Sadly Over-hyped

Expected more

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

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!

"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).

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.

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.