the monster's hideout.
After a lacklustre talk with the monster she somehow convinces him to leave the island. How she did that with her crappy monologues and banal argumentation is a mystery. Even more so that this creature apparently has at least a couple of hundred thousand years of life behind him.
Only recently have I heard of Hal Hartley, supposedly a talented and ambitious director, and this is one of my first attempts at adoring his potential. Maybe. But this movie is the epitome of a disaster. I was very quickly taken aback by the absurdities of the news served at the beginning of the movie - supposedly we are in reality, but surprisingly everyday modernity apparently has bomb attacks, terrorist plots and high death tolls every 15 minutes. Not exactly sure what the point was of all this - why tell a serious story about a monster set in modern times, only to make it even more far-fetched with an exaggerated reality more fitting for a satire or a Monty Python sketch?
Soon after we are forced to survive about 30 minutes of filler, where Beatrice becomes a revered almost supernatural personality, because of surviving an airline crash. I theoretically understand that this was supposed to make her a counterpoint to the monster character and was aimed at creating more back-story for Beatrice... ultimately it caused much irritation and made me severely disinterested by the lax storytelling.
Unfortunately the movie never picks up from then. It doesn't work as a comedy. Nor as a horror. Nor as a drama. Nor as an art-house flick. It fails in every department mostly because of the poor script and sometimes god-awful dialogue. The movie also shifts from winking at the audience at the wrong moments to treating itself too seriously for it's own good. The plot is also severely unbelievable and at times watches like a bad 80s movies... In the 80s it was passable, because of the specific atmosphere at the time. In the 90s it's just corny.
I guess the only good thing I can say about the movie is the cast. Robert John Burke, who I am fond of since his monster role in Dust Devil, does great as the alcoholic horn-headed abomination. Similarly Helen Mirren is always ravishing and breathtaking... even in the most insignificant of roles. I can't however say the same about Sarah Polley, who in my opinion gave the most bland and forgettable performances of her lifetime.
All in all give this one the pass, unless you want to see some nice pictures of Iceland or are interested in the weird and mildly intriguing ending (the only part of the movie that actually worked).
After a lacklustre talk with the monster she somehow convinces him to leave the island. How she did that with her crappy monologues and banal argumentation is a mystery. Even more so that this creature apparently has at least a couple of hundred thousand years of life behind him.
Only recently have I heard of Hal Hartley, supposedly a talented and ambitious director, and this is one of my first attempts at adoring his potential. Maybe. But this movie is the epitome of a disaster. I was very quickly taken aback by the absurdities of the news served at the beginning of the movie - supposedly we are in reality, but surprisingly everyday modernity apparently has bomb attacks, terrorist plots and high death tolls every 15 minutes. Not exactly sure what the point was of all this - why tell a serious story about a monster set in modern times, only to make it even more far-fetched with an exaggerated reality more fitting for a satire or a Monty Python sketch?
Soon after we are forced to survive about 30 minutes of filler, where Beatrice becomes a revered almost supernatural personality, because of surviving an airline crash. I theoretically understand that this was supposed to make her a counterpoint to the monster character and was aimed at creating more back-story for Beatrice... ultimately it caused much irritation and made me severely disinterested by the lax storytelling.
Unfortunately the movie never picks up from then. It doesn't work as a comedy. Nor as a horror. Nor as a drama. Nor as an art-house flick. It fails in every department mostly because of the poor script and sometimes god-awful dialogue. The movie also shifts from winking at the audience at the wrong moments to treating itself too seriously for it's own good. The plot is also severely unbelievable and at times watches like a bad 80s movies... In the 80s it was passable, because of the specific atmosphere at the time. In the 90s it's just corny.
I guess the only good thing I can say about the movie is the cast. Robert John Burke, who I am fond of since his monster role in Dust Devil, does great as the alcoholic horn-headed abomination. Similarly Helen Mirren is always ravishing and breathtaking... even in the most insignificant of roles. I can't however say the same about Sarah Polley, who in my opinion gave the most bland and forgettable performances of her lifetime.
All in all give this one the pass, unless you want to see some nice pictures of Iceland or are interested in the weird and mildly intriguing ending (the only part of the movie that actually worked).
Creepin' to reach the shore...
EdgarST30 January 2004
Hal Hartley's strange tale opens with a monster giving a soliloquy in the vein of the sad reflection that Count Dracula makes on his condition, while Jonathan Harker listens, in Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu". The story alternates between modern settings of a television network and the home in Iceland of a legendary monster that -as in "King Kong"- will become a victim of the manipulative methods of the communication media (with Helen Mirren in charge.) The scenes dealing with the reserved journalist (Sarah Polley in an outstanding underacted performance) surviving a plane crash, meeting a community of weirdoes in Iceland and finally facing the monster, are the most attractive; the following is rather clichéd, though this endearing monster (who looks like a rock star) keeps making until the end, insightful comments on human beings, when we were still creeping "to reach the shore", and our destructive ways. 8/10.
Umm . . . yeah, no thanks
evilmatt-310 May 2004
I enjoy Hartley's work. I found _Trust_ absolutely fantastic. I am also thoroughly disenchanted with the media and the society that it greats. What I'm trying to say here is that I wanted to like this movie. However, after sitting through it not once but twice in the same evening, I'm afraid that _No Such Thing_ is subpar at best.
