This is part of what is apparently Fessenden's "Trilogy of Horror," though the horror to be found in this one is minimal. It looks like it was created on zero budget compared to Wendigo, but it is much more watchable due to its original take on a classic concept. Basic plot: Geoffrey, a scientist trying to get a grant for some top-secret work, moves to the country for the summer with his artist wife, Lillian. They grow apart because he spends to much time in the lab. She meets an environmentalist who is the antithesis of Geoffrey, and she starts questioning what exactly it is her hubby is doing in the lab all day. She makes it her mission to find out. Overall, it is a pretty uneven film. The acting is great at times and really inexcusably bad at other times. This, combined with poorly written dialogue, nearly ruins the few sequences that are supposed to be scary. One scene, which presents the viewer with some horrific imagery, has our protagonists responding somewhat lethargically, making it difficult for the viewer to be properly creeped-out by it. Some of the camera work is really creative, but some of it seems pointless. One stellar aspect throughout was the effectively creepy soundtrack. I didn't find this movie to be preachy. The story is really Lillian's, and it is rare to see a healthy splash of feminism thrown into a movie like this. Not recommended for people who cannot watch depictions of animal cruelty. The DVD includes a "making of" doc that is worth seeing.
11 Reviews
Quiet, intelligent, and memorable.....
merklekranz13 March 2008
"No Telling" will not appeal to the "jump out and scare you" crowd. It will be appreciated by those viewers who like some intelligence with their thrills. The story involves a researcher and his wife taking a farm property for the summer so the husband can do undisturbed animal research in a huge barn on the property. Soon their relationship begins to deteriorate, as his bizarre animal experiments escalate. The acting is mostly believable, character development is good, and some of the visuals are quite creative. The entire film is edgy and at times frightening. This is a mad scientist film that makes sense, with disturbing images that will linger for quite a long time. - MERK
Striking visuals bring the message home!
lunarmm24 February 2000
I caught this movie EARLY one morning on the Independent Film Channel. Although it's not the greatest film, it is definitely thought-provoking and I thought the visuals were amazing, especially the final images were seared in my memory.
This film was made in 1991. Some may think this is stuff from Frankenstein and not give it another thought. It is now the year 2000 and these kind of animal and medical experiments are being done! After seeing this film, I felt like I had been kicked in the gut! Not many films have that power.
This film was made in 1991. Some may think this is stuff from Frankenstein and not give it another thought. It is now the year 2000 and these kind of animal and medical experiments are being done! After seeing this film, I felt like I had been kicked in the gut! Not many films have that power.
The real monsters of modern horror.. ourselves
xveganchrisx8 October 2002
Despite a lot of the frustrated reviews this film got, I think credit should be given where appropriate. Fessenden is trying to remain true to the horror genre and in doing so, he analyzes modern problems such as pesticides, vivisection, etc. The Frankenstein story has been told many times in movies like The Island of Dr. Moreau, which was also about vivisection and tampering with nature. As far as the plot goes, it could have moved a little quicker. The acting was decent but nothing spectacular. Many ironies were pointed at throughout the movie such as people who eat meat but love their pet dogs and cats. If anything was offensive about this movie, it should have been! This whole genre itself has pointed the finger at what truly scares people and most often it is ourselves. Vivisection takes place legally, under the false notion that it gives us some kind of advancement. The fact that animal testing actually SLOWS the process of finding cures is scary. Change in the world has come from knocking down doors and exposing the ugly truth behind them and I think this movie does its job. Despite their low budget, they did it with the conviction that you don't find in most Holly(hollow)wood films.
No Point
jaydin72518 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was very mundane for the most part and the theme of the cruelty of animal experimentation didn't make sense, if it was suppose to. It did make me aware of how disturbing those experiments can be and it is true that a lot of small farm towns are being technologically corrupted, but I think it had some propaganda towards the issue. Vegetarians probably wrote it. Usually household dogs aren't captured for grotesque medical experiments. The character Jeffrey was just some weirdo, hence the horror genre of the film. I don't think lab rats would have evoked the same emotion as a cute dog. I think it is a cheap shot to the audience when a dog is hurt. If it was attempted to portray animal testing cruelty it was poorly done or perhaps it was just trying to achieve shock value.
Mostly reprehensible; even the credits are offensive
Night Must Fall15 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This film is already so spoiled, spoilers can't spoil it!
Animal lovers, DO NOT WATCH THIS MESS. There are very few redeeming values to this film. Good are about three scenes amongst the countless, choppy, ain't-we-clever-with-the-camera-three-minutes-or-less-shots.
