My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

Title: My Neighbor Totoro (English language)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Anime
Highs: Simple fun fantasy.
Lows: Tim Daly is horrible as the voice of the father.
RhynoBot Grade: A

Let me just start by saying I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I know I have said this numerous times about Hayao Miyazaki but he is a genius. His perfect blend of visuals, creativity, strong character development, engaging story, and heartfelt emotion is all woven into a delightful fun fantasy that is My Neighbor Totoro. From what I understand the character Totoro is as big in Japan as Mickey Mouse is here in the US. Large plush toys of the strange raccoon/mouse/sloth forest spirit creature that is Totoro are still hot items for sale in Japan although the movie was released there almost 20 years ago.

This story looks like it takes place during the turn of the 20th century Japan, certainly pre-WWII. Satsuki (voiced my Elle Fanning) and Mei (voiced by my nemesis Dakota Fanning) are sisters that move into an old house in the country. The two girls initially live with just their father (horribly voice acted by Tim Daly in the English language version). We learn later on in the story that their mother is sick with some unknown illness and is residing in a hospital at the nearest city, which is where their father also works as a professor. Nearby is a forest with a huge tree at the center. Satsuki (about 7 years old) and Mei (about 4 years old) soon discover this is no ordinary forest but is the home of a tree spirit named Totoro with whom they become friends and share adventures. I will not tell you more than that since any more of a description would spoil your enjoyment of this story. I will say that the characters Satsuki and Mei are two very charming little girls. Satsuki being the old of the two often times finds herself in the situation of having to look after Mei. Mei is a precocious 4 year old with an adventurous spirit and strong will. There are many scenes in this movie where Mei reminds me very much of how my wife would have been as a little girl. In fact there is one scene in particular where Mei is clinging to an ear of corn and won't let go that reminded me so much of my wife I had to laugh.

At the very heart of this movie is a fun up lifting spirit with some true emotion. After watching this movie I have come to the realization that Miyazaki has a central theme expressed in all his movies. That central theme is undeniably love. Love for family, love for nature, love for country, and love for acceptance and tolerance of those that are different. All of the Miyazaki movie I have seen so far (Totoro, Mononke, Spirited Away, Nausicaa, Castle) embody his a message of love and acceptance. There are certainly worse things to focus your life’s work on but certainly not too many better things. So in the spirit of Miyazaki - I LOVE THIS MOVIE.

This is another great Miyazaki movie, my favorite so far, you should see it.

Serenity (2005)

Title: Serenity
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action
Highs:
Lows:
RhynoBot Grade: C+

When this movie came out in the theater I was so excited to see. The thought being, finally a good Sci-Fi movie. Plus everyone that saw Serenity in the theater just raved about how great it was. I bought it hook line and sinker, so my expectations were really high. Big mistake! Maybe it looses something in the translation from big screen to small screen or maybe the people that were raving about the movie were bigger fans of the TV series "Firefly" then I realized but to me this was nothing more then a bigger budget Sci-Fi Channel movie. The special effect were nothing special, I have seen the equivalent on Sci-Fi channels TV series "Battlestar Galactica". Character development was non-existent, I assume this is because the movie was written and produced for the numerous fans of the TV show, but that leaves the rest of us out in the cold that have never seen the series. The story was a little weak as well, kind of a cross between "The Minority Report", with the whole psychic girl thing, and "Resident Evil", with the whole corporation creating cannibalistic zombie type creatures.

The concept for the movie has merit but to me it seemed like a TV show. Now that really begs the question, would I still have the same opinion if I didn't know about the TV show Firefly prior to seeing the movie? That we will never know for sure but I have seen enough TV turned movies (Star Trek: TNG, X-Files, etc.) to recognize one when I see it so I suspect it would still stink of TV even if I didn't know.

So, I am still looking for that ever elusive smart, creative, Sci-Fi Action movie. I'm not sure it will ever happen until someone starts making movies from Arthur C. Clarke novels. Come on Morgan Freeman it's time to get "Rendezvous With Rama" under production!!! (He owns the rights from what I have read and would be perfect for the lead role.)