My biggest complaint comes from the script, which feels clipped and constrained in the 100 minutes or so the movie takes. Too often, the story moves us and the characters from one locale or situation to another with little or no explanation how we got there (for example, when the monster is first in an experiment room and then in a filthy alley with no connection between the scenes). The dialogue, usually razor sharp and the highlight of Hartley's films, often falls flat and stops short of articulating the meaningful points that Hartley no doubt understands and desperately wants to communicate. The characterization suffers either from being much to heavy handed (as with Beatrice's boss, who goes so far over the top even satire is offended) to choppy and uneven (as Beatrice herself, who flucuates from nice girl to martyr to party animal to nice girl to martyr without a breath. At least one character (Artaud) had an accent so thick that it was nearly impossible to tell what he was saying (see: _Cold Mountain_), and I get a feeling from what I understood that his character was central to the message of the film.
There were some high points. Burke is fantastic as the monster and provides the most enjoyable moments in the film with his cynical, resigned brand of dark humor and philosophical undertones. I've never met an immortal monster that existed since time began, but if I did, I'd be willing to bet that it would be a lot like this guy.
Polley also does a good job with the bizarre material she's given, especially in the beginning and the end of the film. It is to her credit in the middle that she does not make the script seem ridiculous at all, even though objectively it is.
For the part she gives us, Mirren is also wonderful as Beatrice's cold hearted boss. She's obviously having the time of her life in this role.
Final analysis: this is for Hartley or Polley completists, and not really for anyone else. Another entry in the book of disappointing films.
My biggest complaint comes from the script, which feels clipped and constrained in the 100 minutes or so the movie takes. Too often, the story moves us and the characters from one locale or situation to another with little or no explanation how we got there (for example, when the monster is first in an experiment room and then in a filthy alley with no connection between the scenes). The dialogue, usually razor sharp and the highlight of Hartley's films, often falls flat and stops short of articulating the meaningful points that Hartley no doubt understands and desperately wants to communicate. The characterization suffers either from being much to heavy handed (as with Beatrice's boss, who goes so far over the top even satire is offended) to choppy and uneven (as Beatrice herself, who flucuates from nice girl to martyr to party animal to nice girl to martyr without a breath. At least one character (Artaud) had an accent so thick that it was nearly impossible to tell what he was saying (see: _Cold Mountain_), and I get a feeling from what I understood that his character was central to the message of the film.
There were some high points. Burke is fantastic as the monster and provides the most enjoyable moments in the film with his cynical, resigned brand of dark humor and philosophical undertones. I've never met an immortal monster that existed since time began, but if I did, I'd be willing to bet that it would be a lot like this guy.
Polley also does a good job with the bizarre material she's given, especially in the beginning and the end of the film. It is to her credit in the middle that she does not make the script seem ridiculous at all, even though objectively it is.
For the part she gives us, Mirren is also wonderful as Beatrice's cold hearted boss. She's obviously having the time of her life in this role.
Final analysis: this is for Hartley or Polley completists, and not really for anyone else. Another entry in the book of disappointing films.
Could have been much better.
glen-8831 May 2006
They call this flick a dark comedy, but it fails in both.
The monster makeup and the character is interesting enough, and Polley does a decent job of playing a naive girl thats being manipulated by her boss, but there was a lot of potential for story wasted in very long drawn out scenes.
I understand the film is a cross between beauty and the beast and a modern commentary on media corruption or some such but it just doesn't hit home. The characters are almost too withdrawn for the audience to make any kind of meaningful connection and potentially humorous situations go by without even a chuckle.
It felt like certain characters and elements of the film were thrown together at the last second (ie the wonderful actress Helen Mirren had little to no poignant moments in the film) and a lot of it just felt like the director was trying to "wing it" until he got to climax..which wasn't all that well constructed or climatic.
I really liked the actors in the film but I think they really didn't have much to go on script wise. Perhaps under a different writer and director the flick could have been more impactful and humorous or darker and more moody..but as it stands its just a post-modernistic soup of ideas and no real point.
The monster makeup and the character is interesting enough, and Polley does a decent job of playing a naive girl thats being manipulated by her boss, but there was a lot of potential for story wasted in very long drawn out scenes.
I understand the film is a cross between beauty and the beast and a modern commentary on media corruption or some such but it just doesn't hit home. The characters are almost too withdrawn for the audience to make any kind of meaningful connection and potentially humorous situations go by without even a chuckle.
It felt like certain characters and elements of the film were thrown together at the last second (ie the wonderful actress Helen Mirren had little to no poignant moments in the film) and a lot of it just felt like the director was trying to "wing it" until he got to climax..which wasn't all that well constructed or climatic.
I really liked the actors in the film but I think they really didn't have much to go on script wise. Perhaps under a different writer and director the flick could have been more impactful and humorous or darker and more moody..but as it stands its just a post-modernistic soup of ideas and no real point.
Recommended
aimless-465 June 2005
Imagine that the original "Outer Limits" folks remade "King Kong" in their standard monster style and you have a good idea of "No Such Thing's" look and feel. Then throw in a little "Mighty Joe Young" banter, "Beauty and the Beast fashions", and "The Song of Bernadette" for good measure.
The film is a stylistic masterpiece and the banter between the beast and Beatrice (Sarah Polley) is surreal comedy at its best. If you enjoy quirky and subtly off-kilter films then the superficial story of "No Such Thing" will be a real pleasure in itself. Don't let frustration over the underlying meaning ruin the fun during the first viewing-just go with it.
The DVD does not contain a director's commentary so the viewer is left to speculate on just what this thing is really about; what themes Hartley is serious about and to what degree the obvious themes are just there for parody and laughs.
