Customer Reviews

No Such Thing [VHS]

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I can't remember how this film ended up in my hands (maybe a friend recommended it), but I won't ever let it go now. There is endless speculation here at Amazon.com about "what this films meanings are", and after viewing it several times, I might (and that's an awfully big "MIGHT") be able to add my two cents. But first, let me tell you briefly what this sucker's all about:

Beatrice (Sarah Polley), a nobody reporter for an obscure media magnate, is sent to Iceland to speak with the natives of a distant village about their belief that an ancient monster lives in an abandoned missile silo somewhere near their dwellings. On her way to Iceland many strange things happen to Beatrice: her purse gets stolen by a dark and sinister looking female drug addict, shadows lurk around corners, and Beatrice begins to feel that evil is not too far away from her. And she's right. Her plane crashes into the Atlantic Ocean and she is the only survivor. After many, many months of therapy (and going through an oddball spinal operation that involves excruciating pain that causes her to black out), she's finally able to make it to the Icelandic village ...and soon discovers that the monster is REAL!

Robert John Burke (Robo Cop 3 and Tombstone) plays the monster who's been around since "humans crawled out of the primordial ooze." He's a sarcastic, burned out monster who's only hope is that he'll die one of these millennia and be put out of his misery of watching the human race devour itself. He's an excellent character who you just love listening to, his voice a slow cadence contained within a body who's personality swings from depression to wrath in the blink of an eye. And when Beatrice offers to help him end his life of suffering, he reluctantly agrees to go along with her (nothing has worked up until this point, so the monster has serious doubts that anyone can kill him).

When Beatrice brings him back to civilization, a media frenzy ensues. A REAL monster! Newspapers, TV, radio, they're eating it up! But the monster doesn't want any of that. He wants to be away from these gnats of humanity. But even more sinister things are afoot. The military wants to examine him to find out why he's so indestructible. The media wants to make a "Beauty and the Beast" story out of him and Beatrice. And terrible people are using their fear of him to do awful things to the monster (like beating him up and peeing on him).

Finally, Beatrice finds a scientist who proposes his method of ending the monsters existence. And a rush to end his life before anyone can stop them takes place. Can science really kill our monsters? What happens if you kill off the last monster in the world? Can we live without them?

The amazing thing about this film is that it makes you think, laugh, cry, and shiver, often in the same scene. Incredible scripting.

So what about my two cents? I think this films main focus is on the monsters in our lives and how we perceive them, and what would happen if we killed them all off. It would change the very fabric of who we are. Could you imagine a world without Dracula? Or Frankenstein? Or that little furry monster that lived under you bed when you were eight years old? What would happen to us if they never existed in our thoughts and imaginations? Is THAT a more terrible fate than actually having a real one living in an abandoned missile silo?

As crazy as this concept may sound, the movie gives implicit meaning to it by showing us Beatrice's encounter with the drugged-out purse stealer, her plane crash, her suffering through horrific pain during spinal surgery, and her eventual understanding of how important some demons are in our lives.

A fantastic film. A+

is that it needs a sophisticated, well-informed audience, able to make connections without large neon arrows, and aware of nuance. intelligence helps.

i originally watched this film because it was set in iceland. i watched it a second time, and am buying the dvd, because of all the subtle, quiet bits of staging, the wonderful dialogue, its absurdity, the quality of the performances, and the density of meaning and references--not only the obvious, but possibly the obscure: does this scene reference morality plays? does the movie satirize quest legends?

this film reminds me of a review the author dick francis once got--the reviewer said that francis leaves much unsaid but nothing unexpressed.

if you prefer to actively participate in a performance, to have your mind as well as your emotions engaged, this is a film you will enjoy. if every motivation and action has to be explained to you by several minutes of dialogue, look somewhere else.

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 as a tangible fear factor. 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. Sarah Polley is perfectly cast as Beatrice; her Beatrice is somehow both detached and expressive. If you enjoy Polley you will love this character.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I had been eagerly anticipating this film because it featured three of my favorite film personalities... Hal Hartley, Sarah Polley and Helen Mirren.

Buzz around this new film had been rather negative... largely, I think, due to the trailer on the NO SUCH THING website, that makes the film look like a mainstream film... which is certainly is not. It's Hal, through and through and I really loved it. Sarah Polley and Helen Mirren are outstanding as an innocent, waifish assistant, and her hard-nosed, cynical boss respectively, on a television news show. Robert Burke (UNBELIEVABLE TRUTH, SIMPLE MEN) plays the monster. Julie Christie also appears as a brilliant doctor in Iceland.

Hartley tackles a stairical look at the media... and does so with humor and real emotion. Some of Polley's scenes as she undergoes a series of traumatic hardships are amazing. And the slow revelation about the monster while hardly unexpected is still surprising. Once again, Hartley wraps things up with a mysterious and transcendent ending.

According to Plutarch (CE 45-125) the great Goat-God "Pan is Dead," dying just as the Christian faith was taking hold in the Mediterranean world, a classic case of out with the old and in with the new. However what if Plutarch was wrong, what if Pan hadn't died but lived on through the centuries. What if this primal, rural deity remained in the shadows of history quietly observing the advancement of mankind through the ages. What would he think of seeing his beloved wilderness landscape slowly devoured and replaced by large, congested urban centers. Would he be forced into a nomadic existence forever looking for a place of solitude away from the ever curious world of men. If he was seen on occasion would he be revered as in old as a God, or despised and perceived as a monster? What if Pan really did exist?