This is a mediocre movie, you can skip it.

March of the Penguins (2005)

Title: March of the Penguins
Director: Luc Jacquet
Genre: Documentary
Highs: They are sooo cute!!!
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

This is truly an amazing film and confirms my wifes long standing opinion that the French are out of their freaking minds. Seeing this on DVD gave me an advantage over seeing it in the theater in the sense that I got to watch the original French documentary as well that was included in the special features. Man these French guys that filmed the movie are crazy for wanting to live out in those conditions. But I have to say I appreciate there effort because I learned a lot about the nature of these rugged birds that I never would have know if it were not for there efforts.

The movie is bitter/sweet like all things in nature. On one hand you will be amazed at how nature has created a near perfect system for these birds. They instinctually know where to go and when to go, they have a strong mating drive, and they are able to identify who their mate is even after long absences. Plus the little baby penguins are so cute and fluffy. But on the other hand nature is untamed and unemotional. The weather system in Antartica is so sever that several of the adults and many of the eggs and young do not survive which is difficult for us emotional beings to watch. The most difficult aspect of watching another species deal with the loss of their young, whether it is in egg form or the cute fluffy form, is the similarity to how we as humans deal with similar tragedy. Turns out we are not completely dissimilar - like us some are able to cope with the loss and move on, whereas others cannot and turn to drastic measures like trying to steal your neighbors young. For this reason it is difficult to not put yourself in the penguins shoes (or webbed feet I should say) and feel a tinge of sadness for their loss. But Darwin prevails, only the strong are meant to survive and they do, completing the circle of life for generations to come.

The cinematography in this movie is absolutely amazing. The accessibility of the film crew to immerse themselves into the pod of penguins, in my mind, was unprecedented. Not to mention the underwater footage - WOW. I have no idea how they were able to get that footage, I seriously doubt one of the French cameramen went down into that freezing water to get it. Although we are talking about the crazy ass French so I guess it's a possibility. One final note worth mentioning - casting Morgan Freeman as the narrator was an excellent idea. Freeman has such a nature tone for narration, I can listen to the man speak all day. The movie is rated G but there will be some tough questions from really young children that you will need to be prepared to answer like, Why did the babies die? This is a good movie for kids but make sure they are at an age that can handle the concept of life and death, and that you are ready to tackle the issue in a straight forward manor.

This is an excellent movie, you should see it.

Madagascar (2005)

Title: Madagascar
Director: Eric Darnell
Tom McGrath
Genre: Animation/Comedy
Highs: The monkeys and the baby lemur.
Lows: Really short (length-wise).
RhynoBot Grade: C

I think I am done with the whole Ben Stiller thing. With this movie I have officially gone into Stiller overload and the system is now rejecting all things Stiller. Madagascar should be funny and on some levels it is but just not consistently. There are some truly funny moments - I particularly enjoyed the sign language/talking monkey bit and the little baby one tooth lemur but that was about it. The movie really never picked up steam for my tastes. It was basically 86 minutes of Ben Stiller complaining to Chris Rock. Which is another problem - the director needed to decide if this was going to be a kids movie only or a smart comedy that adults can enjoy too. I think it tries to be the latter but the length of the movie made the adult in me feel jipped. If I saw this movie in the theater I would be pissed that I had to pay $8.50 a ticket for 86 minutes of sub-par animated comedy, that I was mislead into watching because the advertisements said it was from the people that brought me "Shrek", so therefore it should be funny but it wasn't! And what's with Chris Rock going all Eddy Murphy on us? You're a funny angry black man please don't start pull'in a Murphy by making only family comedy's - PLEASE!

I wish I could like this movie more but it's just not that good. I'm sure the kiddies love it because the penguins are cute, but militant, and the lion chews on the zebras butt, but we as adults have to sit through this thing for the kiddies sake so you better make the thing a little more entertaining for the people that are going to be shelling out the buck.