My retrospective take is that it is about the interplay of evolution and intelligent design, with the monster an artifact left over from creation. God created the monster, knowing that humankind needs fear for motivation. He expected us to have evolved beyond fear and hate of each other long before now, creating a need for the monster. But this did not happen, making the monster irrelevant and God disillusioned with humankind. Both he and the monster are bored with the stupidity they see.
God decides to intervene so the monster can go away and be put out of it's misery. He chooses Beatrice for this mission and she goes through a miracle survival experience to heighten her appreciation for life and to give her a distanced perspective free of fear and hate (the plane was going to crash with no survivors). Sarah Polley is perfectly cast as Beatrice; her Beatrice is somehow both detached and expressive. If you enjoy Polley you will love this character.
Virginia Woolf: Someone has to die Leonard, in order that the rest of us should value life more.
The film is a stylistic masterpiece and the banter between the beast and Beatrice (Sarah Polley) is surreal comedy at its best. If you enjoy quirky and subtly off-kilter films then the superficial story of "No Such Thing" will be a real pleasure in itself. Don't let frustration over the underlying meaning ruin the fun during the first viewing-just go with it.
The DVD does not contain a director's commentary so the viewer is left to speculate on just what this thing is really about; what themes Hartley is serious about and to what degree the obvious themes are just there for parody and laughs.
My retrospective take is that it is about the interplay of evolution and intelligent design, with the monster an artifact left over from creation. God created the monster, knowing that humankind needs fear for motivation. He expected us to have evolved beyond fear and hate of each other long before now, creating a need for the monster. But this did not happen, making the monster irrelevant and God disillusioned with humankind. Both he and the monster are bored with the stupidity they see.
God decides to intervene so the monster can go away and be put out of it's misery. He chooses Beatrice for this mission and she goes through a miracle survival experience to heighten her appreciation for life and to give her a distanced perspective free of fear and hate (the plane was going to crash with no survivors). Sarah Polley is perfectly cast as Beatrice; her Beatrice is somehow both detached and expressive. If you enjoy Polley you will love this character.
Virginia Woolf: Someone has to die Leonard, in order that the rest of us should value life more.
Post-Apocalyptic "Beauty and the Beast."
noralee13 December 2005
"No Such Thing" is a post-apocalyptic "Beauty and the Beast."
Though Hal Hartley's the-future-is-now satirical plot was probably written and filmed before 9/11 and got overtaken by the real unthinkable happening in New York City and media wars that are almost beyond parody, it is still a wistful meditation on the nature of humanity.
With his opening line resonant of "Moby Dick" -- "I'm not the monster I once was."-- Robert John Burke effectively and entertainingly uses his Kenneth Nordine-like voice to project The Monster's existential emotions and eternal intelligence under complex make-up.
Sarah Polley's innocent ingénue is intentionally out of place in NYC -- but works well with The Monster in Iceland and beyond. Two old broads, Helen Mirren and Julie Christie, get to strut their stuff in atypical roles for Polley to also play off of.
Michael Spiller's cinematography is gorgeous, particularly in Iceland.
Hartley's own music is mesmerizing throughout and its probably not unintentional that the leitmotif is reminiscent of "The Twilight Zone" theme.
While I got that the climactic scene with The Monster is an ironic parallel to the earlier medical miracle that saved Polley's character, I'm not 100% sure if the denouement is certain, except that one of course thinks of the closing line of "King Kong."
(originally written 4/20/2002)
Though Hal Hartley's the-future-is-now satirical plot was probably written and filmed before 9/11 and got overtaken by the real unthinkable happening in New York City and media wars that are almost beyond parody, it is still a wistful meditation on the nature of humanity.
With his opening line resonant of "Moby Dick" -- "I'm not the monster I once was."-- Robert John Burke effectively and entertainingly uses his Kenneth Nordine-like voice to project The Monster's existential emotions and eternal intelligence under complex make-up.
Sarah Polley's innocent ingénue is intentionally out of place in NYC -- but works well with The Monster in Iceland and beyond. Two old broads, Helen Mirren and Julie Christie, get to strut their stuff in atypical roles for Polley to also play off of.
Michael Spiller's cinematography is gorgeous, particularly in Iceland.
Hartley's own music is mesmerizing throughout and its probably not unintentional that the leitmotif is reminiscent of "The Twilight Zone" theme.
While I got that the climactic scene with The Monster is an ironic parallel to the earlier medical miracle that saved Polley's character, I'm not 100% sure if the denouement is certain, except that one of course thinks of the closing line of "King Kong."
(originally written 4/20/2002)
Warning - don't spoil your brain by watching this movie
sockerhampus-117 May 2007
This movie is just plain awful. The story line is like some infant trying to bash a puzzle together. The acting is so terrible that one wonders if the director was even present at the movie set, and the dialogue? It's like some D&D-nerd wrote something together when he was fourteen. Usually when I see a bad movie I don't care, I just turn it off. But this one was so bad I just had to warn other viewers. Well actually it can be pretty fun to watch just because it so friggin' bad. Just don't expect ANYTHING whatsoever.
So since one has to write ten lines I'll just have to add that one of the greatest displays of bad acting is when the "actress" playing the doctor listens to the woman at the car rental with her fist underneath her chin. She's trying to make a pose from the ancient Greek era look relaxed while just standing around. It's just ridiculous.
So since one has to write ten lines I'll just have to add that one of the greatest displays of bad acting is when the "actress" playing the doctor listens to the woman at the car rental with her fist underneath her chin. She's trying to make a pose from the ancient Greek era look relaxed while just standing around. It's just ridiculous.
