No One Can Hear You (2001) User Reviews

Would You Want Your Daughter To Marry A Slasher?

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 8 November 2007]

First one family is murdered than another and both have a teen beauty queen in each family. Sheriff Barry Corbin is looking towards the young male population of his town as potential killers. However radio news reporter Kelly McGillis has her own ideas. She recalls a very similar slasher case in a neighboring town several years ago and tries to interest Corbin. Of course he's rather obtuse. Guess who's right on the subject.

She's got reason for concern as her daughter Kate Elliott was good friends with the other two murdered girls. We're given an interesting trio of suspects. Backpacker Kieran Hutchison, the James Dean wannabe Daniel Gillies, and somewhat nerdy kid Tom Huntington. There's also a really dumb deputy in the mix in Craig Parker.

I never as a rule expect much from these films and I'm not disappointed. The cast goes through the motions and collects their paychecks.

Hey Elliott could have wound up married to the wrong one.

A serial killer gets too close.

[michaelRokeefe · 4/10 · 26 October 2011]

Trish Burchall(Kelly McGillis) is a small town radio news reporter raising two daughters Lisa(Kate Elliott)and Amy(Emily Barclay). This nice, sleepy rural community has been targeted by a serial killer. Not only does he stalk young girls; he has no remorse in murdering entire families. The killings continue and the local sheriff Joe Webster(Barry Corbin)begs Trish to go on the air in hopes of providing calm and not alarming the citizens. The newswoman starts putting clues together and realizes that she and her daughters may be next on the killers to-do-list. Bad acting and predictability hurt this project. Some tense scenes, but nothing to really shiver over. This whodunit is close to being a who cares. Also in the cast: Tom Huntington, Kieren Hutchison, Daniel Gillies and Geoff Dolan.

What for?

[talber · 2/10 · 9 August 2004]

Why would anyone waste perfectly good film for something this bad is beyond me. The only reason I watched this movie through is that I was unable to leave my bed at the time. The acting's horrible, but that's not the problem. The music's lousy, but that is also not the problem. The problem is this: there isn't one original scene, one original idea, one comprehensible line of dialogue or one believable character in the whole messy 90 minutes of it. To quote my beloved "Singin' in the rain" - DID SOMEBODY ACTUALLY GET PAID FOR WRITING THIS? The movie is an incomprehensible mess, a hastily stuck together bunch of clichés. Don't bother. In fact, discourage others from watching. You'll be doing them a favour.

Oh, man . . .

[Aislinn_Malmeril · 7 November 2003]

This movie was pretty bad, but not as bad as "Motel Hell" or "Teen Alien". I think this movie's saving grace was Craig Parker. He manages to pull off a decent American accent (for the most part, anyway), which is better than his other Kiwi costars. Bit of trivia: the director is one of the producers on "Mercy Peak".

Amazing feat!

[cmmescalona · 1/10 · 22 April 2006]

Maybe one of the worst things ever done! If you could read the script just once, you'd realise it's absolutely nonsense. But, as far a movie can go, I now use it with my students to show them ALL the things you shouldn't do! And that's pretty difficult. So, just let me add this: camera angles, lighting, plot, music, acting and directorial skills are nonexistent. What about that? It's a class in itself and I doubt anyone will ever make anything as bad... ever!

Think about TV and film production. How much money did they spend in lighting this film... a lot! just because they wanted it to happen at night. But... night? It just comes and goes no matter the time of day!

It's amazing how much money you can spend and how badly your product will come out. What I can't believe is that it made it to a DVD release. Who paid for this? If I was the writer or director or producer, I'd never dare to risk my neck!

Thriller with suspense and good acting

[pderkx · 6/10 · 27 June 2002]

I would have given this movie a 7, but for the last minute. For 90 minutes it is an average good thriller with good acting and moments of suspense. Good to watch. The last minute spoils the thought of this movie for me. Now it is barely a 6.

Good movie

[jinxalette13 · 8/10 · 13 September 2014]

I absolutely loved this movie. It had great acting and a great story- line. It kept me guessing who the real killer was. The ending was the best part :). It sort of reminded me of the old-school horror films and that's one of the main reasons it was a great movie in my book. I love old horror films. I would definitely watch this again and again. I wish they would make a sequel because I would love to know about what was going on in the end! It left you with a bit of a cliff-hanger and I would love to know what happens next!I can honestly say I'm fairly excited about this movie. Can we make a sequel please?? At least to explain the ending!

Great entertainment value

[funkylad · 6/10 · 4 July 2002]

Although the movie has some over the top performances, plot holes and inconsistencies, it still manages to keep you entertained for 90 minutes. The story is sometimes a bit of a cliche, but that doesn't mean you can't still enjoy the story.

One of the worst slasher movies ever.

[Agent-Smith- · 17 April 2003]

The acting of the the two female victims and the main lead are excruciatingly bad, Are they even American?! Mixed in with some blatant overacting and a bland script this movie is a real turkey. Avoid.

A neat TV thriller

[sorendanni · 8/10 · 28 January 2024]

I live near a second-hand shop where you can always find heaps of DVDs for prices between 1 and 2 EUR. Ideal for rediscovering long-forgotten direct-to-video films from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

So I bought No One Can Hear You, a thriller from 2001. Only 10 reviews, the last one over 10 years ago and barely 4.3/10 on IMDB for the moment. A bad movie?

Not at all! I found this early 2000s film really exciting. Well, the story was clearly not very original and the budget was not very big.

The film was sold at the time as Horror of the Slasher type and that will be part of the explanation for the low score: if you are looking for a really dirty, bloody, groomy film, it is better to choose another film. But for those looking for a thrilling Who Done It with a serial killer, you'll get a lot. The acting is good for this type of film, the filmography is solid and the story builds tension well!

Highly recommended for thriller fans to pick up from the second-hand racks!

Wow!(and not in a good way)

[mirandadawn31 · 27 November 2004]

This movie had me laughing the whole time. Unfortunately, it's not suppose to be a comedy. Craig Parker did a wonderful job as the overeager Deputy Henley but the rest of the movie isn't worth seeing. I would compare it to a bad "Lifetime" movie, but worse. I don't know why it's considered a thriller because I would not be thrilled to have to see this movie again. It takes every cheesy cliché from every other thriller movie and uses them over and over again. None of the actors were American so I don't see why it needed to be set in America just so they could all murder the accent. Sometimes they even forgot which side of the road to drive on. It's just... the list of bad things about this movie could go on forever.