It's not that great of a movie, you can skip it.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Director: Mike Newell
Genre: Fantasy/Adventure
Highs: All three of the Tri-Wizards Tournament.
Lows: Once again it had a Readers Digest feel.
RhynoBot Grade: B+

Wow, my first non-Netflix review. I actually saw this one in the theater and I'm glad I did - huge special effects that would have been wasted on the small screen. Another first for me was I ran a little experiment and for the first time I read "The Goblet of Fire" before I saw the movie. The three previous movies I read the book afterward for the back story. I think I will go back to reading after I see the movie from now on. There is a certain amount of disappointment by having a preconceived notion of how a scene should play out or what was important to me in the story that may be cut out. These are disappointments you don't face if you have not read the book.

Anyway, there are several aspect of the movie that I thought were done extremely well. First and foremost all of the Tri-Wizard challenges I thought were perfectly represented in the movie compared to the book. Sure they took a few liberties here and there but for the most part they were spectacular to watch and inline with the novel. The Quidditch World Cup was excellent, just wish there was more of it. Harry trying to figure out the egg in the Prefects lavatory was spot-on. And of course the grand finale in the Riddle estate graveyard was absolutely perfect - exactly how I created the scene in my mind.

Of course with all Harry Potter movies the things the director does really well always seem to balance out with things that were just not quite right. The first 10 minutes of the movie felt like the Readers Digest version of the book. One minute they are at the Quidditch World Cup the next minute Professor Dumbledore is announcing the Tri-Wizard Tournament. That spans something like 10 chapters in the book. The relationship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione was a bit strange. I know they were suppose to be fighting and all but the faces Ron made were rather silly. And it would have been nice to see good old Dobby again but I do agree with the director there, that whole storyline was expendable. Also I was a little disappointed the scene with the Weasley's picking up Harry at his Uncles house was left out. That would have been a hillarious addition to the movie.

I have to say of the three kids Daniel Radcliffe has really stepped up his dramatic acting ability. The final scenes in the graveyard and back on the grounds of Hogwarts when he had just brought back Cedric's body were very heartfelt and emotional. Don't get me wrong it wasn't a huge step forward but I do appreciate the effort.

All in all I really enjoyed this edition of the Harry Potter series and Mike Newell's vision for the story. I consider this redemption for the third movie which was really confusing. Still, I am of the opinion that the best movies in the series thus far are the first two. Anyway, I look forward to the next movie in 2007 so I can get reading "The Order of the Phoenix". Back to movies first, reading second for me.

This is a fun movie, you should see it.

To Kill A Mocking Bird (1962)

Title: To Kill A Mocking Bird
Director: Robert Mulligan
Genre: Classic
Highs: Performance by Gregory Peck.
Lows: Personally I found it a little frustrating.
RhynoBot Grade: A-

I know a lot of people will be amazed that I have never seen this movie until now but what can I say, I typically don't like old movies but this was an exceptionally well done movie for the time. However, I have to admit I was very frustrated for about 2/3 of the movie since to me it looked like they were not getting to the point (which I thought was the court case). I made the mistake of going into this movie thinking it was going to be a court drama like "A Time To Kill", which has a similar old South racial tension feel to it like Mocking Bird. Unexpectedly, it turns out the whole point of the movie was about Atticus Finch's (play by Gregory Peck) children learning a hard lesson about life, the society they live in, and acceptance of others different from you.

The majority of the movie was centered around Jem and Scout's (Atticus' children) fascination with the boy down the street, "Boo" Radley (played by a really young Robert Duvall), who was said to be not right in the head. Of course kids being kids, being told to stay way from the Radley house and to leave Boo alone was very unsatisfying. The kids spent all summer trying to sneak a peek at Boo with no success, all the while Atticus had been preparing for his big trail defending a black man accused of raping a white woman. The Finch children learn a lot about the injustice of society, their neighbors bigotry, and the strength of the man who was their father as the trial date got closer. Scout finds herself in several fights at school defending her father's good name. Jem witnesses the strong will forthrightness of his father refusing to back down from an angry mob set on lynching the accused defendant.