TERRIFIC ALL THE WAY AROUND!!!
tropicthunderhead16 July 2003
Luckily, I stumbled upon this movie on the SUNDANCE channel. Having NEVER heard of it and only stopping to watch it because I caught it at the beginning and figured I'd give it a look. I kept switching back to the INFO button and was very curious to see how I was watching a movie about a MONSTER when cinematographically it looked like a dramatic independent film...As I kept watching, I became more engrossed in this film as it wasn't heading where I expected...I'm usually good at pinpointing the basics of where the movie will go...About 3/4 of the way through I figured it was another take on "Beauty and the Beast" but it STILL ended up surprising me...I won't say more so I don't give away the CINEMATIC RIDE I so thankfully happened upon. SUPERB DIRECTION AND ACTING! Robert John Burke (the Monster) and Sarah Polley delivered wonderfully believable performances! TWO THUMBS WAY UP for the surprising CREATIVITY of all involved!
A broken film, with many gorgeous pieces but loosely fit...
webdev-316 February 2005
I give this film a generous rating because I do believe artistically it has some merit. I am surprised about a few things:
1. Poor science fiction set design. It is difficult to manage a monster movie without good sets and props, although the costume did an adequate job of working with Burke's expressions.
2. Little cohesion in thought processes. Most of Hartley's works are famous for their consistent and minutely carved characters. One sees the craftsmanship in the design when conversations that begin at one part of the movie yield drastic consequences later, or when conversations that did not happen effect later events in the film. There are certainly interesting characters, and the conversations are likewise full of potential for interaction, argument and drama. In his masterpiece 'Theory of Achievement' which is arguably just as fragmented in terms of ideas and dialog, we see the characters interact in ways that were never made explicit, and yet are in continuity with the work. The continuity between conversations in No Such Thing breaks down, the theme dissolves, despite the intrigue of the dialog of each section of the film. In most of Hartley's film, which are dialog driven, every word is important and classical devices are used to draw the viewer into the action... (As the dialog between Emmet and Adrienne Shelley's character in Unbelievable Truth mimics theatrical practice - strophes, single lines, phrases - acceleration of dialog).. Again, there is a lot of space here and very little attention paid to the depth of the characters involved. Perhaps here the research into the film breaks down - it would have been helpful to visit and talk with scientists who exist in this cutting edge area of science, see their workspaces and understand how they view the world...
3. Settings are lovely - an unusual match for the film. Required a bit of editing fine tuning - acting appeared stilted on occasion and unnatural. Hard to see if this is intentional during the early portion of the film.
Overall, and interesting collection of conversation of the existence of myths, miracles and monsters, media and some other crazy m words...
1. Poor science fiction set design. It is difficult to manage a monster movie without good sets and props, although the costume did an adequate job of working with Burke's expressions.
2. Little cohesion in thought processes. Most of Hartley's works are famous for their consistent and minutely carved characters. One sees the craftsmanship in the design when conversations that begin at one part of the movie yield drastic consequences later, or when conversations that did not happen effect later events in the film. There are certainly interesting characters, and the conversations are likewise full of potential for interaction, argument and drama. In his masterpiece 'Theory of Achievement' which is arguably just as fragmented in terms of ideas and dialog, we see the characters interact in ways that were never made explicit, and yet are in continuity with the work. The continuity between conversations in No Such Thing breaks down, the theme dissolves, despite the intrigue of the dialog of each section of the film. In most of Hartley's film, which are dialog driven, every word is important and classical devices are used to draw the viewer into the action... (As the dialog between Emmet and Adrienne Shelley's character in Unbelievable Truth mimics theatrical practice - strophes, single lines, phrases - acceleration of dialog).. Again, there is a lot of space here and very little attention paid to the depth of the characters involved. Perhaps here the research into the film breaks down - it would have been helpful to visit and talk with scientists who exist in this cutting edge area of science, see their workspaces and understand how they view the world...
3. Settings are lovely - an unusual match for the film. Required a bit of editing fine tuning - acting appeared stilted on occasion and unnatural. Hard to see if this is intentional during the early portion of the film.
Overall, and interesting collection of conversation of the existence of myths, miracles and monsters, media and some other crazy m words...
Intriguing idea that goes nowhere.
lithium63 November 2002
How did this thing get past being a script?
How did Helen Mirren and Julie Christie become involved in this project?
It sort of feels like they were all at a party and someone said, "Let's make up a movie!" And they started writing, with everybody throwing in ideas. And some rich guy who was very drunk said, "I'll put down the money!"
And so they went and did it.
The ending just peters out. It's as if they were utterly bored. Or completely embarrassed. Or the rich guy stopped paying. Likely all three.
This is one of those rare stinkers that leaves me feeling bad. It's like I've been used. It's like someone ran sewage through my brain.
The only antidote is to go read a good book. Or see a real movie--i.e. something made by people who cared.
I think the opening credits said something about the government of Iceland being involved. Maybe the rich guy got some kind of tax break or something. So at least somebody came out ahead.
How did Helen Mirren and Julie Christie become involved in this project?
It sort of feels like they were all at a party and someone said, "Let's make up a movie!" And they started writing, with everybody throwing in ideas. And some rich guy who was very drunk said, "I'll put down the money!"
And so they went and did it.
The ending just peters out. It's as if they were utterly bored. Or completely embarrassed. Or the rich guy stopped paying. Likely all three.
This is one of those rare stinkers that leaves me feeling bad. It's like I've been used. It's like someone ran sewage through my brain.
The only antidote is to go read a good book. Or see a real movie--i.e. something made by people who cared.