Interesting premise don't you think? Well this is the situation and just some of the questions dealt with in Hal Hartley's amazing dark comedy `No Such Thing' (`01). OK, I admit the film doesn't actually refer to this horned and hairy monster as the legendary Pan but the resemblance is strong and there are definitely subtle implications in the script supporting this view. Anyway, a satyr-like creature is discovered alive and hiding out in a remote region of Iceland. He is isolated, depressed, alcoholic and suicidal. The monster laments, "I see extinction in everything around me." He's convinced that only dying can solve his problem. But he can't, he's immortal. This disenfranchised pagan deity now spends his time drinking and terrorizing a nearby village whenever his anger at mankind becomes too much to bear. All seems hopeless until Beatrice a young American journalist convinces him to accompany her back to the U.S.A., giving her the story of the century and providing him with his one and only chance for extinction.

`No Such Thing' is one of the most original, off-beat and quirky films you'll ever come across. Hartley's dialogue ranges from inventive to absurd, but always meaningful and layered. Robert John Burke is brilliant as the potty-mouthed Satyr and Sarah Polley is a perfect choice for the clueless Beatrice. If you're looking for something totally different from the everyday here it is!

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.

While reading the reviews for this film I was surprised that everyone says that you need to be a Hal Hartley fan to enjoy it. I had never seen any Hartley films before I stumbled upon this one, but I instantly loved it. It is interesting for the fact that most people never see movies like this. No Such Thing is so absurd and creative that I feel many people could enjoy it. I ended up liking this movie so much that I decided to buy it before even seeing any of Hartley's other films.(Which I am going to do based on the power of this film)

There really isn't any middle ground with Hartley. The best parts of Lynch and Mamet combined in one strange intelligent package. People either love him or hate him, both with good reason.

No Such Thing closely follows the rythm and pacing of Hartley's Amateur, itself an almost perfect film in my opinion. You will not find traditional Hollywood motifs in this movie (or his others). The setups and payoffs are subtle. The emotions are often conveyed through a word or a glance, as opposed to a bullhorn directed at the audience. Subtlety over brute force is his preferred approach.

No Such Thing contains many levels of myth, fable and parable. From the obvious references to such classics as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (NOT the Disney versions), to more esoteric nods, this film delivers in ways that most others simple could not. Watching Hellen Mirren's character transform before us in the blink of an eye in such a believeable way was breathtaking. There was no rousing score directing the viewer towards the appropriate emotional conclusion. There was no arrogant buildup of camera work, no amazingly contrived series of scenes leading the viewer like crumbs of bread. Some people enjoy being led along and enjoy being rewarded for picking up on the "subtle" clues left in typical movies. They will starve here.

Although I am a huge fan of Hartley's work, I'll be the first to admit that he's not for everyone. It's no surprise at all to me that the critics didn't love the movie, it's very difficult to compartmentalize it in a neat and orderly fashion when you have to sit through five movies a day and regurgitate one-line reviews. And it's no surprise that a lot of viewers didn't like it. Where's the special effects? Where's the machine-gun chattering dialogue? Where's the over-the-top violence and cmaera work of today's Hollywood blockbusters? All are absent, and if that's what you like you'll be sorely disappointed with this. There are a mind-numbingly huge number of movies out there that follow the mould, people shouldn't have trouble finding something they like, but there are prescious few films out there like Hartley's. Maybe that's a good thing, they are all the more appreciated by those who enjoy them.

If you found Twin Peaks to be unfathomably boring and The Spanish Prisoner to be rudely unintelligible, stay away from Hartley. If you're looking for a movie that will set you free from the conventional restraints of Hollywood dreck, look no further.

Hard to believe that most people don't get the subtext. I can't for sure say what the writer(s) had in mind, but there are a few unquestionable facts running underneath the movie that it wouldn't take a detective to sniff out. First off, google Antonin Artaud, or read Susan Sontag's essay about his life and work. That the writer(s) chose give this name to the character in the film who is "crazy as a loon" is pretty near the height of "black humor". Secondly, put together everything Artaud says,especially his talk at the bar with Beatrice and at the end in the monster's lair. Combine Helen Mirriam's chat with the scientist. Add the monster's monolague in the hotel room. What you have is unquestionablly a version of Henri Bergson's philosophy has expressed in his masterfull work "Matter and Memory". So in my mind, the final scene/ending and the movie itself only becomes intelligable within this context. More than likely a myth on the order of the Greek fable of Psyche/Eros. A love story expressing the relationship between Spirit and Matter. Side note: when Artaud says that the chambermaid let him out of his room because he said rude things to her, FUNNY AS HELL.

Why this film is magic to me is unclear. It may be that it is about Iceland and I love Iceland. It may be that it is tactile, almost silky in its cinematography. It may be its playful sarcasm. It may be that I find Sarah Polley to be unbelievably beautiful and her short quiet devastating retorts to the inane characters around her to be perfectly delivered. It may be something that I can't put my finger on. Maybe that is what magic is.