Finally, the trail day is at hand. Scout, Jem, and the neighbor kid that visits every summer sneak into the colored viewing area of the courtroom and witness a grave injustice first hand. Atticus presents irrefutable evidence of the defendants innocence and still the all white jury convicts him of raping a white woman. Despite his defeat Atticus exhibits unwavering determination to over turn the injustice until he learns his client Harris has been killed by law enforcement officers trying to escape. Atticus and Jem head out to the Harris home to bring them the bad news. They are met there by the leader of the towns bigots Bob Ewell the father of the "rape victim". Bob is there trying to incite Atticus into a fight by spitting in his face but Atticus doesn't play into it - he is a pillar of justice which Jem can clearly see. Several months pass, Jem and Scout are attacked by a drunk Bob Ewell on their way home from school and are saved by Boo Radley who kills Ewell.

This essentially completes life's lesson for the Finch children. The man whom they feared the most without understanding who or what he was saved their lives from a man whom feared everything that was not like himself.

This is a great movie, just don't expect a "court drama", you should see it.

Castle in the Sky (1986)

Title: Castle in the Sky
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Anime
Highs: Fantastic story of love and friendship.
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

Here is another Miyazaki film, this time he tells a more contemporary story of a girl being sought after by government officials and pirates searching for treasure as she is believed to posses the key to finding the fabled castle in the sky. This is straight up pure fun and adventure with everyone after you, never knowing who to trust except for the one true friend you meet along the way. The film was a lot of fun, something I hope my own children will enjoy someday - when he's old enough. This is not for small children since there are some potentially scary scenes but would be good for kid in the 7-8 range and older.

There are several elements of this movie that reminded me of other films. Normally I would be bothered by this and brand said movie a rip-off of other movies I like but in this case I have to stop and remind myself when this movie was actually made, 1986. This pre-dates all the other movies it reminds me of, making Castle in the Sky the source material for several movies to follow - amazing. I'll give you a good example. Brad Bird of Pixar's "The Incredibles" fame started out with a great little animated feature called "The Iron Giant" (if you have not seen this it is a must see as well). The giant robot in Iron Giant looks remarkably like the giant metal robot in Castle in the Sky, see the comparison below. In fact, the weapon systems and the near complete indestructibleness of the robots are almost identical in both stories.

IRON GIANT









CASTLE IN THE SKY












Bottomline - this is a fun movie filled with adventure and excitment. The best part for me is at the heart of this movie is a touching tale of love and friendship in places you would least expect.

This is a great movie, you should see it.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Winds (1984)

Title: Nausicaa of the Valley of the Winds
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Anime
Highs: Beautiful art directions and wonderful story.
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

I am pretty much a newcomer when it comes to Japanese anime, I have really only watched a handful of movies to date, but of those few movies I know what I like and can recognize greatness without much of a reference point. Nausicaa is one of those movies that exhibits greatness effortlessly and the credit goes to writer/director Hayao Miyazaki. This is the third movie I have seen of Miyazaki's, the two previous being "Princess Mononoke" and the award winning "Spirited Away". Both of these movies are masterfully scripted and designed creating an enchanted but yet familiar world in which the characters live. Nausicaa follows in step with both of his two previous works of art. Actually my previous statement is a bit of a misnomer since Nausicaa was released in Japan well before the commercial and critical success of Mononoke and Spirited Away here in the US, so really Nausicaa set the bar for all of Miyazaki's later work. For someone that has never watch one of Miyazaki's films, the best way to describe what you are in for is it's like watching a Pixar movie - great story, awesome animation, and always fun entertainment. But instead of being computer generated animation like Pixar, Miyazaki's movies are hand drawn but always a great story, awesome animation, with a meaningful purpose for telling the story (there are values and lessons to be learned from these movies).