I think the opening credits said something about the government of Iceland being involved. Maybe the rich guy got some kind of tax break or something. So at least somebody came out ahead.
ANNIHILATION of the Wicked!
Wuchakk14 February 2015
Released in 2001, "No Such Thing" was originally called "Monster," which is the superior title. Why? Because the film's about a literal monster, played by Robert John Burke, who looks like a cross between Satan, a reptile and a grouchy dude. The monster's been alive for millennia and is virtually indestructible. He dwells in bored solitude on an island off the coast of a remote area of Iceland where he occasionally terrorizes the villagers, kills people and blows flames from his mouth. Sarah Polley plays the protagonist, Beatrice, whose husband is killed by the creature along with a team of reporters. She's assigned the mission of finding out what the "legend" is all about and, after tragic bypass, meets the monster who stirs her compassion to put him out of his misery. Helen Mirren plays a loathsome news media executive and Julie Christie a doctor who helps rehabilitate Beatrice.
Needless to say, this is an odd dramedy/fantasy that's so unique there's really "No Such Movie," which explains the mixed reviews. It successfully meshes the depth of inhuman evil with the height of genuine spirituality with generous does of comedy, drama, satire and tragedy. It comes as no surprise that it's an American Zoetrope picture, the studio founded by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas at the start of the 70s and known for filmmaking expertise that generally eschews 'blockbuster' syndrome. In fact, Coppola is the executive producer of "No Such Thing."
Unfortunately, 'unique' doesn't always mean great. My wife & I viewed "No Such Thing" in 2011 and were somewhat bored, even while there are undeniable entertaining elements, but I viewed it again last night and, while still finding it boring in some ways, I enjoyed it more. For instance, the monster is sometimes laugh-out-loud funny and the spiritual parts are palpable. Moreover, I was able to figure out what the film's all about, at least in my humble opinion. It's this factor – the film's insightful and fascinating MEANING – that breaks the threshold of greatness and inspires me to rate it as high as I do. See my explanation below for more details.
The film runs 102 minutes and was shot in Iceland and New York City.
GRADE: B+
***SPOILER ALERT*** (DON'T read further unless you've seen the film)
Imagine if you could live forever, what would you do? Imagine the potential for growth and learning! You could learn how to travel the cosmos and discover the answers to life's greatest mysteries. Now consider being indestructible and imagine the capacity for being a benign force in the world and universe, destroying evil wherever you go, etc. The monster in the movie possesses these incredible gifts and yet doesn't take advantage of them. All he does is mope around in a hateful, self-pitying fog, drinking booze, cussing people out – or threatening & killing 'em – and wishing he were dead.
The monster represents people who are blessed with the gift of life and foolishly squander it on drugs, alcohol and various time-wasters (and I'm not talking about proper r & r, which is healthy); others misuse the gift of life to grumble, hate, slander, steal, abuse, destroy and murder. It's no accident that the creature looks like Satan himself. These types of people are all around us. Now imagine if these miserable, loathsome folks were immortal. What would they be like in a few million years? They'd be like the monster in the movie. The media executive (Mirren) is roughly 60 years old and she's on the same course as the creature, as are other individuals in the story.
Beatrice is the Christ-figure who figuratively dies and is resurrected. Like the Messiah, she responds in love to the hate, crime and self-destruction that infects the world. When she meets the monster she observes that there is no hope for him; there's no love in him, no good, no possibility for redemption. The only compassionate thing she can do is assist him in attaining his ultimate desire: destruction.
This destruction is a type of the lake of fire or "second death" where the bible says God will "DESTROY both soul and body" (Matthew 10:28). What's the purpose of this "second death"? The Creator is essentially doing what Beatrice does in the film and for the same reasons.
If Beatrice is the saintly "Christ-figure" why does she morph into a loose woman who has a one-night-stand at the end? Because she's only a TYPE of Christ and, as such, is still wholly human, possessing the potential for moral failure. She falls after constant contact with the irredeemable creature for an extended period. The apostle Paul put it like so: "Bad company corrupts good character." This explains why Beatrice tells the monster she fears him at the end while simultaneously hugging (loving) him: She needed to carry out her duty -- compassionately putting the creature out of its misery -- because his intrinsic evil was starting to rub off!
Needless to say, this is an odd dramedy/fantasy that's so unique there's really "No Such Movie," which explains the mixed reviews. It successfully meshes the depth of inhuman evil with the height of genuine spirituality with generous does of comedy, drama, satire and tragedy. It comes as no surprise that it's an American Zoetrope picture, the studio founded by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas at the start of the 70s and known for filmmaking expertise that generally eschews 'blockbuster' syndrome. In fact, Coppola is the executive producer of "No Such Thing."
Unfortunately, 'unique' doesn't always mean great. My wife & I viewed "No Such Thing" in 2011 and were somewhat bored, even while there are undeniable entertaining elements, but I viewed it again last night and, while still finding it boring in some ways, I enjoyed it more. For instance, the monster is sometimes laugh-out-loud funny and the spiritual parts are palpable. Moreover, I was able to figure out what the film's all about, at least in my humble opinion. It's this factor – the film's insightful and fascinating MEANING – that breaks the threshold of greatness and inspires me to rate it as high as I do. See my explanation below for more details.
The film runs 102 minutes and was shot in Iceland and New York City.
GRADE: B+
***SPOILER ALERT*** (DON'T read further unless you've seen the film)
Imagine if you could live forever, what would you do? Imagine the potential for growth and learning! You could learn how to travel the cosmos and discover the answers to life's greatest mysteries. Now consider being indestructible and imagine the capacity for being a benign force in the world and universe, destroying evil wherever you go, etc. The monster in the movie possesses these incredible gifts and yet doesn't take advantage of them. All he does is mope around in a hateful, self-pitying fog, drinking booze, cussing people out – or threatening & killing 'em – and wishing he were dead.