The Dr. Frankensteinish husband isn't a good actor. The wife and would-be lover are better. Animals are literally thrown away, caught in traps, mutilated, cut in half and sewn back together, but not with their original counterparts. Two or three lines made me chuckle (one of these non-intentionally), and the wife has nice hair.
The credits were distasteful in that: a) the film-makers put an offensive disclaimer at the end of the standard `no animals were harmed in the making of this film' disclaimer and b) they sought to philanthropize their sloppy effort by name-dropping and appealing to the viewer to donate, conserve, preserve, blah blah blah. These pretentious jerks seemed to think of their film as a harsh indictment of what it depicts - that is to say, the evils of science. WHATEVER. Skip it - you'll be glad that you did. Godawful.
Animal lovers, DO NOT WATCH THIS MESS. There are very few redeeming values to this film. Good are about three scenes amongst the countless, choppy, ain't-we-clever-with-the-camera-three-minutes-or-less-shots.
The Dr. Frankensteinish husband isn't a good actor. The wife and would-be lover are better. Animals are literally thrown away, caught in traps, mutilated, cut in half and sewn back together, but not with their original counterparts. Two or three lines made me chuckle (one of these non-intentionally), and the wife has nice hair.
The credits were distasteful in that: a) the film-makers put an offensive disclaimer at the end of the standard `no animals were harmed in the making of this film' disclaimer and b) they sought to philanthropize their sloppy effort by name-dropping and appealing to the viewer to donate, conserve, preserve, blah blah blah. These pretentious jerks seemed to think of their film as a harsh indictment of what it depicts - that is to say, the evils of science. WHATEVER. Skip it - you'll be glad that you did. Godawful.
Somewhat intriguing but ultimately pointless
athawolsux25 October 2020
I became interested in this movie after seeing Depraved, Larry Fessenden's latest effort, especially after seeing thematic comparisons being made between the two films.
No Telling's plot is based on an intriguing idea and it tries to make a point about science and playing God, but ultimately it ends up being a pointless story. Nothing of note happens for much of the runtime, except for one powerful scene, and the acting is quite weak.
No Telling's plot is based on an intriguing idea and it tries to make a point about science and playing God, but ultimately it ends up being a pointless story. Nothing of note happens for much of the runtime, except for one powerful scene, and the acting is quite weak.
a little predictable, but a very good commentary on science versus sustainable solutions
koralewski-s2 February 2007
I'm a huge fan of sci-fi/thriller/horror films, and I think this film is definitely worth a watch. The pace is not as fast as some might like, but the storyline is definitely there and it's worth following to the end if you can give it time to unfold. The end was a little predictable, but that didn't make it any less impactful or horrifying for me. I'd highly recommend this to anyone who's interested in the early government conspiracy films of the early 70s (think Andromeda Strain, for example) or in the ongoing debate of making technological advances at whatever cost (i.e., stem cell research and animal experimentation).
A good film. Worth seeing if you can find it (not currently on Netflix).
A good film. Worth seeing if you can find it (not currently on Netflix).
Horrifying movie
JKpplger9 July 2001
This movie's visual content is very strong, and I do not recommend it to anyone, especially if you have children. It does point out the dilemma of animal experiments, but the level of cruelty to animals pictured here is so high that it could be easily classified as an NC-17 -horror- movie.
About as much fun as driving the I-5 from L.A. to S.F.
Steveo-1831 August 1999
If you've ever driven up the I-5 from L.A. to San Francisco, you know how long, boring and unentertaining it is. Well, the very same thrills and expectations can be achieved by viewing the film NO TELLING. One major difference: the I-5 takes you somewhere, while this film goes absolutely nowhere. It centers around a scientist and his girlfriend escaping the city life for the serenity of the country. In this peaceful setting, he carries out mysterious experiments in the barn while she befriends the locals, including Alex Vine, an ecologist trying to help farmers with the dangers of pesticides. Her and Vine strike up a friendly yet non-physical relationship. Meanwhile, the mad scientist boyfriend becomes impatient with his corporate sponsor's lack of providing live specimens for study, so he decides to capture his own. I was beginning to think this was a political movie aiming to please animal rights activists, but it just didn't add up. As the film goes along, you wonder if you are on the I-5 and if an exit is in sight to release you from the boredom this film has produced. There are also these surreal scenes filmed with an odd camera filter, giving it a grainy super-8 look. Unfortunately, these scenes leave that dry taste in your mouth: What was that all about? Well, if you would like to watch a film that has no idea what it's trying to say and have a few dollars to burn, I suggest renting KRIPPENDORF'S TRIBE. If someone beat you to that beauty, then this is the film for you. On the Stevo cheese scale of Yanni to Carrot Top, Carrot Top being best, this film barely ranks a Kenny G.