Nausicaa is set in the future (2136 roughly, I think) where great wars have been waged against a giant insect invasion. Most land masses were left in ruin by the war and the spread of a toxic spore. Small patches of civilization still exist on the fringe of contaminated areas, under constant threat of insect invasion and spread of the toxic spores. Nausicaa is a teenaged girl (a princess actually) that has a special talent for communicating with the insects in a rudimentary fashion. The cause of the insect invasion and the contamination of the Earth with toxic spores is unknown. But due to bizarre circumstances Nausicaa discovers that the spores serve a useful purpose, they are cleansing the Earth of poisons we have polluted it with and the insects are protecting this cleansing process. The people in Nausicaa's homeland, the Valley of the Wind, are peaceful farmers, but an aggressive neighboring community overrun the valley after one of their military ships crashes carrying an ancient weapon designed to destroy the insects. Nausicaa and a friend she makes along the way on her adventure work tirelessly to stop the aggressors and the stampeding insects headed straight for her beloved valley and those she loves.

The story is a simple one but it's meaning is complex. Miyazaki describes a wide range of human emotion while concerning himself and his viewers with issues related to the environment, nature, friendship, and love; all of which are fragile in there own way, all of which require work to maintain the sanctity of there meaning; great lessons to be learned by our children. Some people would say how could you possibly get so much emotion out of a cartoon. I would say, the same way Michelangelo or Renoir can elicit emotion from the images they create. Art inspires us regardless of whether the media is oil to canvas, coal to paper, chisel to earth, or colorful ink in motion. Miyazaki is an artist and I look forward to sharing his work with my children just as much as I look forward to sharing art hanging in a museum.

This is a great movie, you should see it.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

Title: Wedding Crashers
Director: David Dobkin
Genre: Comedy
Highs: Vince Vaughn is so f-ing funny.
Lows: Lost major steam about 3/4 the way through.
RhynoBot Grade: B

It has been a while since a really funny adult comedy has come out. Lately it has been all about the teen comedies which are funny for the most part but is starting to get old. I like the fact that "Wedding Crashers" is rated R. I like the fact that this movie has sex, drugs, and the complete lack of moral fiber. Personally I find that funny. And really who does the complete lack of moral fiber thing better than Vince Vaughn - NO ONE!

I also appreciate the fact that this movie has an original idea. Take two average Joe's that have figured out what makes women tick, throw in a set of established ground rule inherited by the master scammer Chase, and seek out chicks at an event where women are known to get a little crazy like say a wedding and bingo instant situation for scoring. Well this is exactly the situation that Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson have perfected in Wedding Crashers.

This movie is hilarious for 3/4 of the way through mainly due to Vaughn (damn he is so f-ing funny), then it loses some major steam becoming way too serious as Wilson pursues the love of his life played by Rachel McAdams. They should have left the love sick puppy stuff at the door and just kept plowing ahead letting Vaughn do his thing. I swear the funniest scene of the movie was when Vaughn gets tied up to the 4-poster bed by his psycho lust interest and gets taken advantage of, then while still tied up, in comes the brother for a little man on man action. The next morning when he is telling Wilson about what happened is Vaughn at his best.

I liked this movie but the antics went on way to long and lost momentum. But for the most part Wedding Crashers was entertaining and really funny.

It's a good movie, you should see it.

Rear Window (1954)

Title: Rear Window
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Genre: Classic
Highs: Awesome set design out back window.
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

This movie is truly amazing. On paper if you were to read the plot - a man in a wheelchair can't leave his apartment, spies on his neighbors and is convinced the neighbor across the courtyard killed his wife - you would think this has to be the most boring movie of all time. But it's not! A large part of this movie's success is due to Jimmy Stewart (he could sell me anything, he is so convincing). The other part of this movie's success is Hitchcock's razor share creativity. Hitchcock could have easily built a few individual apartment sets, cutting scene to scene from set to set but instead he built the entire freak'in neighborhood as a set, including 12 fully furnished apartments. So instead of cutting from set to set he pans the camera from apartment to apartment just as a real person would if you were looking out your window, spying on the neighbors. Genius. This technique opens up a rich tapestry of options since everyone on set, which may have been a 100 people at one time, are constantly in motion doing something whether they are on screen or not. So a potentially stagnant movie all of a sudden becomes vibrant and fluid.

The casting was superb in this movie as well. Jimmy Stewart as the nosy shut in, Grace Kelly as the socialite girlfriend to Stewart, and Thelma Ritter as the physical therapist to Stewart that get into the act once convinced Stewart isn't imagining things. This movie is the obvious source material for element that appear time and time again in movies still being filmed today. I guess this is part of Hitchcock's legacy - genius will always be borrowed upon or plagiarized.