The monster represents people who are blessed with the gift of life and foolishly squander it on drugs, alcohol and various time-wasters (and I'm not talking about proper r & r, which is healthy); others misuse the gift of life to grumble, hate, slander, steal, abuse, destroy and murder. It's no accident that the creature looks like Satan himself. These types of people are all around us. Now imagine if these miserable, loathsome folks were immortal. What would they be like in a few million years? They'd be like the monster in the movie. The media executive (Mirren) is roughly 60 years old and she's on the same course as the creature, as are other individuals in the story.
Beatrice is the Christ-figure who figuratively dies and is resurrected. Like the Messiah, she responds in love to the hate, crime and self-destruction that infects the world. When she meets the monster she observes that there is no hope for him; there's no love in him, no good, no possibility for redemption. The only compassionate thing she can do is assist him in attaining his ultimate desire: destruction.
This destruction is a type of the lake of fire or "second death" where the bible says God will "DESTROY both soul and body" (Matthew 10:28). What's the purpose of this "second death"? The Creator is essentially doing what Beatrice does in the film and for the same reasons.
If Beatrice is the saintly "Christ-figure" why does she morph into a loose woman who has a one-night-stand at the end? Because she's only a TYPE of Christ and, as such, is still wholly human, possessing the potential for moral failure. She falls after constant contact with the irredeemable creature for an extended period. The apostle Paul put it like so: "Bad company corrupts good character." This explains why Beatrice tells the monster she fears him at the end while simultaneously hugging (loving) him: She needed to carry out her duty -- compassionately putting the creature out of its misery -- because his intrinsic evil was starting to rub off!
Cheesy
strawberryxelf4 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
While in Blockbuster I saw this movie on the shelf and it looked pretty entertaining. I thought, like the movie 10 Things I Hate About You, it was a modern remake of an older story- in this case, the life story I had in mind was the Elephant Man. (*Spoilers are probably ahead, as I cannot make my point without making examples*) However, it is not really the case. The film opens with a rather cheesy monologue from "the monster." A woe-is-me kind of deal. The characters are pretty black and white. "He's good." "She's bad." The lead character, played by Sarah Polley, is an extremely innocent young woman whom everyone seems to push around. She is assigned to find the monster, and in a small voiceover she says she couldn't get a taxi because the bridge was threatened by terrorists, and shortly after she is mugged-sort of- more specifically, the woman who mugs her applies lipstick to her lips. She then boards a plane which crashes, leaving her as the sole survivor, and everyone thinks she's blessed. So, after some time, she ends up leaving, once again on her quest to find the monster. The monster himself, while he has killed in many instances in the past without a care, for some reason or another bonds with her and doesn't kill her. Afterwards, where they make friends despite the fact he killed her fiance (go figure), they head off and get quite a lot of media attention. Plots and twisted morals run thick, and pity tends to control your emotions in this movie. Overall, it was pretty substandard. The script is pretty poorly written. I'd probably give it a 4/10.
A Fable about good and evil
rubatoatm15 February 2011
A thoughtful, intelligent film about science, human nature and the need for the dichotomy of good & evil. The "monster" is something we have made in which to lock up all the evil of which we humans are capable. Science and human kindness are the saviors, the forces that can eradicate the need for such symbols.
In order to tame "evil", the good have to endure suffering, symbolized by the young ingenue who is injured and healed : a Christ-like character.
This movie is gentle, sensitive and moving as well as filled with delicate humor. I have my own copy so I can watch it occasionally.
In order to tame "evil", the good have to endure suffering, symbolized by the young ingenue who is injured and healed : a Christ-like character.
This movie is gentle, sensitive and moving as well as filled with delicate humor. I have my own copy so I can watch it occasionally.
Patchy
tramsbottom10 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Tries to update the Beauty and the Beast fable but gets lost in student-level preachiness about how shallow the world is. Polley is always good company but she's let down by bland cinematography (people have a habit of walking into frame looking at something we can't see) and patchy script.
MINOR SPOILERS!!! Why exactly does Polley's character have to spend six months in hospital before the real story begins? Why does she kiss a man on the cheek after he helped drug her and send her off as a human sacrifice for the monster? Why does she suddenly turn into a slut back in the city? If the idea was to show the corruption of fame then it was rushed and didn't suit the character at all.
END SPOILERS
It tries too hard to say too many things and ends up saying nothing, drifting in and out of rambling passages about the trials of human existence. Not the worst film ever, but for god's sake write for an audience, not just yourself Mr Director.
MINOR SPOILERS!!! Why exactly does Polley's character have to spend six months in hospital before the real story begins? Why does she kiss a man on the cheek after he helped drug her and send her off as a human sacrifice for the monster? Why does she suddenly turn into a slut back in the city? If the idea was to show the corruption of fame then it was rushed and didn't suit the character at all.
END SPOILERS
It tries too hard to say too many things and ends up saying nothing, drifting in and out of rambling passages about the trials of human existence. Not the worst film ever, but for god's sake write for an audience, not just yourself Mr Director.
