Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
26 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
the trouble with satire, November 23, 2003
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.
|
|
|
19 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
We Need Our Monsters, Whether We Like it or Not, June 13, 2005
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+
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not just for Hartley fans, March 4, 2004
By A Customer
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)
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|