This is a great classic, if you have not seen it yet you should watch it.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

Title: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Director: George Clooney
Highs: Sam Rockwell as Chuck Barris of Gong Show fame.
Lows: Drew Barrymore just really can't act.
RhynoBot Grade: B

This movie has a lot of things going for it. First the screenplay was written by Charlie Kaufman ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Being John Malkovich") based on a book written by Chuck Barris (Gong Show, Newlywed Game, and The Dating Game creator) himself. Second it has a huge cast of big names, most of which are cameos, including Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon (as Dating Game contestants), Rutger Hauer, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dick Clark, Drew Barrymore, and Sam Rockwell.

Sam Rockwell plays the lead character Chuck Barris who is all wigged out in a hotel room reflecting back on his life and how he got to where he is today. The movie starts off slow as he recounts his childhood and into adulthood. From a young age Barris is obsessed with chasing women with the sole purpose of bedding them. Thus he comes up with the concept of The Dating Game. As he is trying to get his show picked up by a network he is recruited by a mysterious CIA type agency fronted by George Clooney. He is trained as a government assassin and is sent back into the real world until he is needed. In the meantime ABC picks up The Dating Game and he is off and running. As Barris finds more and more success in showbiz he is given more assassin assignments overseas using the alias of Dating Game chaperone for the winners in exotic locals like West Germany (in 1972, winter - fun). This part of the movie is really fun as Barris goes from place to place working for the CIA all the while thinking up new ideas for game shows like The Newlywed Game and The Gong Show. Things take a sudden turn when a mole in the organization starts whacking all of Barris' contacts. This send Barris on a major downward slid.

Confessions is George Clooney's directorial debut. The movie is slow at times but has a really great feel to as Clooney blends the spy espionage world with the crazy world of network television in the late 1960's and early 1970's. They are almost like two completely different movies but are successfully tied together by Rockwell's convincing performance in both roles as spy and wacky game show creator. Drew Barrymore plays Barris' long time girlfriend but since I think Barrymore can't act she is more of a distraction to me and wish Clooney chose someone else for the role.

Ultimately this movie is highly entertaining you just have to stick with it and allow it to pick up steam. Really, I know this is fiction but I can't help but wonder if there is any truth at all in this story. I mean Chuck Barris is a real person and really created these game shows. But was he really a CIA assassin or is that just part of a drugged out hallucination (I vote for the latter). Barris wrote the book this movie is based on as his memoirs. I guess it's a testament to Clooney's direction and Kaufman's screenplay that it at least left me wondering where the truth lies.

This is a fun movie, you should see it.

Solaris (2002)

Title: Solaris
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Genre: Sci-Fi/Drama
Highs: Great performance by George Clooney.
Lows: Unsatisfied with phenomena explanation.
RhynoBot Grade: B+

I am a big fan of Sci-Fi and love when a really good movie is made. There are different categories of Sci-Fi, you have your fantasy, action, horror, and drama. To me the Sci-Fi drama is the toughest of all criteria to meet to be considered a good movie. My criteria includes an environment that is within the realm of possibility (i.e. interstellar space travel), appropriate use of scientific theme without being too overwhelming, obviously a dramatic storyline (e.g. portrayed of human emotion in a non-human setting), and actors that are capable of dramatic acting (i.e. not Keanu Reeves).

For the most part Solaris is a really good Sci-Fi drama meeting my criteria expectations on mostly all accounts. The story is set in the near future where interstellar space travel and colonization is possible and thriving but human culture and society has changed very little in this time period. People still have normal jobs and normal problems which in some cases require professional help. George Clooney plays a psychologist how is in need of some therapy for himself due to the loss of his wife three years prior. He does not seem to have any particular expertise that would qualify him for space duty but he receives a interstellar call from a friend that is requesting his help and presence out at a planetary body called Solaris. Undisclosed strange activites are occurring out at Solaris and the corporations attempts to reach the crew and rescue missions have failed. So the corporation agrees to send Clooney to investigate as a last attempt before writing off the Solaris project.