I'm not Sure Whether I like It Or Not
Darkest_Rose24 December 2002
I am really not sure what to think of this movie. Sometimes i thought it was dumb, sometimes i thought it was intelligent and thoughtful. Beatrice is a young woman who works with some kind of daily news people and makes their coffee. She wants to go investigate this rumour in iceland, the rumour is that there is a monster living there. On the way to Iceland, the plane crashes and Beatrice is the only one that survives. She goes into a six month treatment to get better, and when she does, she still has her mind set on going to iceland and finding a monster. Once she meets him, the monster is nothing like I would imagine a monster to be. He is a alcoholic, a insomniac and he curses like a truck driver. Beatrice and The monster become friends and she convinces him to go out and show himself to the world. But the world is ugly and doesn't appreciate something that is different from them. Like I said, these movie had some touching parts , especially the ending was beautiful, but I didn't really enjoy it. I would give No Such Thing 5/10
Hartley Fans Rejoice!
jhclues9 July 2002
As individuals, or collectively as a society, what is it, exactly, that we are afraid of? Since the beginning of time, what has really been behind all those knee-jerk reactions that have brought us to where we are today? These are the questions posed (and answered) by writer/director Hal Hartley in `No Such Thing,' an often biting satire of the news media, the all-to-prevalent-in-our-society tabloid-type mentality and our response to the unknown, be it tangible or imaginary; a film that brings us face to face with fear and confronts it with humor, pathos and Hartley's own insightful and inimitable take on the human condition.
Some time after a three-man television news team disappears after being sent to Iceland to investigate reports of a `monster' living on a rock island just off the coast, the station receives a tape recording from someone claiming to be the monster himself, describing in graphic detail what he did with those dispatched to find and film him. `The Boss (Helen Mirren)' of the news department, in her quest to give the public the `worst news' possible, agrees to send another employee, Beatrice (Sarah Polley), to Iceland to follow up on it, since Beatrice was engaged to the cameraman of the crew gone missing.
After a temporary delay due to circumstances beyond her control, Beatrice finally makes it to Iceland, where she has to trek to a remote village on the coast (the final leg of which she has to walk, as even horses can't make it through). Once there, the locals tell their tales of the `monster,' who has apparently always been with them, and point out to her the rock upon which he is purported to live. And Beatrice finds herself at the point of no return; she has come this far, and now it's just a matter of getting some help from the villagers to get her across the channel to the rock-- and her encounter with this monster who is `changeless and eternal.'
As no one else can, Hal Hartley has crafted and delivered a film that is part `Beauty and the Beast,' part `Frankenstein,' part `Forbidden Planet,' and ALL Hartley. Unlike most films featuring a `monster,' Hartley does not keep his audience in suspense, but reveals his `man/beast' at the very beginning, as we see him making the tape he subsequently sends to the T.V. station. And he's an ugly spud (credit goes to Mark Rappaport for special effects makeup), unique among all of the monsters in cinematic history. Hartley's creation affects a John Wayne countenance, drinks too much and speaks perfect English (how this can be so is ultimately revealed). Hartley then layers one unexpected event upon another, using black comedy to present a scathing social commentary, incisively composed through his keen insights into human nature. The allegory of the tale is concealed in who this monster really is, and what he wants, and it brings to mind Dr. Morbius and the secrets of the Krell.
Absent in this film is the trademark cadence Hartley generally has his actors employ through a very deliberate delivery of their lines, and it is missed, as it is one of the elements that makes his films so engaging, creating as it does a fairly hypnotic effect (similar to the method employed by David Mamet in his films). Still, the Hartley magic is alive and well, and by keeping his volatile monster front and center throughout the film, rather than as a mysterious entity hidden in the shadows to whom he merely alludes, he succeeds in keeping his audience totally involved. Hartley is also a master of `thinking outside the box,' which enables him to offer entirely unique perspectives on the human condition and this thing we call `life'; you never know where he's going to take you, which is another reason why his films are so engaging (as this one certainly is). He knows how to make that all-important connection with his audience, but he chooses to do it indirectly, offering thought-provoking scenarios in a way that gives his viewer the option of coming on board or standing by while the ship sails; a kind of `you can lead a horse to water,' proposition that most filmmakers would not have the courage to employ. Keep in mind, though, that once you hit the deck with Hartley, the rewards are many and great.
Working with Hartley for the first time, Sarah Polley proves to be a quick study in all things Hartley; in creating Beatrice, she demonstrates an innate grasp of his methods, and most importantly, what it is he is attempting to accomplish through his characters. And this has to be a challenge to any actor; just as not every actor can work with Woody Allen because of his approach, it would seemingly be difficult with Hartley because of his unique perspectives. Whatever the case may be, Polley succeeds splendidly, presenting a convincing character who is decidedly all `Hartley.'
Helen Mirren, too, demonstrates her versatility and consummate professionalism by falling into Hartley's rhythms with apparent facility. The role of `The Boss' is something of a departure for Mirren, but she immerses herself in the character with gusto and makes The Boss believable. And she seems to be enjoying herself immensely in doing so. A terrific actor, she's a joy to watch in this one.
As the monster, Hartley regular Robert John Burke steals the show by creating a monster that is so stunningly atypical; this beast has a fearless swagger and the wisdom of millennia to back it up. Burke readily conveys his disdain for human beings with terms and a tone that fairly drips with cynicism, and it is in his portrayal that we find both the real humor and the pathos of the film.
The supporting cast includes Baltasar Kormakur (Artaud), Julie Christie (Dr. Anna) and Stacy Dawson (Mugger). Off-beat and entertaining, `No Such Thing' is a unique experience that is going to make you think a bit. 9/10.
