Reviews & Ratings for
No Such Thing More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

71 reviews in total

---

31 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Cinematic Doubt, 13 August 2002
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

*** This review may contain 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.

---

23 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Recommended, 5 June 2005

Author: aimless-46 from Kentucky

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.

---

17 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Art-house Fairy Tale, 24 April 2005

Author: hokeybutt from Milwaukee, Wisconsin

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.

---

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Hartley Fans Rejoice!, 9 July 2002

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon

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.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Creepin' to reach the shore..., 30 January 2004

Author: Edgar Soberón Torchia (estorchia@gmail.com) from Panama

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.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
TERRIFIC ALL THE WAY AROUND!!!, 16 July 2003
Author: ACUSA

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!

---

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
The monster speaks!, 21 July 2004

Author: jotix100 from New York

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Beauty and the Matter Eradicator, 12 April 2008

Author: jshoaf from Florida

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really like this movie. Partly that's because I like Iceland. You would swear that the Icelanders describing the monster were reciting Beowulf.

No such Thing is a version of "Beauty and the Beast" that would make Jean Cocteau jealous: the need of Beauty for the Beast and vice-versa is stripped of psychology or eroticism, and the likelihood that "this is all a dream" is pushed at us again and again. First, we have the unlikelihood that Beatrice survived the plane crash, or left the operating table under the hands of her Fairy Godmother. Then, there are the terrific little moments like the one where we watch the Beast turn away from us and hunch over, like any carnival fire-spitter, to prepare the mouthful of liquid which he will then spit out in flames. "I saw him breathe fire," says Beatrice later, to clarify that her monster is the genuine article. And then there is the Matter Eradicator, a device designed to convince the Matter that he has no self, that he does not in fact exist.

Like Cocteau's Beast (or the gorgeous beast played by Ron Perlman in the TV series), the Monster is quite attractive and looks very gentlemanly (his costume suggests Heathcliff), is brave, and keeps his promises. Like Cocteau's Beast, he is not pleased with his own murderous nature. He drinks to salve the pain of being inhuman. In No Such Thing, however, we need not fear that the Monster will suddenly turn into a boring human prince. There is no Gothic hint that he is a suitable object of sexual desire, or that lust is something he feels (rather, it is something that his human neighbors project on him by "dumping a piece of ass" on his island from time to time).

The movie keeps its balance between the blessing that Beatrice might bring to the Monster and the role the Monster plays in the human imagination. Helen Mirren's character and her cohorts have developed to a point of civilization where they no longer fear the Monster. They happily express in word and deed their own cruelty and rapacity, which far outrun the monster's. To them he is fascinating as a being who can be tortured indefinitely and in many ways without actually dying. The good scientists, Dr. Anna and Dr. Artaud, on the other hand see the monster as matter to be eradicated. Beatrice, however, who is wholly good, simply loves the Monster.

I think there is no ending to the film because there is no beginning. Beatrice keeps losing consciousness; before our eyes, she shows blind faith in some pretty doubtful tricks. So we are not allowed to suspend belief sufficiently to trust the final sequence of events. The face of Beatrice is offered as a kind of vision at the end, like the vision of God at the end of Dante's Divine Comedy. What would you want to see when you are about to have your matter eradicated? Surely this glowing face of love.

The question, if we did suspend disbelief, would be: can the Matter Eradicator, which we are told relies on the Monster's acceptance that he has no self, work when he sees that face? If not, he is back in the hands of the torturers. He does not need Beauty's kiss; he needs a Minna, as in Coppola's Dracula, to cut off his head. Or a Beowulf.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Clarification for the Ending, 5 March 2006

Author: dekab4040 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I do not understand the ending. Was she dreaming the sequence of events due to going into a coma during the worst part of the operation, or did she recover and all this really happen---what I am curious about is why the apparatus used to kill the beast was the same type used in her operation to help her walk. Can anyone help me out? I did think it was a clever movie as I am not usually one to sit and watch movies a lot; especially one I have never heard about. It was well-done and quite unusual and kept me there until the end. With her face continually being superimposed in the ending, it appeared that she may also have either connected with the "beast" or changed places or actually the "beast" was her injury.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A wonderful telling of a fairy tale, 14 August 2002

Author: Steve Smith (sp.smith@lycos.com) from Kansas City, Missouri

While the social commentary is quite obvious, the fairy tale feel of this movie is pretty good. There's sort of a surreal portrait of the modern world as a world of dangers in which almost everyone is corrupted...except for Beatrice who, guileless, goes through the world loving even the woman who mugs her at the airport. The Monster is a cynical, ancient creature who fits the stereotype of the lonely outcast. In one of the best lines in the film as the Monster is pining for the fear of humans, he is warmly hugged by a sleepy Beatrice who says, "I'm afraid of you." It's a very good film, told as a cautionary tale in the modern world with fairly black and white characters. Well worth seeing for the storybook feel, some good though odd acting, and the lush scenery.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history