Clooney arrives at Solaris to find an abandoned ship for the most part, two bodies in the morgue (one being his friends that called him out there) and two crewmates (the captain and a tech geek), neither one are willing to talk about what's going on. Clooney soon finds out for himself when he awakes in the middle of the night to a flesh and blood (real) embodiment of his dead wife. Needless to say it freaks him out and discovers the same thing has happened to the rest of the crew. Apparently, Solaris has some way of making people's deepest hearts desire a reality. This is where I wish the movie was stronger. Very little explanation was given as to the whys and how's of turning memories into reality and I wanted to know more. But the dramatic elements filling the gaps were very convincing as Clooney had to come to terms with facing his love lost made flesh again knowing she is not really his wife. If you put yourself in his shoes for a minute that would be a maddening task and Clooney owns it.

I really like this movie but was left a little unsatisfied with the explanation for the phenomena, I wish we were given more information. This would be a good movie to see for the non-Sci-Fi fan, it has enough drama to keep things afloat and enough Sci-Fi to make it enjoyable. The tempo of the movie is slow for Sci-Fi which is probably why it was a box office flop but the tempo is appropriate for this story.

I really liked this movie, you should see it.

Under Suspicion (2000)

Title: Under Suspicion
Director: Stephen Hopkins
Genre: Suspense
Highs: Great performance from Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman.
Lows: The plot twist was confusing.
RhynoBot Grade: B

This is the first movie I have really like from director Stephen Hopkins ("Lost In Space", "Predator 2"). There was a good story, great acting, and Monica Bellucci, the most gorgeous Italian woman living.

Gene Hackman is a prominent lawyer in San Juan, Porte Rico. He is brought into the police station by Morgan Freeman, who is the chief of police, to clarify earlier testimony regarding the discovery of a young girls body the day before by Hackman. Under duress Hackman agrees to the questioning although he is the keynote speaker at a fund raiser that night (Freeman tells him it will be 10 minutes). Well 10 minutes turns into an hour which turns into an all night interrogation by Freeman and Thomas Jane, who plays the young ambitious detective that is convinced Hackman murdered the girl and would love nothing more then to lock him away for the crime.

Considering the majority of the movie takes place in Freeman's office at the police station Hopkins does a great job of moving things outside by reenactment the testimony of Hackman. This is pretty standard stuff but a fun aspect that Hopkins added, which I really liked, was placing Freeman in the scene that Hackman was describing as he asked his questions. Freeman slowly but surely breaks Hackman down even enlisting the help of his estranged wife played by the smoking hot Bellucci who is convinced he murder the girl as well. Faced with evidence collected at his home and the willingness of his wife to help the police Hackman finally breaks down and starts to confess to the rape and murder of two girls. But then Hopkins tries to through in this plot twist, while Hackman is confessing to the murders in detail Freeman is pulled aside by another detective to inform him that the killer of the girls has been caught, they have photo evidence and they caught him in the act of killing a third girl. HUH??? Then what the hell is Hackman doing? I'm confused, and they don't explain it, they just let him go free and the movies over. Did I miss something? Part of the fun of this movie was watching Hackman and Freeman try to out wit each other. I would have been perfectly satisfied with Hackman being the killer and being broke down to the point of confession. But instead we get a confusing plot twist that didn't need to be there and I found myself unsatisfied with the ending.

Anyway, this is a good movie despite including the wrong ending for this movie, you should see it.

The Island (2005)

Title: The Island
Director: Michael Bay
Genre: Action/Sci-Fi
Highs: Good car chase stunts.
Lows: Special effects not that special
RhynoBot Grade: B-

My friend John seems to think I would hate this movie knowing my opinion regarding the lack of originality in Hollywood movies right now. He said, "You're going to say it's just like 'Gattaca', or something." That statement alone proves my point. Now having seen the movie I can say John was mostly wrong. Yes, the style of "The Island" was reminiscent of "Gattaca" but the content was completely dissimilar. The true comparison, and I wish Michael Bay was just up front and honest about this, is this movie is essentially a re-make of "Logan's Run".