Some time after a three-man television news team disappears after being sent to Iceland to investigate reports of a `monster' living on a rock island just off the coast, the station receives a tape recording from someone claiming to be the monster himself, describing in graphic detail what he did with those dispatched to find and film him. `The Boss (Helen Mirren)' of the news department, in her quest to give the public the `worst news' possible, agrees to send another employee, Beatrice (Sarah Polley), to Iceland to follow up on it, since Beatrice was engaged to the cameraman of the crew gone missing.
After a temporary delay due to circumstances beyond her control, Beatrice finally makes it to Iceland, where she has to trek to a remote village on the coast (the final leg of which she has to walk, as even horses can't make it through). Once there, the locals tell their tales of the `monster,' who has apparently always been with them, and point out to her the rock upon which he is purported to live. And Beatrice finds herself at the point of no return; she has come this far, and now it's just a matter of getting some help from the villagers to get her across the channel to the rock-- and her encounter with this monster who is `changeless and eternal.'
As no one else can, Hal Hartley has crafted and delivered a film that is part `Beauty and the Beast,' part `Frankenstein,' part `Forbidden Planet,' and ALL Hartley. Unlike most films featuring a `monster,' Hartley does not keep his audience in suspense, but reveals his `man/beast' at the very beginning, as we see him making the tape he subsequently sends to the T.V. station. And he's an ugly spud (credit goes to Mark Rappaport for special effects makeup), unique among all of the monsters in cinematic history. Hartley's creation affects a John Wayne countenance, drinks too much and speaks perfect English (how this can be so is ultimately revealed). Hartley then layers one unexpected event upon another, using black comedy to present a scathing social commentary, incisively composed through his keen insights into human nature. The allegory of the tale is concealed in who this monster really is, and what he wants, and it brings to mind Dr. Morbius and the secrets of the Krell.
Absent in this film is the trademark cadence Hartley generally has his actors employ through a very deliberate delivery of their lines, and it is missed, as it is one of the elements that makes his films so engaging, creating as it does a fairly hypnotic effect (similar to the method employed by David Mamet in his films). Still, the Hartley magic is alive and well, and by keeping his volatile monster front and center throughout the film, rather than as a mysterious entity hidden in the shadows to whom he merely alludes, he succeeds in keeping his audience totally involved. Hartley is also a master of `thinking outside the box,' which enables him to offer entirely unique perspectives on the human condition and this thing we call `life'; you never know where he's going to take you, which is another reason why his films are so engaging (as this one certainly is). He knows how to make that all-important connection with his audience, but he chooses to do it indirectly, offering thought-provoking scenarios in a way that gives his viewer the option of coming on board or standing by while the ship sails; a kind of `you can lead a horse to water,' proposition that most filmmakers would not have the courage to employ. Keep in mind, though, that once you hit the deck with Hartley, the rewards are many and great.
Working with Hartley for the first time, Sarah Polley proves to be a quick study in all things Hartley; in creating Beatrice, she demonstrates an innate grasp of his methods, and most importantly, what it is he is attempting to accomplish through his characters. And this has to be a challenge to any actor; just as not every actor can work with Woody Allen because of his approach, it would seemingly be difficult with Hartley because of his unique perspectives. Whatever the case may be, Polley succeeds splendidly, presenting a convincing character who is decidedly all `Hartley.'
Helen Mirren, too, demonstrates her versatility and consummate professionalism by falling into Hartley's rhythms with apparent facility. The role of `The Boss' is something of a departure for Mirren, but she immerses herself in the character with gusto and makes The Boss believable. And she seems to be enjoying herself immensely in doing so. A terrific actor, she's a joy to watch in this one.
As the monster, Hartley regular Robert John Burke steals the show by creating a monster that is so stunningly atypical; this beast has a fearless swagger and the wisdom of millennia to back it up. Burke readily conveys his disdain for human beings with terms and a tone that fairly drips with cynicism, and it is in his portrayal that we find both the real humor and the pathos of the film.
The supporting cast includes Baltasar Kormakur (Artaud), Julie Christie (Dr. Anna) and Stacy Dawson (Mugger). Off-beat and entertaining, `No Such Thing' is a unique experience that is going to make you think a bit. 9/10.
A Modern Day "Beauty and the Beast"
EmperorNortonII5 October 2003
"No Such Thing" aspires to be a version of "Beauty and the Beast" for the media age. The story concerns a bitter, misanthropic monster in the modern world. Beatrice, a kind-hearted journalist finds him on a remote island near Iceland, and brings him to America. There were some elements of parody on the mass media and tabloid system, but there just wasn't enough for my taste. The story does have its poignant and artistic moments. It doesn't shoot for a happy ending. But, in the end, "No Such Thing" doesn't become the perfect fable.
Bad
pommesmitsalbe20 November 2006
This was probably the second worst movie I've ever seen - topped only by "Critical Mass". I actually enjoy independent films a lot but this one is just a very bad attempt at producing something artistic. The story is completely pathetic and does not make any sense - there are approximately one hundred mistakes or inconsistencies in it. They cannot seem to decide whether to make it a comedy or a dark drama. In addition, every single actor in "No Such Thing" could easily be nominated for a "worst actor" Emmy. However, the inferiority of the acting and the movie's senselessness is almost funny. This is actually all I have to say about this movie but Internet Movie Data Base requires me to write at least ten lines. So I do not want to conceal that the monster's costume was pretty poor too, making it look like a green faced human with horns. It is supposed to be a billion year old creature who has witnessed the dawn of creation, one could expect to behave quite wise. Instead, it is acting like my wife's little teenage brother. The woman first comes across very cool and mature, just to turn into some goofy girl later for no apparent reason. She may have been badly influenced by the monster's demeanor.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
