Is No Such Thing Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, No Such Thing is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Fantasy movies.
It features a runtime of 102 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.

Verdict:No Such Thing is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 6.0/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Fantasy, Drama, Horror genre.
Answer: Yes, No Such Thing is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Fantasy movies.
It features a runtime of 102 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 2002, No Such Thing emerges as a significant entry in the Fantasy, Drama, Horror domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of A young journalist journeys to Iceland to find her missing fiancé only to encounter a mythical creature who longs to die. Unlike standard genre fare, No Such Thing attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Fantasy is often anchored by its ensemble, and No Such Thing features a noteworthy lineup led by Sarah Polley . Supported by the likes of Robert John Burke and Helen Mirren , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of No Such Thing (2002) is mixed. With an audience rating of 6.0/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: No Such Thing is a Fantasy, Drama, Horror film that transports viewers to imaginative worlds filled with magic, wonder, and epic adventures. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: No Such Thing concludes its story with a mix of closure and open interpretation. The finale presents its approach to fantasy resolution.
The emotional climax centers on character transformation, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of No Such Thing reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Worth Watching If You:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $5.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $62.7K |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |
The estimated production budget for No Such Thing is $5.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










ScreenPix Apple TV Channel
ScreenPix Amazon Channel
Amazon Video
Apple TV
Amazon Video
Apple TV
Fandango At HomeAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 6/10, and global collection metrics, No Such Thing stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 2002 cinematic year.
No Such Thing has received mixed reviews with a 6/10 rating, making it a moderate success with the audience.
No Such Thing is a mixed bag. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of Fantasy, Drama, Horror movies, but read reviews first.
No Such Thing is currently available for streaming on ScreenPix Apple TV Channel. You can also check for it on platforms like ScreenPix Apple TV Channel, ScreenPix Amazon Channel depending on your region.
_**ANNIHILATION of the Wicked!**_ 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, who's assigned the mission of finding out what the "legend" is all about and, after a 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 doses 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. 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 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. It runs 1 hour, 42 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!
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.