OK, lets compare shall we. "Logan's Run" features a closed society where people are created not born. Hmm, sounds a lot like cloning to me. The reason for the closed society is due to the world being contaminated beyond the protection of the dome. Interesting, the clones in The Island that didn't know they were clones were told they couldn't go outside since it was contaminated. Moving on, in Logan's Run on your thirtieth birthday you go to carousel and are "re-born" (really you're just vaporized). In the Island you win a lottery and go to the island to live out your days in peace (more like rest in peace since they off you once they harvest your organs). In Logan's Run we have Logan 5 and his companion Jessica 6, in The Island we have Lincoln 6 Echo and Jordan 2 Delta (they didn't even bother to change the name initials). In Logan's Run they escape through the bowels of the dome to get to "sanctuary" (outside), in The Island they escape their habitat through the bowels of the structure to find their DNA originator (owner) for sanctuary (which happens to be outside). Logan and Jessica come back, destroy the society they know and the dome, everyone goes outside and are happy. Lincoln and Jordan come back, destroy the society they know and the habitat, everyone goes outside and are happy. But the real give away - they must have shouted "RUN" 50 time during the course of the movie, sounds like an admission of guilt to me. Can you say carbon copy???

Well not exactly a carbon copy. Although the major plot points are the same the details are at least different enough that it feels like a different movie for the most part and is rather entertaining as well. The chase sequences are some of the best I have seen (must have been spectacular on the BIG screen). The only problem was the computer generated special effects were very poor during this scene. The jet bike, although very cool in concept, looked ridicules blended into the surrounding scene.

Ultimately this movie is rather entertaining. If you have never seen Logan's Run then you're in luck because this will all seem new to you. If you have, sorry but unfortunately you will find yourself saying, wow this is just like that part in Logan's Run but cooler like Gattaca.

It a decent movie, good entertainment, it's worth a look.

Chain Reaction (1996)

Title: Chain Reaction
Director: Andrew Davis
Genre: Action
Highs: Cool fantasy technology.
Lows: This movie has like a message or something.
RhynoBot Grade: D

Hmm. This movie is a bit of a conundrum. It has everything an action movie typically needs to be somewhat successful. Director? Check - Davis has brought us action movies like "Collateral Damage" and "The Fugitive". Good action cast? Check - Keanu Reeves ("The Matrix"), Rachel Weisz ("The Mummy"), Fred Ward ("Tremors", "The Right Stuff"). A credible dramatic actor to tie it all together? Check - Morgan Freeman fits that bill with honors. It all seems to be in place but I find myself asking, what went wrong? Why was I not entertained like I should have been?

OK, let's look at the basic premise. A group of scientist develop new technology for separating hydrogen from water, creating a cheap re-usable fuel source for the entire world. Said technology is hijacked by entities unknown and all evidence is destroyed. But oops unknown entity destroyed everything too quickly and forgot about the most important piece that makes everything work. Who could possibly have this information, hmm, who could it be I wonder??? Oh look it Keanu Reeves, he has the missing piece of information, we better chase him to get it. And oh look who is with him, it's Rachel Weisz the brainy scientist that seems to be completely defenseless and can't do anything for herself, good thing she's with Keanu. And oh look it Morgan Freeman who happens to be a mole and the leader of the unknown entity that turns out to be a secret government agency. And what, Morgan Freeman's crazed right hand man in the agency has framed Keanu and Rachel for the destruction of the lab, international espionage, and the murder of the project leader? Well we better call the FBI and send in Fred Ward to chase them with out any credible evidence or witnesses.

OH PLEASE! GIVE ME AN F-ING BREAK! Plus we get the message already. Fossil fuels are being consumed, we need a cleaner fuel source. OK, thanks, we get it.

Don't see this movie. It's basically bits and pieces of other action movies snipped and edited together with a relatively big name cast to trick people into thinking it will be good. Morgan Freeman - shame on you for accepting this piece of crap.

It's not worth your time, you can skip it.