Infantile
Mr Pan Cakes25 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
There are some spoilers here, but like someone already said, the whole movie is already spoiled. And no one should want to see this movie anyways.
I saw this movie as part of IFC's 'Weekend of the Dead', and not knowing anything about it, I thought it might have something to do with Zombies, or something to do with anything entertaining. Boy was I worng. Instead I sat through a two-hour PETA commercial hoping for something good to finally happen.
I won't summarize it, because god forbid anyone who hasn;t already seen this trash would have a fiendish desire to see it. I hate any film that forces you to feel a certain way; in this movie, although maybe it has some grey areas thrown in, 'science' is bad and torturous to all life, either through poison, or through animal experiments (which were so fake looking I have no idea how anyone could have done anything but laugh). There is no room to mistake that; throughout the movie you are forced to empathize with the wife because her husband becomes more repulsive minute by minute -- why? Just because he represents science and animal testing and that's bad, apparently. He's not human enough even to visit his wife who lives ten feet away. Why? Cause, duh, science is BAD!
But the main scientific experiement that he's doing is so ridiculous and idiotic that the main premise can't help but be undermined. I'm not sure if the filmmakers wanted you to shriek or cry when the battery-operated dog-cow is revealed at the end, but I laughed. It was fake, and the point (that science is bad) was so overboard by then that all I wanted to do was take the filmmakers and turn them into battery-operated man-cows. That's the result on me when I see films like this; I didn't empathize with the wife simply becuase that's what the filmmakers tried to force you to do. Instead I wanted to go out and eat a bunch of veal just to spite them. Like a great movie once said, "Meat is meat, and man's gotta eat."
There must be a more subtle way of showing how science can go too far in seeking answers and solutions than the beat-you-over-the-head-style of this film. But hell, since every scientist in the movie is a cruel callous inhumane animal beater, I guess I should just let the movie make my mind up for me. And by the way, the credits ARE reprehensible, especially the man-pulling-the-cow emblem at the very end, symbolic, apparently, of man's desire to have nature conform to his desires -- or something. Why would I even bother to think after seeing this?
No screwdrivers, cause it's not worth reviewing. Just want to have people stay away from this one.
I saw this movie as part of IFC's 'Weekend of the Dead', and not knowing anything about it, I thought it might have something to do with Zombies, or something to do with anything entertaining. Boy was I worng. Instead I sat through a two-hour PETA commercial hoping for something good to finally happen.
I won't summarize it, because god forbid anyone who hasn;t already seen this trash would have a fiendish desire to see it. I hate any film that forces you to feel a certain way; in this movie, although maybe it has some grey areas thrown in, 'science' is bad and torturous to all life, either through poison, or through animal experiments (which were so fake looking I have no idea how anyone could have done anything but laugh). There is no room to mistake that; throughout the movie you are forced to empathize with the wife because her husband becomes more repulsive minute by minute -- why? Just because he represents science and animal testing and that's bad, apparently. He's not human enough even to visit his wife who lives ten feet away. Why? Cause, duh, science is BAD!
But the main scientific experiement that he's doing is so ridiculous and idiotic that the main premise can't help but be undermined. I'm not sure if the filmmakers wanted you to shriek or cry when the battery-operated dog-cow is revealed at the end, but I laughed. It was fake, and the point (that science is bad) was so overboard by then that all I wanted to do was take the filmmakers and turn them into battery-operated man-cows. That's the result on me when I see films like this; I didn't empathize with the wife simply becuase that's what the filmmakers tried to force you to do. Instead I wanted to go out and eat a bunch of veal just to spite them. Like a great movie once said, "Meat is meat, and man's gotta eat."
There must be a more subtle way of showing how science can go too far in seeking answers and solutions than the beat-you-over-the-head-style of this film. But hell, since every scientist in the movie is a cruel callous inhumane animal beater, I guess I should just let the movie make my mind up for me. And by the way, the credits ARE reprehensible, especially the man-pulling-the-cow emblem at the very end, symbolic, apparently, of man's desire to have nature conform to his desires -- or something. Why would I even bother to think after seeing this?
No screwdrivers, cause it's not worth reviewing. Just want to have people stay away from this one.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
